OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 04:21:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Conversation with a Catholic Priest  (Read 5897 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« on: June 22, 2011, 09:39:05 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 09:41:40 PM by Nero » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2011, 09:54:39 PM »

I want to reply to this but don't have time right now. Just giving this reply to make it easier for me to find the thread later.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,050


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 10:08:36 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...

I too, have some gardening tasks that await me, so I will make a comment regarding #7.

#7 sounds suspiciously like this priest does not follow the Catholic magisterium. The Catholic Church does not view Anglican and Lutheran orders as valid, and neither do the Orthodox. Of course, if Old Catholic orders have intermingled with Anglican and Lutheran orders, then there might be some question as to validity, but Apostolic succession is viewed differently in Orthodoxy than it is in Catholicism.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2011, 11:00:35 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...



Sounds like one of those "spirit of Vatican II" types to me. Not particularly faithful to the traditional teachings of Catholicism.
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2011, 11:03:48 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...
  Shocked

Whoa. You need to talk to some priests that I know.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2011, 11:18:32 PM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 11:18:50 PM by Scotty » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2011, 11:25:45 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...
I doubt that this priest was a member of the SSPX or FSSP.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2011, 11:28:16 PM »

I would report him to his bishop.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2011, 11:34:19 PM »

I would report him to his bishop.
Some bishops are quite liberal, whereas others are conservative.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2011, 11:38:37 PM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2011, 12:26:31 AM »

I would advise (and this is a piece of advice I also need to take myself) that the OP !!!NOT!!! convert to run away from Catholicism, but to run to Orthodoxy. Inevitably there's a mix of both, but when the former is more prevalent than the latter, that's an issue that may reoccur with your new faith. Such an attitude also makes Orthodoxy into more a refugee camp from what we fled from, rather than a home to which we've moved.

So, please, Nero, don't leave Rome because the words of one Roman priest with eccentric views.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2011, 12:42:27 AM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...

I too, have some gardening tasks that await me, so I will make a comment regarding #7.

#7 sounds suspiciously like this priest does not follow the Catholic magisterium. The Catholic Church does not view Anglican and Lutheran orders as valid, and neither do the Orthodox. Of course, if Old Catholic orders have intermingled with Anglican and Lutheran orders, then there might be some question as to validity, but Apostolic succession is viewed differently in Orthodoxy than it is in Catholicism.

Out of curiosity, do you know of any similarly-issued statements that either retract these, or imply otherwise? (Not being snarky, I genuinely don't know if they exist or not, as these seem quite clear on the matter):

The Patriarch of JERUSALEM, 1923

"To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, First Hierarch of All England, our most beloved and dear brother in our Lord Jesus, Mgr. Randall. Greeting fraternally your beloved to us, Grace, we have the pleasure to address to you the following:

Yesterday we dispatched to Your Grace the following telegram: ‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.' Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession. We have great pleasure in communicating to Your Grace, as the First Hierarch of all the Anglican Churches, this resolution of our Church, which constitutes a progress in the pleasing-to-God work of the union of all Churches, and we pray God to grant to Your Grace many years full of health and salvation.

(Signed) DAMIANOS

February 27/March 12, 1923


The Archbishop of CYPRUS, 1923

"To His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch Mgr. Meletios we send brotherly greeting in Christ. Your Holiness – Responding readily to the suggestion made in your reverend Holiness' letter of August 8, 1922, that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus under our presidency should give its opinion as to the validity of Anglican Orders we have placed the matter before the Holy Synod in formal session. After full consideration thereof it has reached the following conclusion: It being understood that the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church by the Sacrament of Order was not broken at the Consecration of the first Archbishop of this Church, Matthew Parker, and the visible signs being present in Orders among the Anglicans by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is supplied, which enables the ordinand for the functions of his particular order, there is no obstacle to the recognition by the Orthodox Church of the validity of Anglican Ordinations in the same way that the validity of the ordinations of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Church are recognized by her. Since clerics coming from these Churches into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are received without reordination we express our judgment that this should also hold in the case of Anglicans – excluding intercommunio (sacramental union), by which one might receive the sacraments indiscriminately at the hands of an Anglican, even one holding the Orthodox dogma, until the dogmatic unity of the two Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, is attained."

Submitting this opinion of our Church to Your All-Holiness, we remain, Affectionately, the least of your brethren in Christ,
Cyril of Cyprus



The Patriarch of ALEXANDRIA, 1930

"To the Most Reverend Dr. Cosmo Lang, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, Greetings in the New Born Christ The Feast of the Nativity, according to the Flesh, of the Redeemer of our Souls being a most suitable occasion for us, as it were, to visit your Beatitude, our friend, by means of a letter, we come to you hereby with a heart that is filled alike with joy, that "unto us is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord," and with fervent prayers both for your health and for the peace and stability of the holy Churches of God over which you preside. At the same time, together with our greetings for the Feast, we send you as our gift the news, which we are sure will be good news, to you, that having derived the greatest gratification from the accounts which it has received, both of the marks of honor which were rendered in London, alike by your Grace and by the general body of your Church, to the office which is ours, and also of the happy results which by the favouring breath of the Holy Spirit have emerged from the contact of the Orthodox Delegation with the Lambeth Conference, our Holy Synod of the Metropolitans of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria has proceeded to adopt a resolution recognizing the validity, as from the Orthodox point of view, of the Anglican Ministry. The text of that resolution is as follows:

"The Holy Synod recognizes that the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a genuine account [1] of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a real reception of the Lord's Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being thusia hilasterios [2] (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized."

We rejoice to see the middle wall of partition being thrown down more and more, and we congratulate your Beatitude that under God you have had the felicity of taking the initiative in furthering that work. May the Lord Who was born in Bethlehem give to you and to us the happiness of its completion.

In Alexandria upon the Feast of Christ's Nativity, 1930 Your Beatitude's Beloved Brother in Christ,
Meletios of Alexandria
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2011, 03:19:42 AM »

I wouldn't leave the RCC just because your priest is on the liberal side.  He is just expressing some private opinions about certain subjects.  Catholicism is not some all encompassing, authoritarian system which seeks to suppress all individual opinions on various issues (Except when they have been officially ruled on by the magesterium).  If this priest opinions bother you so much then try going to another parish, but please don't abandon the Church because of this.  

When I was in the process of converting to Orthodoxy way back in 2000, I happened to ask an RC priest if what I was doing was right.  He gave me some liberal lines about how all religions were good and that all we need to do to be saved was just follow the rules of whatever Church we belonged to as best we could.  Now I knew that what this priest said was not the official opinion of the RCC, but I was in so much of a hurry to jump ship that I used his words as both justification for leaving Catholicism and as part of my never ended series of excuses for why i had to give up the Church and go Orthodox.


Bottom line, its one mans opinion.  If you really want to find out what the RCC believes and teaches about the things you have listed then consult the catechism to get straight answers.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 03:21:10 AM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,500



« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2011, 07:19:10 AM »

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough

In what way it is watered down?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2011, 08:00:45 AM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
\

 laugh laugh laugh

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them...heh!!....not really.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2011, 08:07:08 AM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
\

 laugh laugh laugh

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them...heh!!....not really.
On what matters to us, yes, really.

On what matters to you, you cares?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2011, 08:31:31 AM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
\

 laugh laugh laugh

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them...heh!!....not really.
On what matters to us, yes, really.

On what matters to you, you cares?

Not true at all.  It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  So that matters to everyone, I would think.    Not to mention the diptychs... laugh
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2011, 09:55:22 AM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith. 

Any proofs?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2011, 10:01:20 AM »

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.

Not really. I own a catechism. I bought about four years ago when I started dating a Catholic girl and wanted to know when she was restricted to eating fish. I never found an exact answer to my question, it basically says to look at your calendar. It is organized very well and has a good structure for putting an outline of basic beliefs into written form.

Quote
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted

Everything needs to be interpreted, the question is a matter of what you are using to interpret with - which should be in context with all of what your church teaches.

Quote
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)

Seeing how only the Pope is given that kind of dogmatic infallibility, this is probably true. You should not use this as an excuse for disobedience to your bishop.

Quote
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.

While I agree with this statement, I don't know what the official teaching is on this.

Quote
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.

I believe it is considered a mortal sin to in Catholicism to refuse to come to mass on sundays and days of obligation (major feast days) and worship God and receive Christ in the Eucharist. I used the word "refuse" for a reason. One should worship God for the sake of worshipping Him, not going through the motions to meet a requirement - which is where I think the question of "is it really necessary" comes from (I mean this as a reflection on the attitude of some individuals who may ask this question, not any official teaching).

Quote
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.

I don't know. The Catholic teaching on "mortal" sin has a number of criteria that need to be met, some of which involve the interior state of the heart and mind which we may even deceive ourselves on discerning. Keep in mind, there are at least two people for whom eating the wrong kind of fruit was a "mortal" sin. As far as "grave", I believe that only applies to the act itself regardless of circumstance (knowledge, ignorance, willful, out of ignorance, etc).

Quote
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.

This is not what your church teaches.

Quote
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

I'm not touching this one. This statement could be interpreted a number of ways, some of which could be true, others far from true.

Quote
So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...

My personal opinion would be to find a priest who doesn't tell you to be disobedient to your bishops and interpret your church's teaching however you feel like.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 612


« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2011, 10:02:09 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 10:03:49 AM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2011, 10:05:00 AM »

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them

I recently met someone in the process of converting to orthodoxy from Anglicanism, this is actually one of the reasons he said he is coming embracing Orthodoxy.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2011, 10:25:30 AM »

Not true at all.  It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.

Challenge: Provide examples from print media (i.e. not anecdotes, not conversations, not fora or message boards, but magazines, newspapers, books where the author is writing in an official capacity, or other publications, including official websites) where the presentation of a Truth of the Faith (let's keep it simple and restrict this to the Creed) is shown to "vary broadly" across at least three canonical jurisdictions.

Had you said that Orthodox Christians vary broadly on the truths of the faith, I might have accepted that. But you said "jurisdictions." I often tell people that Russian, Greek and other Orthodox Churches all hold the same Faith. If what you allege is true, it is important that it be clear to all.
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2011, 10:33:38 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

The problem is that the west defines things in different terms than does the east. So what to us are mere differences of opinion (see, for example, the toll house discussions), Catholics expect there to be a 'dogmatic' answer to everything.  Our definition of doctrine and dogma is far stricter than is theirs, hence for them, it is easy to accuse us of being 'wishy-washy' about certain things.

That being said, we should not delude ourselves into boasting that if you ask a million of us the same question (clergy, monastics and laity alike) that you will get the same answer. To make such a ridiculous claim, you only open our Faith to a scholastic led 'logical' attack based upon contradictions. Try valid, and differing, Orthodox answers to 'the calendar', 'ecumenism', 'toll houses', 'Church Slavonic and/or Koine Greek' and 'how do you choose a Bishop' just to name a few. The Romans will give you what they think to be a 'dogmatic' and 'uniform' answer from their end. We will argue with them till the proverbial cows come home that these are not dogmatic differences (with the exceptions of course coming from our 'True' Orthodox brothers and sisters) while the Romans will shake their heads and sigh. That's the way its been for over 1200 years and it is not likely to change any millennium soon. (That doesn't mean we should stop talking though...)
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2011, 11:36:54 AM »

You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith.
Actually, this priest is doing you a favor: he's showing you that, whatever decision you make, whatever Church in which you choose to participate, you are engaging in interpretation. It's not that he's saying that "I hereby proclaim that you are free to interpret as you choose", but "Everyone, just by being human, interprets according to his or her understanding and experiences".
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 11:38:29 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,109



« Reply #24 on: June 23, 2011, 11:52:44 AM »

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them

I recently met someone in the process of converting to orthodoxy from Anglicanism, this is actually one of the reasons he said he is coming embracing Orthodoxy.
I think that in the modern western world this is because everyone tends to draw from the same resources.

...And I can think of several hot button questions that will get more than one answer, and often vehemently opposed ones at that. I won't ask them in this thread.

TO THE OP: The Orthodox Church is the true Church, but one should not join it just because they are angrily walking away from their first choice. (Though God takes us all, regardless of our motives.) Talk with an Orthodox priest or two. Heck, talk with a couple of Catholic priests while you're at it. Figure out what's going on, and pray.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 11:53:59 AM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL ORTHODOX CHURCH
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2011, 12:03:28 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?
A desperate search for proof that we need their "infallible" supreme pontiff and his supremacy over the Church.

I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.
 
Desperation when the facts don't back them up. They resort to mantras "if we say it enough times, it will be true," though it doesn't veracity doesn't accrew with any repetition.

There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.
Don't hold your breath.

That said, to the OP: come for Orthodoxy, not against the Vatican.  Talk to one of the Vatican's more traditional priests.  Pure gold fears no fire.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #26 on: June 23, 2011, 12:12:17 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...

How are we supposed to comment, when none of us were present for the conversation, and don't know whether you are taking the priest's statements out of context?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #27 on: June 23, 2011, 12:27:28 PM »

Old priests, especially those in seminary/ordained between Paul VI and JPII, tend to have their own theology.  Was this man a Jesuit?

1) The Catechism has been watered down enough; have you seen youcat?
2) They are interpreted by the Magisterium.  Private interpretation has no place.
3) This is true, and would certainly be true if this man were an archbishop.
4) I wouldn't say they don't actually secure saving grace, but I see what he means and agree with him.  Promoting this "grace" is not a spiritually sound idea, regardless of the truth.
5) Technically this is true, if no Catholic church is around, and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy fufills.  In the context of the priest, I see no basis for this belief.  
6) Mortal implies death, and grave also implies death, I don't see how they are different.  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that knowingly teaching false doctrine is a mortal sin.
7) Again, no basis for this conclusion except for ecumenical hubub.
8  He's correct.  Many of them aren't Christian, however.

Don't listen to him, and if anything, rebuke him.  His salvation and the salvation of others could be at stake.  I have been in your boat for some time now.  I would strongly advise against inquiring Orthodoxy when fueled by angst for a bad priest; inquire out of curiosity, not out of anger.  Know that the traditional Catholic faith and spirituality exists.  If you can get to a Tridentine Mass, FSSP apostolate, or even an SSPX chapel if all else fails, you will find Catholicism there (I am not implying Vatican II is not Catholic).  
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?
\

 laugh laugh laugh

And we all know that if we ask a million Orthodox faithful, monks and priests the SAME question we'll get the SAME answer from all of them...heh!!....not really.
On what matters to us, yes, really.

On what matters to you, you cares?

Not true at all.  It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  So that matters to everyone, I would think.    Not to mention the diptychs... laugh
Mention the diptychs.  The Vatican isn't in any of them. The only difference is that the diptychs of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope of Alexandria, the Patriarchs of Antiocha, Jerusalem, Serbia and Romania, and the Archbishops of Cyprus, Greece and Albania do not commemorate Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA in them, under the canonical fiction that he is under the Patriarch of Moscow, whom they do commemorate. Since Met. Jonhah and the rest of the OCA was seated on the Episcopal Assembly here according to the diptychs, de facto has become de jure, per the signed Chambesy accords ratified by Council of the autocephalous primates and the agreement of the OCA.  

As to publications, the publications in Russia and Greece compared to those published in the US are far closer than the Vatican's publications that circulate in its Archdiocese of Chicago.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #28 on: June 23, 2011, 02:35:57 PM »

I would advise (and this is a piece of advice I also need to take myself) that the OP !!!NOT!!! convert to run away from Catholicism, but to run to Orthodoxy. Inevitably there's a mix of both, but when the former is more prevalent than the latter, that's an issue that may reoccur with your new faith. Such an attitude also makes Orthodoxy into more a refugee camp from what we fled from, rather than a home to which we've moved.

So, please, Nero, don't leave Rome because the words of one Roman priest with eccentric views.

I, too, am bothered when people treat Orthodoxy "refugee camp". In some cases, this is done by Catholics who have no intention of converting to Orthodoxy themselves, but rather push others towards it. For example, this statement by the Catholic priest Fr. J. Steele:

Quote
    The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

    I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

    Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(OICWR = Orthodox in Communion with Rome)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2011, 03:01:03 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?

That's whatcha call ecumenism.

Well, except if it's said by a traditional Catholic, in which case it's offensive and "not in the spirit of Vatican II".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2011, 03:49:30 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek,
This gets dummer with every reflection. Old Calendar Greeks and Russians are quite similar in their viewpoints, and the Greeks are divided in the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and Greece but they act as one Greek Church.

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian,
Hungarian?
Quote from: Scott Hahn
Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
My brothers and I lost our father decades ago, and yet we remained a family, although we all had moved out on our own before his death.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2011, 03:54:21 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek,
This gets dummer with every reflection. Old Calendar Greeks and Russians are quite similar in their viewpoints, and the Greeks are divided in the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and Greece but they act as one Greek Church.

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian,
Hungarian?
Quote from: Scott Hahn
Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
My brothers and I lost our father decades ago, and yet we remained a family, although we all had moved out on our own before his death.

Well put and I would add that our Father is not lost, He is in Heaven - not in Rome!
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2011, 04:08:32 PM »

If you decide to become Orthodox that is your choice, but if you do I hope you find a better reason than just the fact that you found a RC priest who holds to some views which our Church views as heretical. He is certainly not holding beliefs which are representative of the Catholic Church.
Logged
Nero
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 115



« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2011, 04:31:23 PM »

Quote
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?

I have over the last few months - The Divine Liturgy is absolutely beyond compare.

Certainly I know that I should NEVER become Orthodox because one Catholic priest may be wrong. The thought of conversion is four or five months old by now. Recently I've been hoping for some sign or argument that'll help me stay with the Catholic Church, because then I wouldn't disappoint the priests and parishioners whom I'm actively involved with.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2011, 07:31:42 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 07:33:01 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2011, 07:34:53 PM »

Quote
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?

I have over the last few months - The Divine Liturgy is absolutely beyond compare.

Certainly I know that I should NEVER become Orthodox because one Catholic priest may be wrong. The thought of conversion is four or five months old by now. Recently I've been hoping for some sign or argument that'll help me stay with the Catholic Church, because then I wouldn't disappoint the priests and parishioners whom I'm actively involved with.

If you have to look this hard to find someone to argue you back into the papal Church, you are too far gone to worry about it.

To me it sounds exceptionally silly to even suggest such a thing.

What do you care what people think about you?  If you find truth in Orthodoxy...great.

M.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #36 on: June 24, 2011, 08:53:30 AM »

Quote
Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?

I have over the last few months - The Divine Liturgy is absolutely beyond compare.

Certainly I know that I should NEVER become Orthodox because one Catholic priest may be wrong. The thought of conversion is four or five months old by now. Recently I've been hoping for some sign or argument that'll help me stay with the Catholic Church, because then I wouldn't disappoint the priests and parishioners whom I'm actively involved with.

If you have to look this hard to find someone to argue you back into the papal Church, you are too far gone to worry about it.

To me it sounds exceptionally silly to even suggest such a thing.

What do you care what people think about you?  If you find truth in Orthodoxy...great.

M.

To suggest what?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2011, 09:11:23 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Perhaps it has taken you years to figure out how to misconstrue them into disagreement, no?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2011, 09:27:25 AM »

I have over the last few months - The Divine Liturgy is absolutely beyond compare.

Certainly I know that I should NEVER become Orthodox because one Catholic priest may be wrong. The thought of conversion is four or five months old by now. Recently I've been hoping for some sign or argument that'll help me stay with the Catholic Church, because then I wouldn't disappoint the priests and parishioners whom I'm actively involved with.
Don't rely only on your feelings and "signs", just quietly read books, keep constantly being interested. And if you do so, surely you will easily see that Orthodox Church is the true Church.

Considering the Pope dogma, the answer from the Orthodox Church on the dogma of Papal Infallibility was given on the Meeting of Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches Held in Connection with the Quingentenary Celebrations of the Russian Orthodox Church's Attainment to Autocephalous Status (Moscow, 1948). It was pointed to the works of Döllinger and some other historians, but his name was mentioned the most frequently and he was the most cited.

Look in this topic, I've posted there several links to free online books:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35344.0.html

If you are looking for good understanding of Orthodox theology, read any books or articles by bishop Atanasije Jevtic, pupil of St. Justin Popovic. Here is interview with him with English subtitles, about Liturgy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHB4Upu0dho

Note that Orthodox Church is also called Catholic Church, as in the Creed, and in official documents as well. It is only not Roman Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 09:45:32 AM by Vadim » Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2011, 09:29:16 AM »

Out of curiosity, do you know of any similarly-issued statements that either retract these, or imply otherwise? (Not being snarky, I genuinely don't know if they exist or not, as these seem quite clear on the matter):

The Patriarch of JERUSALEM, 1923

"To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, First Hierarch of All England, our most beloved and dear brother in our Lord Jesus, Mgr. Randall. Greeting fraternally your beloved to us, Grace, we have the pleasure to address to you the following:

Yesterday we dispatched to Your Grace the following telegram: ‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.' Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession. We have great pleasure in communicating to Your Grace, as the First Hierarch of all the Anglican Churches, this resolution of our Church, which constitutes a progress in the pleasing-to-God work of the union of all Churches, and we pray God to grant to Your Grace many years full of health and salvation.

(Signed) DAMIANOS

February 27/March 12, 1923


The Archbishop of CYPRUS, 1923

"To His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch Mgr. Meletios we send brotherly greeting in Christ. Your Holiness – Responding readily to the suggestion made in your reverend Holiness' letter of August 8, 1922, that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus under our presidency should give its opinion as to the validity of Anglican Orders we have placed the matter before the Holy Synod in formal session. After full consideration thereof it has reached the following conclusion: It being understood that the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church by the Sacrament of Order was not broken at the Consecration of the first Archbishop of this Church, Matthew Parker, and the visible signs being present in Orders among the Anglicans by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is supplied, which enables the ordinand for the functions of his particular order, there is no obstacle to the recognition by the Orthodox Church of the validity of Anglican Ordinations in the same way that the validity of the ordinations of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Church are recognized by her. Since clerics coming from these Churches into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are received without reordination we express our judgment that this should also hold in the case of Anglicans – excluding intercommunio (sacramental union), by which one might receive the sacraments indiscriminately at the hands of an Anglican, even one holding the Orthodox dogma, until the dogmatic unity of the two Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, is attained."

Submitting this opinion of our Church to Your All-Holiness, we remain, Affectionately, the least of your brethren in Christ,
Cyril of Cyprus



The Patriarch of ALEXANDRIA, 1930

"To the Most Reverend Dr. Cosmo Lang, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, Greetings in the New Born Christ The Feast of the Nativity, according to the Flesh, of the Redeemer of our Souls being a most suitable occasion for us, as it were, to visit your Beatitude, our friend, by means of a letter, we come to you hereby with a heart that is filled alike with joy, that "unto us is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord," and with fervent prayers both for your health and for the peace and stability of the holy Churches of God over which you preside. At the same time, together with our greetings for the Feast, we send you as our gift the news, which we are sure will be good news, to you, that having derived the greatest gratification from the accounts which it has received, both of the marks of honor which were rendered in London, alike by your Grace and by the general body of your Church, to the office which is ours, and also of the happy results which by the favouring breath of the Holy Spirit have emerged from the contact of the Orthodox Delegation with the Lambeth Conference, our Holy Synod of the Metropolitans of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria has proceeded to adopt a resolution recognizing the validity, as from the Orthodox point of view, of the Anglican Ministry. The text of that resolution is as follows:

"The Holy Synod recognizes that the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a genuine account [1] of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a real reception of the Lord's Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being thusia hilasterios [2] (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized."

We rejoice to see the middle wall of partition being thrown down more and more, and we congratulate your Beatitude that under God you have had the felicity of taking the initiative in furthering that work. May the Lord Who was born in Bethlehem give to you and to us the happiness of its completion.

In Alexandria upon the Feast of Christ's Nativity, 1930 Your Beatitude's Beloved Brother in Christ,
Meletios of Alexandria


I believe that many would say the Anglicans ended up retracting these on their own about 40 years after the last of these statements when they started ordaining women.  The Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA certainly had some strong words on the subject in his address to the inaugural assembly of the Anglican Church in North America back in 2009.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2011, 09:47:26 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 09:48:06 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2011, 10:15:15 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.  I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings.  I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth.  These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth.  I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops, pastors and pope. 

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 24, 2011, 11:14:15 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #43 on: June 24, 2011, 11:56:11 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?
Let's see.
I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.

The decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the Divine Services.  Lex orandi, lex crendendi.  That those in the east abandon that when they submit to the Vatican reflects on it, not the Catholic Church.

We've cited your documents from the Vatican, to which you disagree.

I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings.

The episcopalte in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, in particular the 15 primates: if two heads are better than one....

Your curial office hmmms and haws, and can't give a straight answer on what your "infallible" teachings are.  Their main skills seems to be hair-splitting, obfuscation, and equivacation.

For instance, your supreme pontiff issued Humanae Vitae, which contradicted the teaching of the majority of bishops at the time and many since. But since your curia and its supreme head won't play the ex cathedra card, its status as "infallible" from the "ordinary magisterium" is in limbo.

I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth.

you mean the ones with "nihil obstat" and "imprematur"?

Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

No guarantees here.  Some assurances to the best of one's ability.  But there's much too much emphasis on this as some sort of hard and fast guarantee of something.  Quoting them is actually rather pompous.

M.

but as for the Orthodox, there are a number of the decisions of Pan Orthodox Councils and the Holy Synods. For example:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Quote
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
To All the Bishops Everywhere, Beloved in the Holy Ghost, Our Venerable, Most Dear Brethren; and to their Most Pious Clergy; and to All the Genuine Orthodox Sons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: Brotherly Salutation in the Holy Spirit, and Every Good From God, and Salvation.

The holy, evangelical and divine Gospel of Salvation should be set forth by all in its original simplicity, and should evermore be believed in its unadulterated purity, even the same as it was revealed to His holy Apostles by our Savior, who for this very cause, descending from the bosom of God the Father, made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant (Phil. ii. 7); even the same, also, as those Apostles, who were ear and eye witnesses, sounded it forth, like clear-toned trumpets, to all that are under the sun (for their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words into the ends of the world); and, last of all, the very same as the many great and glorious Fathers of the Catholic Church in all parts of the earth, who heard those Apostolic voices, both by their synodical and their individual teachings handed it down to all everywhere, and even unto us. But the Prince of Evil, that spiritual enemy of man's salvation, as formerly in Eden, craftily assuming the pretext of profitable counsel, he made man to become a transgressor of the divinely-spoken command. so in the spiritual Eden, the Church of God, he has from time to time beguiled many; and, mixing the deleterious drugs of heresy with the clear streams of orthodox doctrine, gives of the potion to drink to many of the innocent who live unguardedly, not giving earnest heed to the things they have heard (Heb. ii. 10), and to what they have been told by their fathers (Deut. xxxii. 7), in accordance with the Gospel and in agreement with the ancient Doctors; and who, imagining that the preached and written Word of the LORD and the perpetual witness of His Church are not sufficient for their souls' salvation, impiously seek out novelties, as we change the fashion of our garments, embracing a counterfeit of the evangelical doctrine.

2. Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17,) has been compelled to combat. She has triumphed over all unto this day, and she will triumph for ever, being manifested as mightier and more illustrious after each struggle.

3. Of these heresies, some already have entirely failed, some are in decay, some have wasted away, some yet flourish in a greater or less degree vigorous until the time of their return to the Faith, while others are reproduced to run their course from their birth to their destruction. For being the miserable cogitations and devices of miserable men, both one and the other, struck with the thunderbolt of the anathema of the seven Ecumenical Councils, shall vanish away, though they may last a thousand years; for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the living Word of God, alone endures for ever, according to the infallible promise of the LORD: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. xviii. 18). Certainly, the mouths of ungodly and heretical men, however bold, however plausible and fair-speaking, however smooth they may be, will not prevail against the orthodox doctrine winning, its way silently and without noise. But, wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? (Jer. xii. 1.) Why are the ungodly exalted and lifted up as the cedars of Lebanon (Ps. xxxvii. 35), to defile the peaceful worship of God? The reason of this is mysterious, and the Church, though daily praying that this cross, this messenger of Satan, may depart from her, ever hears from the Lord: My grace is sufficient for thee, my strength is made perfect in weakness (2. Cor. xii. 9). Wherefore she gladly glories in her infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon her, and that they which are approved may be made manifest (1. Cor. x. 19).

4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).

5. The new doctrine, that "the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son," is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering "which proceedeth from the Father." (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.

iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, "a wolf in sheep's clothing," that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.

xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.

xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.

xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: "If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic" (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council....
Quote
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion
To the most Sacred and Most Divinely-beloved Brethren in Christ the Metropolitans and Bishops, and their sacred and venerable Clergy, and all the godly and orthodox Laity of the Most Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.

"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their own conversation:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." (Heb. xiii. 7, Cool.
These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth.
Indeed!
Quote
9. In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold. In this Encyclical, he addresses those who at different times have gone over from different Christian Communions, and embraced the Papacy, and of course are favorable to him, extending his arguments also to the Orthodox, either particularly or without naming them; and, citing our divine and holy Fathers (p. 3, 1.14-18; p. 4, 1.19; p. 9, 1.6; and pp. 17, 23), he manifestly calumniates them and us their successors and descendants: them, as if they admitted readily the Papal commands and rescripts without question because issuing from the Popes is undoubted arbiters of the Catholic Church; us, as unfaithful to their examples (for thus he trespasses on the Fold committed to us by God), as severed from our Fathers, as careless of our sacred trusts, and of the soul's salvation of our spiritual children. Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne."

10. Each one of our brethren and sons in Christ who have been piously brought up and instructed, wisely regarding the wisdom given him from God, will decide that the words of the present Bishop of Rome, like those of his schismatical predecessors, are not words of peace, as he affirms (p. 7,1.Cool, and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement, agreeably to the practice of his antisynodical predecessors. We are therefore sure, that even as heretofore, so hereafter the Orthodox will not be beguiled. For the word of our LORD is sure (John x. 5), A stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.

11. For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The Truth is the other way.

I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops,
Like Cardinal Martini? Those which issued the Winnipeg Statement? Those which wrote the Dutch Cathecism?
pastors
like those teaching "liberation theology"? Or the priest responsible for the OP?
and pope.
Like Popes Alexander VI? Zosimos? Vigilius? John XXIII? Honorius? Stephen (V)VII ?
Quote
The Annuario Pontificio included this Stephen as a Pope until the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) declared that he was not, and gave all papal Stephens that followed dual numberings.  From 752 to 942, seven popes reigned bearing the name of Stephen. Originally, they were not otherwise distinguished, as regnal numbering was not applied to popes until the 10th century. They were named Stephen II to VIII respectively after their death. The next Pope to take the name Stephen in 1057, however, after numbering had become a custom, was called Stephen IX during his life and signed all his documents "Stephanus Nonus Papa".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope-elect_Stephen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Stephen_(VI)_VII

that's him on the left disagreeing with his predecessor as supreme pontiff Formosus, on the right.

The Catholic Church has its own bishops, primates, pastors and even a pope


Btw, the CCC was billed as "such a synthesis for" the Vatican's teaching, but repeatedly when we cite it as such, such claims are denied.

and since you claim to see things none of us see, the onus is on you to point them out, if indeed they exist.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 12:08:20 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 24, 2011, 01:42:57 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 24, 2011, 03:38:15 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.


I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?

Here we are.  This is a short list of books that I know are used in real parishes to catechize real inquirers and real Orthodox faithful.  I have read them all, among others, over the years and use them regularly as reference books.  You will find an essentially similar faith in all of them taken as a whole but each one presents some widely variant details between and among themselves and also when weighed against what I find regularly on the Internet that is claimed to be universal Orthodox teaching and truth.  Enjoy!:

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308941315&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Experience-Revelation/dp/0917651707/ref=pd_sim_b_1

volumes 1 & 2

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Faith-Introduction-Teaching-Spirituality/dp/0232524726/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942148&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Faith-Christian-Foundations/dp/9608677823/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942993&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Christ-Nicholas-Cabasilas/dp/0913836125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943208&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Outline-Orthodox-Patristic-Dogmatics/dp/0974561843/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943288&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Theology-Historical-Trends-Doctrinal/dp/0823209679/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Tradition-Orthodox-Witness-Contemporary/dp/0913836486/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943651&sr=1-9

http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=pd_sim_b_4
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 24, 2011, 03:50:51 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.


I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?

Here we are.  This is a short list of books that I know are used in real parishes to catechize real inquirers and real Orthodox faithful.  I have read them all, among others, over the years and use them regularly as reference books.  You will find an essentially similar faith in all of them taken as a whole but each one presents some widely variant details between and among themselves and also when weighed against what I find regularly on the Internet that is claimed to be universal Orthodox teaching and truth.  Enjoy!:

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308941315&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Experience-Revelation/dp/0917651707/ref=pd_sim_b_1

volumes 1 & 2

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Faith-Introduction-Teaching-Spirituality/dp/0232524726/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942148&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Faith-Christian-Foundations/dp/9608677823/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942993&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Christ-Nicholas-Cabasilas/dp/0913836125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943208&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Outline-Orthodox-Patristic-Dogmatics/dp/0974561843/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943288&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Theology-Historical-Trends-Doctrinal/dp/0823209679/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Tradition-Orthodox-Witness-Contemporary/dp/0913836486/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943651&sr=1-9

http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=pd_sim_b_4


Thank you, this will do for now.

And may the good Lord have mercy on your mother!
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2011, 03:57:19 PM »


And may the good Lord have mercy on your mother!


Thanks so much for the blessing.  It's going to be one of her longer hotter summers...but we are all determined to get her back on her feet stronger than when she went down.  She is an exceptionally healthy hearty and alert octogenarian so there is every possibility to hope for the best!!

M.
Logged

podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 24, 2011, 04:17:28 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.  I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings.  I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth.  These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth.  I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops, pastors and pope.  

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?

You've got to have access to the hats! You know, like from Seinfeld, many years ago...the hats.... Smiley

You know that we have no such thing as a 'magisterial teaching office' as defined by Rome. Frankly, with people like Hans Kung and others allowed to run amok for a generation, your 'office' must be run like "The Office" familiar to us in the states through the person of Steve Carell or to the Brits and the rest of the world through Ricky Gervais.  Wink

Seriously, I'll take our Orthodox teachers, through our clergy, monastics and Bishops as those charged by the Church with the protection and propagation of the Orthodox way! We just don't have an earthly persona or special title that claims a special and unique linkage to the Lord Himself.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 04:26:10 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 24, 2011, 04:21:35 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.  I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings.  I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth.  These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth.  I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops, pastors and pope. 

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?

You've got to have access to the hats! You know, like from Seinfeld, many years ago...the hats.... Smiley

I qualify for veils...no hats!!...I need a hat!!
Logged

FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 24, 2011, 06:30:51 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions. They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary

Teachings or essential doctrine? There is a difference. I could cite many books by Catholic writers that do not accurately reflect the magesterium. So what?

The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.

We can exchange such examples until the cows come home, but they prove nothing regarding the consistency of the teachings of Orthodox doctrine or, for that matter, those of your Church.

Seems you've gotten to my point ahead of me.

I can direct you to the documents containing the most cogent points of the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church.  I can direct you to a curial office charged with the interpretation of doctrinal teachings.  I can point you to documents that explain what doctrine is, and theology in Catholic terms, so that we can know what is taught as truth.  These same documents demonstrate and state that Truth makes doctrine, rather than doctrine "making" truth.  I can identify those members of the Catholic hierarchy who are charged with the magisterial teaching office: bishops, pastors and pope.  

Where would I go to find such a synthesis for Orthodoxy?

You've got to have access to the hats! You know, like from Seinfeld, many years ago...the hats.... Smiley

You know that we have no such thing as a 'magisterial teaching office' as defined by Rome. Frankly, with people like Hans Kung and others allowed to run amok for a generation, your 'office' must be run like "The Office" familiar to us in the states through the person of Steve Carell or to the Brits and the rest of the world through Ricky Gervais.  Wink

Seriously, I'll take our Orthodox teachers, through our clergy, monastics and Bishops as those charged by the Church with the protection and propagation of the Orthodox way! We just don't have an earthly persona or special title that claims a special and unique linkage to the Lord Himself.

I'm no Brit, but Ricky Gervais' office is the only Office for me.  That, or the one from Office Space.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #51 on: June 24, 2011, 07:27:37 PM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.

I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.
Lord have mercy!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 24, 2011, 09:43:21 PM »


Lord have mercy!

Truly!

Thank you...

M.
Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #53 on: June 25, 2011, 02:01:48 PM »

I would report him to his bishop.
Some bishops are quite liberal, whereas others are conservative.

So what? If his is a "liberal" bishop and doesn't do anything about it, then IT'S ON HIS HEAD, and I would not want to be there when he is judged. The point is, that is what a layman is obliged to do when a priest is spouting heresy: report him to his bishop.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #54 on: June 25, 2011, 02:03:23 PM »

Why not go to your local Orthodox Church, where you are sure to get Orthodoxy?

Unless he doesn't and finds another bad priest. Then I guess he better just form his own darned religion, since there are traitors in every other one.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #55 on: June 25, 2011, 02:06:31 PM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

I used to be an inquirer into Orthodoxy, and I was so dismayed that the crazy smorgasbord of jurisdictions all had enormous differences about what I was. Unbaptized pagan, or "brother" Christian, or what? I spent long hours munching Toll House cookies over these questions.  Wink
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 02:27:45 PM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #56 on: June 25, 2011, 02:11:34 PM »

That said, to the OP: come for Orthodoxy, not against the Vatican.  Talk to one of the Vatican's more traditional priests.  Pure gold fears no fire.

What if he can't afford the cost of flying all the way out to Vatican City? I think he would do just as well to talk to some orthodox Catholic priests right where he lives.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #57 on: June 25, 2011, 02:17:14 PM »


The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 25, 2011, 02:30:40 PM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

Quote
As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

These are pastoral things, not doctrinal.


Opinions of single believers are not "faith of different jurisdictions".
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 02:31:37 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 612


« Reply #59 on: June 25, 2011, 02:47:37 PM »


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing.  Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome.  I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience".  Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism?  Really?  We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer).  Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.  

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries.  That's it.  No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.  Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 02:51:38 PM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 25, 2011, 03:03:52 PM »


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing.  Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome.  I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience".  Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism?  Really?  We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer).  Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.  

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries.  That's it.  No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.  Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

I disagree and I just posted 11 Orthodox texts in another thread which demonstrate Lubeltri's point quite clearly...
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #61 on: June 25, 2011, 03:13:19 PM »


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing.  Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome.  I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience".  Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism?  Really?  We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer).  Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.  

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries.  That's it.  No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.  Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

I disagree and I just posted 11 Orthodox texts in another thread which demonstrate Lubeltri's point quite clearly...
So you claim, I'll be getting to that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 25, 2011, 03:19:43 PM »


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing.  Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome.  I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience".  Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism?  Really?  We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer).  Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.  

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries.  That's it.  No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.  Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

I disagree and I just posted 11 Orthodox texts in another thread which demonstrate Lubeltri's point quite clearly...
So you claim, I'll be getting to that.

 laugh laugh laugh

Yes indeed.  You'll pick nits with Catholics using bad cut-n-paste history and then minimize ALL of the variations in Orthodoxy...down to zero.

That's how ya be doin' it, Professor.
Logged

Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 612


« Reply #63 on: June 25, 2011, 03:31:25 PM »

Edited due to incorrect response.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 03:47:51 PM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #64 on: June 25, 2011, 03:48:19 PM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.
But the "spirit of Vatican II" types are not nominal.  Anything but: they are quite dedicated to there beliefs.
As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.
We figured out long ago "one size fits all," the modus vivendi of the Vatican, doesn't work.

"Claims" is the opperative word. Canterbury claims the same apostolic lineage as you: does your supreme pontiff recognize their claim?  He just Canterbury's former bishop of London "conditionally" without ordination to your deaconate (and priesthood?), while taking his fellow Anglican bishops as layman and (re)ordained them in the first three orders of your priesthood.  Is it that he hasn't even figured out how to receive an individual from that "same apostolic lineage" as you.  In fact, you take our priests and bishops that apostacize without reordaining them. The Anglicans claim that we all have the same lineage, has your "magisterium" not figured out how to receive from this Church?

We have had only three schisms even remotely worth mentioning (unlike the spectacular ones you all have-the Great Western Schism, the Reformation, the Old Catholics, etc.):the Old Ritualist and "Living Church" had no reference to the Vatican at all, and in the Old Calendarist schism the Vatican plays only the role of boogey man that the Old Calendarists accuse us "world Orthodox" (i.e. the ones that the Vatican recognizes as the Orthodox) of being in league with.  They are "schisms over different views about Catholicism," but they have nothing to do with the Vatican. Unlike you Ultramontanists, the Vatican isn't in the center of our universe.
I used to be an inquirer into Orthodoxy, and I was so dismayed that the crazy smorgasbord of jurisdictions all had enormous differences about what I was. Unbaptized pagan, or "brother" Christian, or what? I spent long hours munching Toll House cookies over these questions.  Wink
and evidently choked on them.

given the grand indulgence system built up in grand Dantesque fashion, held firmly by many of those in your ecclesiastical organization alongside those in your same ecclesiastical community who in the spirit of Vatican II deny the existence of purgatory, let alone hell, you would have been better served with eye tweezers.

Toll houses. A sure sign you are grasping as straws.  I was Orthodox for years before I'd ever heard of them.  Your Sedevantist-Traditionalist-Reformer-Liberation Theology smorgasbord is every day and everywhere spread out.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #65 on: June 25, 2011, 03:51:21 PM »


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing.  Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome.  I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience".  Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism?  Really?  We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer).  Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.  

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries.  That's it.  No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.  Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

I disagree and I just posted 11 Orthodox texts in another thread which demonstrate Lubeltri's point quite clearly...
So you claim, I'll be getting to that.

 laugh laugh laugh

Yes indeed.  You'll pick nits with Catholics using bad cut-n-paste history and then minimize ALL of the variations in Orthodoxy...down to zero.

That's how ya be doin' it, Professor.
with all your obsession with toll houses, I have to bow to your expertise in picking nits with Catholics.

search the "EP Bashing" tags, and anyone can see how much I "minimize ALL of the variations in Orthodoxy" LOL. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

zero grade for you
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 03:58:40 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #66 on: June 25, 2011, 03:57:56 PM »

That said, to the OP: come for Orthodoxy, not against the Vatican.  Talk to one of the Vatican's more traditional priests.  Pure gold fears no fire.

What if he can't afford the cost of flying all the way out to Vatican City?

you ultramontanists chorttle on about how the Vatican has its tenacles all over the world.
I think he would do just as well to talk to some orthodox Catholic priests right where he lives.
since for you "Ultramontanist" means "orthodox," same thing (except a Catholic priest would be an Orthodox one).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 25, 2011, 04:27:07 PM »


The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

You are correct, I misread the first few lines of an article about Kung. He was stripped of his title as a professor of Catholic Theology in 1979. That being said, some fifteen years passed from the first publication in English of his Doctoral dissertation through the revocation of his license, a period in which he was quite controversial and outspoken with respect to his opinions about the papacy and the post Vatican 2 church.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #68 on: June 25, 2011, 09:09:08 PM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future. 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #69 on: June 25, 2011, 09:36:16 PM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

Quote
As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

These are pastoral things, not doctrinal.


Opinions of single believers are not "faith of different jurisdictions".

Well schisms over "pastoral" things and even more petty things is a terrible indictment.

As for reception and baptism, that's hardly pastoral, I think. It's ecclesiological.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #70 on: June 25, 2011, 09:43:20 PM »


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

Why like 6 posts one after another?

You know full well that the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are not teaching the same thing.  Sometimes even dogmatic issues are not being taught in accordance with Catholicism's point of reference, Rome.  I think it's your own insecurity that the Catholic Church is loosing all of those uniform beliefs that used to exist, up until 50 years ago, that you spout off idiocy in respect to your supposed "experience".  Schisms over what Orthodox people think about Catholicism?  Really?  We don't care what Rome does so why does Rome care what we do? (We all know the answer).  Fact is, these are all just unsupported attacks that lets you take your aim off of yourselves and aim it on us.  

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries.  That's it.  No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.  Talk about taking something so simple and pretending its a bombshell.

Talk about defensive. I have plenty of personal experience--I was an inquirer, remember? And the "Orthodoxy" I witnessed was hardly the kind I expected from my reading of Met. Kallistos and your own EP (considered by a not-insignificant number of your people as a heretic and apostate precisely because of his approach to Catholics!).

It was a definite turnoff, and it made me realize that your communion(s) are just in as bad a shape as Catholicism. The grass is not greener, all smugness on this forum aside.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #71 on: June 25, 2011, 09:52:40 PM »

That said, to the OP: come for Orthodoxy, not against the Vatican.  Talk to one of the Vatican's more traditional priests.  Pure gold fears no fire.

What if he can't afford the cost of flying all the way out to Vatican City?

you ultramontanists chorttle on about how the Vatican has its tenacles all over the world.
I think he would do just as well to talk to some orthodox Catholic priests right where he lives.
since for you "Ultramontanist" means "orthodox," same thing (except a Catholic priest would be an Orthodox one).

Of course I'm NOT an ultramontanist. If you are going to repeatedly sling playground taunts, why not just take your ball and run along home? You're doing such a fantastic job blindsiding me with such charity that I will be willing to consider Eastern Orthodoxy. Roll Eyes
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #72 on: June 25, 2011, 09:56:01 PM »


The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

You are correct, I misread the first few lines of an article about Kung. He was stripped of his title as a professor of Catholic Theology in 1979. That being said, some fifteen years passed from the first publication in English of his Doctoral dissertation through the revocation of his license, a period in which he was quite controversial and outspoken with respect to his opinions about the papacy and the post Vatican 2 church.

Indeed, contrary to conventional EO wisdom the Holy See is not some shadowy tyrannical power with its tentacles all over the place. Only the most notorious usually get punished, and not quickly. It took Rome over a decade to get rid of that awful bishop in Australia.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #73 on: June 25, 2011, 09:56:26 PM »

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries.  That's it.  No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.
Are you sure that there are no different beliefs? For example, on the importance of the Julian calendar, and for another, whether women are to wear headcovering in Church? Some Orthodox have the belief that in accordance with Holy Scripture, woman are to wear headcovering in Church, while others have a different belief and say it is optional.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #74 on: June 25, 2011, 09:59:55 PM »

You know why there are all these jurisdictions in America, because America is a unique situation and these particular churches came from their respective countries. That's it.  No doctrinal differences nor different beliefs.
Are you sure that there are no different beliefs? For example, on the importance of the Julian calendar, and for another, whether women are to wear headcovering in Church? Some Orthodox have the belief that in accordance with Holy Scripture, woman are to wear headcovering in Church, while others have a different belief and say it is optional.

I think those have to do more with the conservative/ liberal divide that plague so many churches and not any actual theological differences.  Also the calendar issue can be dogmatic with some jurisdictions, such as the Old Calendar Greeks or ROCOR, but it can just be a custom like as with the Ukrainians and Serbs.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #75 on: June 25, 2011, 10:13:02 PM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future. 

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,707


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #76 on: June 25, 2011, 11:12:02 PM »

Quote from: elijahmaria

 laugh laugh laugh

Yes indeed.  You'll pick nits with Catholics using bad cut-n-paste history and then minimize ALL of the variations in Orthodoxy...down to zero.

That's how ya be doin' it, Professor.

You noticed?  Wink Cheesy
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #77 on: June 25, 2011, 11:47:07 PM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

Quote
As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

These are pastoral things, not doctrinal.


Opinions of single believers are not "faith of different jurisdictions".

Well schisms over "pastoral" things and even more petty things is a terrible indictment.

As for reception and baptism, that's hardly pastoral, I think. It's ecclesiological.

Differing views of Catholics is definitely a major issue. As far as it being a matter of schism ... are you referring to the GOC?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #78 on: June 25, 2011, 11:50:13 PM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.
But the "spirit of Vatican II" types are not nominal.  Anything but: they are quite dedicated to there beliefs.

I prefer to call them "neo-conservative Catholics".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #79 on: June 26, 2011, 12:01:30 AM »

That said, to the OP: come for Orthodoxy, not against the Vatican.  Talk to one of the Vatican's more traditional priests.  Pure gold fears no fire.

What if he can't afford the cost of flying all the way out to Vatican City?

you ultramontanists chorttle on about how the Vatican has its tenacles all over the world.
I think he would do just as well to talk to some orthodox Catholic priests right where he lives.
since for you "Ultramontanist" means "orthodox," same thing (except a Catholic priest would be an Orthodox one).

Of course I'm NOT an ultramontanist.
You repudiate Pastor Aeternus?

If you are going to repeatedly sling playground taunts, why not just take your ball and run along home?

Look at the masthead of the site:orthodoxchristianity.net. I am home.

Since the ball is in your court, can you find a definition of "ultramontanist" that doesn't identify you? Find, mind you. Not make up.

You're doing such a fantastic job blindsiding me with such charity that I will be willing to consider Eastern Orthodoxy. Roll Eyes
Mark 4:12
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 12:01:59 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #80 on: June 26, 2011, 12:04:06 AM »


The early works of Hans Kung, at least those prior to Kung's 1995  removal from his position as a professor of Catholic theology at the University at Tuebingen comes to mind. Prior to 1995 he was a Catholic theologian, the facts are the facts.


No, they aren't the facts. He was removed in 1979, not 1995. The Holy See moved slowly against him, but not that slowly.

You are correct, I misread the first few lines of an article about Kung. He was stripped of his title as a professor of Catholic Theology in 1979. That being said, some fifteen years passed from the first publication in English of his Doctoral dissertation through the revocation of his license, a period in which he was quite controversial and outspoken with respect to his opinions about the papacy and the post Vatican 2 church.

Indeed, contrary to conventional EO wisdom the Holy See is not some shadowy tyrannical power with its tentacles all over the place. Only the most notorious usually get punished, and not quickly. It took Rome over a decade to get rid of that awful bishop in Australia.
John Hepworth?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #81 on: June 26, 2011, 12:08:48 AM »

It is obvious in conversation and in print media that Orthodox jurisdictions vary quite broadly on the truths of the faith.  

Any proofs?

How about personal experience? I've met many nominal Orthodox, as well as unorthodox Orthodox. That's just the way it is. We have the same problem, of course.

Quote
As for jurisdictional doctrinal conflicts, it seems that the fact that you folks go through schisms over your different views about Catholicism is a real problem. A 1.2 billion-member Christian Church that claims the same apostolic lineage as you, and you still haven't even figured out how to receive an individual from this church.

These are pastoral things, not doctrinal.


Opinions of single believers are not "faith of different jurisdictions".

Well schisms over "pastoral" things and even more petty things is a terrible indictment.
yes, you leveled that charge, but not named an instance.

 
As for reception and baptism, that's hardly pastoral, I think. It's ecclesiological.
Then you failed Economia 101.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #82 on: June 26, 2011, 12:30:54 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.  This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a More "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.  

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20Th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.

If I had a dollar for every time some smug traditionalist Catholic has given me that line "I don't have the time to point out all the errors of" on one of my commentaries then I'd surely be another Rockefeller right now.

Yes, please try to repudiate my comments by attempting to claim how the Vatican Council never really intended to change Catholicism.  It was just all misinterpreted by misguided clergy and laymen.  In fact Vatican II intended to change nothing.  It actually was supposed to make the RCC even more traditional and anti modern then it was before the Council.  If you believe all that spiel, then I've gotta couple bridges I can sell you for decent price.

Wetter you or any other know it all traditionalist likes to admit it, the RCC has changed over the past fifty years and she will continue to change and develop as she always has done.  It is you traditionalsit who are the true heretics for repudiating the universal authority of the Pope and the bishops to make any changes to the faith.  You repudiate Pastor Aeternus and the divine authority for binding and loosing that the Pope and his Church posses.  You feel free to either disregard or outrightly preach against the changes in the Church and wish to turn back the clock and bring us back kicking and screaming into the dark ages.  Well, let me tell you "it ain't gonna happen any time soon".  We more moderate minded RC's are not going to let your little disgruntled minority of young fogies and sexually frustrated, neo fascist clergy bring us back there.  We have changed as a Church and you are just going to have to accept it as so or find yourself another religion to plague with your anti modern drivel.

Yes, Its clear that lubeltri is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrism
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 12:36:42 AM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #83 on: June 26, 2011, 01:20:38 AM »

Ialmisry:

You want a real Ultramontanist? Look at Robb. He thinks he is more Catholic than Pope Benedict XVI and Blessed Pope John XXIII. All hail Pope Robb I!

« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 01:36:34 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #84 on: June 26, 2011, 01:32:04 AM »

Here I shall quote from Pope Benedict XVI, to whom our Ultramontanist Modernist friend Robb here claims absolute fidelity:

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.


These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.


In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.
The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one. However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself. . . .

Here I shall cite only John XXIII's well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". And he continues: "Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us...". It is necessary that "adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness..." be presented in "faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...", retaining the same meaning and message.


As Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Holy Office, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

"The more vigorously the papacy was displayed, the more the question came up of about the extent and limits of this authority, which, of course, as such had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not 'manufactured' by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity."
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #85 on: June 26, 2011, 02:28:37 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future. 

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA? 
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #86 on: June 26, 2011, 03:11:56 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.  

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?  

Come on now. You're looking at the practice in one country and claiming that the universal Catholic teaching has been changed? You've got to be kidding me. Roll Eyes

Of course the teaching hasn't changed at all.

How do I explain it? Either abuses at the tribunal level, or people's massive ignorance or rejection of the requirements for a valid Catholic, sacramental marriage. Both may very well be true, and even the Pope said as much in his interview published in book form last fall.

The divorce culture in which we live and the massive failure of catechesis, especially in the United States, have taken their toll. And if there were EVER a time to give up the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, it would be now. But it hasn't been and won't.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 03:13:17 AM by lubeltri » Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #87 on: June 26, 2011, 03:32:14 AM »

Ialmisry:

You want a real Ultramontanist? Look at Robb. He thinks he is more Catholic than Pope Benedict XVI and Blessed Pope John XXIII. All hail Pope Robb I!



Well I'm currently out of work and wouldn't mind the job (Plus living in Rome) Grin

I should point out that I am in no way a liberal or consider myself sympathetic towards the modernist slant in the RCC.  I would best describe myself as a moderate, run of the mill Catholic with some conservative leanings.  I certainly do approve of BXVI's hermeneutic of Continuity and his attempt to blend the old and new ways together for the benefit of the Church.  I also support the greater involvement of the laity in the RCC as proscribed by Vatican II.  Although some who go too far with their dissent may cast a dark cloud over the movement, the laity certainly should have a role in helping the Church with her mission.

I still believe that some of the changes, such as vernacular liturgy and easier annulments were a great blessings on the Church and helped to make the the RCC better able to gain the trust and devotion of her people.  My own mother was a benefactor of an annulment which allowed for her to return to the sacramnets after 15 years absense.  How many others have had the same blessing due to the easier annulment process that was streamlined after the Council?  This annulment situation, the reconcilling of those who were outside the Church through her powers of economia is just such a great thing.  Yet the traditionalist would seem to have us stop this process and declare all post Vatican II annulments invalid.  I don't think that would go over too well with many people (My family included).
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 03:37:12 AM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #88 on: June 26, 2011, 03:38:03 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future. 

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA? 

Come on now. You're looking at the practice in one country and claiming that the universal Catholic teaching has been changed? You've got to be kidding me. Roll Eyes

Of course the teaching hasn't changed at all.

How do I explain it? Either abuses at the tribunal level, or people's massive ignorance or rejection of the requirements for a valid Catholic, sacramental marriage. Both may very well be true, and even the Pope said as much in his interview published in book form last fall.

The divorce culture in which we live and the massive failure of catechesis, especially in the United States, have taken their toll. And if there were EVER a time to give up the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, it would be now. But it hasn't been and won't.
For the Catholic Church to tell someone after twenty years of marriage, and four children,  that they really were not married at all, because at the time of the wedding ceremony twenty years ago,  there was some small defect of consent, is really an extremely serious change in Catholic teaching.  The annulment fiasco is basically a coverup to hide the fact that the Catholic Church in the USA is handing out  Church approved divorces.  Consider this: There never would have been any question of the marriage being invalid if the husband had not gained a few extra pounds of weight (basically due to the wife’s cooking anyway) and the wife had not found herself a new slimmer and younger boyfriend who was able to satisfy her insatiable and lustful appetite for sex.  So the whole annulment fiasco is one big charade to cover the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the acceptability of divorce.  The teaching on what are the valid grounds for annulling a marriage has changed severely. Eighty years ago, marriage annulments were allowed when it was found and proven  that the other partner had been previously married or in the case of  a medically substantiated claim of total male impotence. And basically, that was it. Today, almost any Catholic can get  a marriage annulment for the most trivial of reasons. You can always find some small difficulty in any marriage and blow it up way out of proportion so that in the end,  the Catholic marriage tribunal will find for the annulment.
And BTW, when a marriage annulment is granted, it is recognised throughout the entire Catholic world, and its validity is not restricted to the USA or the locality in which it was granted.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 03:39:20 AM by stanley123 » Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #89 on: June 26, 2011, 03:41:43 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future. 

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA? 

Yes, the RCC now factors in conditions relating to marriage which she previously didn't (Such as mental stability and actual loss of love between partners).  I think the present annulment situation in the RCC is a great tool for reconcilliation.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #90 on: June 26, 2011, 03:49:39 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.  

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?  

Come on now. You're looking at the practice in one country and claiming that the universal Catholic teaching has been changed? You've got to be kidding me. Roll Eyes

Of course the teaching hasn't changed at all.

How do I explain it? Either abuses at the tribunal level, or people's massive ignorance or rejection of the requirements for a valid Catholic, sacramental marriage. Both may very well be true, and even the Pope said as much in his interview published in book form last fall.

The divorce culture in which we live and the massive failure of catechesis, especially in the United States, have taken their toll. And if there were EVER a time to give up the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, it would be now. But it hasn't been and won't.
For the Catholic Church to tell someone after twenty years of marriage, and four children,  that they really were not married at all, because at the time of the wedding ceremony twenty years ago,  there was some small defect of consent, is really an extremely serious change in Catholic teaching.  The annulment fiasco is basically a coverup to hide the fact that the Catholic Church in the USA is handing out  Church approved divorces.  Consider this: There never would have been any question of the marriage being invalid if the husband had not gained a few extra pounds of weight (basically due to the wife’s cooking anyway) and the wife had not found herself a new slimmer and younger boyfriend who was able to satisfy her insatiable and lustful appetite for sex.  So the whole annulment fiasco is one big charade to cover the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the acceptability of divorce.  The teaching on what are the valid grounds for annulling a marriage has changed severely. Eighty years ago, marriage annulments were allowed when it was found and proven  that the other partner had been previously married or in the case of  a medically substantiated claim of total male impotence. And basically, that was it. Today, almost any Catholic can get  a marriage annulment for the most trivial of reasons. You can always find some small difficulty in any marriage and blow it up way out of proportion so that in the end,  the Catholic marriage tribunal will find for the annulment.
And BTW, when a marriage annulment is granted, it is recognised throughout the entire Catholic world, and its validity is not restricted to the USA or the locality in which it was granted.

Since I'm a big fan of the Orthodox concept of economia, I have no problem with this.  Jesus told Peter and his successors that whatever they bind on Earth would be bound in Heaven whatever they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.  This would include, I assume things like annulments and divorce (Which was accepted by the entire Christian world in the first millennium).  It was only when the RCC tried to muscle in on marriage in the 11Th century (Which had previously been  civil affair) That the whole idea of the indissolubility of marriage came into play.  The Orthodox rightly preserve the idea that divorce is permittable under certain circumstances while the RCC went another route and ended up causing a lot of people misery in unhappy marriages over the centuries.  

Also, if we can't even trust the RCC to grant valid annulments, then who can we trust?  This whole concept of the Catholic Faith xisting as some type of philosophy which the Church just interprets and can get wrong sounds way to Protestant to me.  Its the Vatican which is not just the interpreter of the faith, but is the voice of the faith.  If they mess up then that means the Church was never true in the first place because the RCC can neither deceive or be deceived.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 03:50:37 AM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #91 on: June 26, 2011, 03:59:18 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future.  

I don't have time to point out all the errors of fact and interpretation in this paragraph, so a comment shall have to suffice.

And this is why laity are not involved in "developing [read: altering] the faith". Or groups of priests or bishops for that matter. Or even the Pope himself.

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society. This increasing contrast between the culture and the church can only be good for the church, as only the most committed members, those most hungry for real holiness, will remain.
BTW, hasn't the RC teaching on marriage annulments evolved and been updated to meet the modern needs of a cover for Church approved divorce? How else do you explain the fact that in the USA, about 80 years ago, there were about 10 marriage annulments per year, but in some recent years, it has run higher than 50,000 per year in the USA?  

Come on now. You're looking at the practice in one country and claiming that the universal Catholic teaching has been changed? You've got to be kidding me. Roll Eyes

Of course the teaching hasn't changed at all.

How do I explain it? Either abuses at the tribunal level, or people's massive ignorance or rejection of the requirements for a valid Catholic, sacramental marriage. Both may very well be true, and even the Pope said as much in his interview published in book form last fall.

The divorce culture in which we live and the massive failure of catechesis, especially in the United States, have taken their toll. And if there were EVER a time to give up the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, it would be now. But it hasn't been and won't.
For the Catholic Church to tell someone after twenty years of marriage, and four children,  that they really were not married at all, because at the time of the wedding ceremony twenty years ago,  there was some small defect of consent, is really an extremely serious change in Catholic teaching.  The annulment fiasco is basically a coverup to hide the fact that the Catholic Church in the USA is handing out  Church approved divorces.  Consider this: There never would have been any question of the marriage being invalid if the husband had not gained a few extra pounds of weight (basically due to the wife’s cooking anyway) and the wife had not found herself a new slimmer and younger boyfriend who was able to satisfy her insatiable and lustful appetite for sex.  So the whole annulment fiasco is one big charade to cover the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the acceptability of divorce.  The teaching on what are the valid grounds for annulling a marriage has changed severely. Eighty years ago, marriage annulments were allowed when it was found and proven  that the other partner had been previously married or in the case of  a medically substantiated claim of total male impotence. And basically, that was it. Today, almost any Catholic can get  a marriage annulment for the most trivial of reasons. You can always find some small difficulty in any marriage and blow it up way out of proportion so that in the end,  the Catholic marriage tribunal will find for the annulment.
And BTW, when a marriage annulment is granted, it is recognised throughout the entire Catholic world, and its validity is not restricted to the USA or the locality in which it was granted.

Since I'm a big fan of the Orthodox concept of economia, I have no problem with this.  Jesus told Peter and his successors that whatever they bind on Earth would be bound in Heaven whatever they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.  This would include, I assume things like annulments and divorce (Which was accepted by the entire Christian world in the first millennium).  It was only when the RCC tried to muscle in on marriage in the 11Th century (Which had previously been  civil affair) That the whole idea of the indissolubility of marriage came into play.  The Orthodox rightly preserve the idea that divorce is permittable under certain circumstances while the RCC went another route and ended up causing a lot of people misery in unhappy marriages over the centuries.  

Also, if we can't even trust the RCC to grant valid annulments, then who can we trust?  This whole concept of the Catholic Faith xisting as some type of philosophy which the Church just interprets and can get wrong sounds way to Protestant to me.  Its the Vatican which is not just the interpreter of the faith, but is the voice of the faith.  If they mess up then that means the Church was never true in the first place because the RCC can neither deceive or be deceived.
Does the Catholic Church have the authority to bind and loose even when she makes bad pastoral and administrative decisions?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #92 on: June 26, 2011, 09:07:15 AM »

Fr Kung may have been striped of his authority to teach theology, but he seems to still be an RC priest in good standing.  Catholicism is going through a difficult reevaluation of many of her (Once assumed) beliefs and, although it may be taking time the process is still a continuing one.   This has always been the case with the RCC.  Doctrines, dogma's and theological/moral propositions have changed and evolved down through the centuries.  In the past though it occurred at a much slower rate and the laity were mostly too uneducated or uninformed about these to take part (Assuming that they would have been allowed to do so).  Vatican II changed all that.  Now the Vatican has thrown open the windows to the modern world and actually asked the laity to take an active part in the development of the faith.  This is a revolutionary concept in the Roman rite (Which previously held to a more  "pray, pay, and obey" statues for laymen).  Things have got kind of confusing since everything we once thought was "settled" has come under scrutiny and either has been kept in place or discarded (Limbo for instance).

I think this is an exciting time to be a Catholic.  Others obviously do not and are disappointed that things aren't so black and white as they used to be.  Some just want to hide their heads in the sand and shout "heresy" at every idea and innovation which once was considered suspect and might now be approved or, at least not outrightly discouraged by Rome.  Those of us who choose to listen to the Pope  as St Peters successor and the bishops he has put in place to Shepperd us (Whether they be perceived as "good" or "bad") Need not worry about the future. 

I see you take a rather dim view of traditional Catholics. I can somewhat relate, because I did too, once upon a time.

But that's not what I want to get into at the moment. Rather, I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you something about your neo-conservative buddies: one of their all-time favorite arguments to use against traditional Catholics is If we were to let you have your say, we would have to also let people like Hans Kung have their say.

Something to think about, wouldn't you say?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2011, 10:51:55 AM »

This annulment situation, the reconcilling of those who were outside the Church through her powers of economia is just such a great thing.  Yet the traditionalist would seem to have us stop this process and declare all post Vatican II annulments invalid.  I don't think that would go over too well with many people (My family included).

So you think declarations of nullity are just Catholic divorce? Well, there we are. You are dissenting from perennial Catholic teaching.
 
The tribunals granting these declarations of nullity are not saying, "Oh, well, I know your last marriage was really difficult, and we want to help you get a fresh start. We'll take care of it for you." They are saying, "For this or that reason, your last union was not a validly contracted marriage. It was void." Thus the teaching has not changed. There are certainly a lot more granted in the United States than there used to be. But like the Pope said, perhaps so many people over the last generation or two are not formed/prepared for the sacrament of marriage. Perhaps some of these tribunals have your heterodox views on marriage and are paying lip service to the teaching while circumventing it. That's bad, and those people will be accountable to God for it, but it doesn't change the teaching.

Lots of things don't go over too well with many people. Let's allow birth control too, how about abortion? Oh, and premarital sex and homosex, too.  After all, these teachings are too haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!  
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 10:53:27 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2011, 11:01:41 AM »


Since I'm a big fan of the Orthodox concept of economia, I have no problem with this.  Jesus told Peter and his successors that whatever they bind on Earth would be bound in Heaven whatever they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.  This would include, I assume things like annulments and divorce (Which was accepted by the entire Christian world in the first millennium).  It was only when the RCC tried to muscle in on marriage in the 11Th century (Which had previously been  civil affair) That the whole idea of the indissolubility of marriage came into play.  The Orthodox rightly preserve the idea that divorce is permittable under certain circumstances while the RCC went another route and ended up causing a lot of people misery in unhappy marriages over the centuries.  

Also, if we can't even trust the RCC to grant valid annulments, then who can we trust?  This whole concept of the Catholic Faith xisting as some type of philosophy which the Church just interprets and can get wrong sounds way to Protestant to me.  Its the Vatican which is not just the interpreter of the faith, but is the voice of the faith.  If they mess up then that means the Church was never true in the first place because the RCC can neither deceive or be deceived.

Then I guess the Catholic Church isn't true since, as you say in the first paragraph, it got its teaching on Christian marriage wrong!



Or maybe you're like Sr. Joan, and you believe in a fallible, man-made Church whose teachings can be changed at will by the whim of the Pope (as you've stated before) or by the "laity" (as you've stated before; I guess through voting on doctrine, or perhaps by way of polling results?).
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2011, 11:14:21 AM »

This annulment situation, the reconcilling of those who were outside the Church through her powers of economia is just such a great thing.  Yet the traditionalist would seem to have us stop this process and declare all post Vatican II annulments invalid.  I don't think that would go over too well with many people (My family included).

So you think declarations of nullity are just Catholic divorce? Well, there we are. You are dissenting from perennial Catholic teaching.
 
The tribunals granting these declarations of nullity are not saying, "Oh, well, I know your last marriage was really difficult, and we want to help you get a fresh start. We'll take care of it for you." They are saying, "For this or that reason, your last union was not a validly contracted marriage. It was void." Thus the teaching has not changed. There are certainly a lot more granted in the United States than there used to be. But like the Pope said, perhaps so many people over the last generation or two are not formed/prepared for the sacrament of marriage. Perhaps some of these tribunals have your heterodox views on marriage and are paying lip service to the teaching while circumventing it. That's bad, and those people will be accountable to God for it, but it doesn't change the teaching.

Lots of things don't go over too well with many people. Let's allow birth control too, how about abortion? Oh, and premarital sex and homosex, too.  After all, these teachings are too haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!  
Evidently for the Vatican, staying away from the Corban is way too haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!

Any evidence of the Corban factories a/k/a marriage tribunals operating before 1054?

Btw, I recall something about all marriages being presumed valid unless proved otherwise, and even those annulled the children are not illegitimate (nice trick). but I just came across some canon passed in the Vatican drive to stamp out clerical marriage, in which it declared all such marriages void, and even went as so far to declare the children vassals of the church and forbidding them to live with their parents, especially their father.

Btw, yes, illegitimacy is an ecclesiastlical matter: at one point the Vatican had a canon banning bastards from ordination.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2011, 11:17:13 AM »

Robb,

Council of Trent, session 24:

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2011, 04:30:28 PM »

Robb,

Council of Trent, session 24:

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
Let Trent be anathema.

Some history of anullments put it best "the canonists left it to the theologians to figure out how one instance of sexual intercourse made the marriage alone immune to St. Peter's otherewise absolute power to bind and loose."

I found the exact quote:
Quote
The popes and canonists left it up to theologians to explain how an indissoluble union could be dissolved before consummation and why sexual intercourse produced an indissolubility that was impervious to the power of the keys.
Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments By Pierre Hégy, Joseph Martos
http://books.google.com/books?id=QDsMG2U3IZwC&pg=PA136&dq=theologians+keys+sex+annulment&hl=en&ei=h5cHTpuLHcj40gHXzpjZCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 04:37:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2011, 08:53:50 PM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #99 on: June 26, 2011, 08:53:50 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage#History_of_marriage_in_the_Catholic_Church

History of marriage in the Catholic ChurchConcern about the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God as supported by Jesus and early followers such as Saint Paul, and the need to avoid 'earthly ties', meant inevitably that first-century Christians placed less value on the family but rather saw celibacy (not marrying) and freedom from family ties as a preferable state. Paul had suggested that marriage be used only as a last resort by those Christians that found it too difficult to remain chaste.[2]

Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament, because it was a symbol used by Paul to express Christ's love of the Church. Despite this, for the Fathers of the Church with their profound hostility to sex, marriage could not be a true and valuable Christian vocation. Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil" (Letter 22). Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication" (An Exhortation to Chastity") Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication. Augustine was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end.

This negative view of marriage was reflected in the lack of interest shown by the Church authorities. Although the Church quickly produced liturgies to celebrate Baptism and the Eucharist, no special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage, nor was it considered important for couples to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation. At first the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and was identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome.[3]


Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #100 on: June 26, 2011, 10:52:49 PM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.

Robb, I have to say that this is not one of your best posts. Far from it. Your argument apparently involves the assumption that the end result of a phony annulment (followed by a phony remarriage of course) is damnation. But this assumption is absurd, since then any phony marriage would lead to damnation.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2011, 12:17:16 AM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
You might want to take a look at the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don’t believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Now what happened in this case is that the annulment was granted and the tribunal declared that there never was any marriage. OK. So that’s the way it is. But wait, what if you dispute this, which is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy did. Then what. Then after ten years, the RCC decided that they were wrong,and reversed themselves, saying that the marriage was valid in the first place.
Now what about all those annulments which were not disputed. How do you know which ones would and which ones would not be overturned if you never try to overturn them?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/

Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2011, 12:27:40 AM »

That's the rub. Most American declarations of nullity which are appealed to Rome are overturned!

And since I'm not a canonist and am just a lay slob, I am not qualified to speculate about the ones which are not appealed to Rome. The practice of the Faith can be quite messy in a pagan, habitually polygamous culture like America's. We have to do our best and trust God to sort it all out. I do know that were I on a marriage tribunal, I would TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY MY RESPONSIBILITY, as if my own soul were at stake.

Alas, it's always been like this when Christianity is present in a culture with very different values. People of weak faith tend to compromise. There have been messy compromises by individual Christians ever since the Edict of Milan. And really even before that, if you look at the pages of the New Testament.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 12:29:49 AM by lubeltri » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #103 on: June 27, 2011, 12:47:18 AM »

If a couple applies for an annulment and are granted a decree of nullity by a marriage tribunal, but the tribunal was wrong and they were, in fact, actually married and yet both members remarry, is the couple's souls at stake or the ones at the tribunal that messed up?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2011, 01:00:08 AM »

If a couple applies for an annulment and are granted a decree of nullity by a marriage tribunal, but the tribunal was wrong and they were, in fact, actually married and yet both members remarry, is the couple's souls at stake or the ones at the tribunal that messed up?
Right.
Suppose that the marriage tribunal says that the marriage was invalid and so based on that decision, a woman gets married and raises a family of six children with her new (second) husband. Now, ten years later, the Vatican comes out and says that the tribunal had made a mistake, and the first marriage was actually the valid one, even though, the lady did not have any children from the first marriage. Now is she supposed to abandon her new (second)  husband and her six children by her second marriage, since the Vatican has now said that the tribunal made a mistake? But her first husband has gone off and married someone else. Now what?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #105 on: June 27, 2011, 01:07:52 AM »

If a couple applies for an annulment and are granted a decree of nullity by a marriage tribunal, but the tribunal was wrong and they were, in fact, actually married and yet both members remarry, is the couple's souls at stake or the ones at the tribunal that messed up?
Right.
Suppose that the marriage tribunal says that the marriage was invalid and so based on that decision, a woman gets married and raises a family of six children with her new (second) husband. Now, ten years later, the Vatican comes out and says that the tribunal had made a mistake, and the first marriage was actually the valid one, even though, the lady did not have any children from the first marriage. Now is she supposed to abandon her new (second)  husband and her six children by her second marriage, since the Vatican has now said that the tribunal made a mistake? But her first husband has gone off and married someone else. Now what?

That's a pretty odd hypothetical. Can you give me an example of an actual case that was overturned?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2011, 01:48:47 AM »

Can you give me an example of an actual case that was overturned?
Joseph Kennedy and Sheila Rauch Kennedy.
It took ten years to ovberturn the annulment decision of the Boston tribunal.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2011, 01:55:04 AM »

If a couple applies for an annulment and are granted a decree of nullity by a marriage tribunal, but the tribunal was wrong and they were, in fact, actually married and yet both members remarry, is the couple's souls at stake or the ones at the tribunal that messed up?
Right.
Suppose that the marriage tribunal says that the marriage was invalid and so based on that decision, a woman gets married and raises a family of six children with her new (second) husband. Now, ten years later, the Vatican comes out and says that the tribunal had made a mistake, and the first marriage was actually the valid one, even though, the lady did not have any children from the first marriage. Now is she supposed to abandon her new (second)  husband and her six children by her second marriage, since the Vatican has now said that the tribunal made a mistake? But her first husband has gone off and married someone else. Now what?

That's a pretty odd hypothetical. Can you give me an example of an actual case that was overturned?
Come now. You're in Boston: you know it is not that hypothetical:
Quote
On February 3, 1979, Kennedy and Sheila Brewster Rauch (born March 22, 1949)[45] were married in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania. She is a daughter of Rudolph Stewart Rauch and Frances Stuart Brewster. (Both the Brewster and Rauch families were socially prominent with a tradition in coachbuilding; the Brewsters had owned Brewster & Co., an American coachbuilder.) The couple had twin sons, Matthew Rauch Kennedy and Joseph Patrick Kennedy III (born 1980, in Boston); and were divorced in 1991.

Two years later, Kennedy asked the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston for an annulment of the marriage on the grounds of "lack of due discretion of judgment", meaning that he was mentally incapable of entering into marriage at the time of his wedding. An annulment would give the marriage the status of never having existed, and allow Kennedy to marry Anne Elizabeth "Beth" Kelly — his former staff member — in a Roman Catholic ceremony, as well as allow him to participate in other sacraments of the church, such as Holy Communion, not available to a divorced person who remarries.[46][47] Rauch refused to agree to the annulment,[48] and Kennedy married Kelly (born April 3, 1957)[45] in a non-Catholic civil ceremony on October 23, 1993.

The Boston Archdiocese did grant Kennedy the annulment, a fact discovered by Rauch when it was granted in 1996.[46] Rauch, who is an Episcopalian, wrote a book Shattered Faith: A Woman's Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage[48] explaining that she was opposed to the concept of annulment, because it meant in Roman Catholic theology that the marriage had never actually existed, and claiming that the Kennedy family influence made it possible to unilaterally "cancel" a twelve-year marriage. She appealed to the Vatican to overturn the annulment.[49]

The annulment was overturned by the highest appellate tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Rota, in 2005. Rauch was informed of the decision by the Boston Archdiocese in 2007.[50] Because the Rota was sitting as a second-instance appellate court,[51] Kennedy could appeal the decision to another Rotal panel.[49][51]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Patrick_Kennedy_II
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2011, 02:11:42 AM »

In this case, where is the part where Kennedy had no kids with his first marriage and and six kids with his second (sham) marriage?

Oh, none? I didn't think so.

-

It's pretty simple, on appeal Rome ruled that the tribunal erred. Roma locuta est.

And anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Kennedys pressured the Boston tribunal to give them it, over the wife's objections. Good for her for exposing the tribunal.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 02:14:54 AM by lubeltri » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #109 on: June 27, 2011, 02:24:55 AM »

In this case, where is the part where Kennedy had no kids with his first marriage and and six kids with his second (sham) marriage?

Oh, none? I didn't think so.

-

It's pretty simple, on appeal Rome ruled that the tribunal erred. Roma locuta est.

And anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Kennedys pressured the Boston tribunal to give them it, over the wife's objections. Good for her for exposing the tribunal.
No. But the Kennedy case was overturned in Rome ten years after the Boston decision.
 And as well, 92% of those cases which are appealed to Rome are overturned. So then what.
The scenario that I have described is not impossible to have happened or to happen in the future, and what then? It illustrates  an extremely serious flaw in the process, does it not?
How many other tribunal decisions are totally wrong, and we will never know about it, because
they were not appealed to Rome?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #110 on: June 27, 2011, 04:50:20 AM »

In this case, where is the part where Kennedy had no kids with his first marriage and and six kids with his second (sham) marriage?

Oh, none? I didn't think so.

-

It's pretty simple, on appeal Rome ruled that the tribunal erred. Roma locuta est.

And anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Kennedys pressured the Boston tribunal to give them it, over the wife's objections. Good for her for exposing the tribunal.
No. But the Kennedy case was overturned in Rome ten years after the Boston decision.
 And as well, 92% of those cases which are appealed to Rome are overturned. So then what.
The scenario that I have described is not impossible to have happened or to happen in the future, and what then? It illustrates  an extremely serious flaw in the process, does it not?
How many other tribunal decisions are totally wrong, and we will never know about it, because
they were not appealed to Rome?


My question is, Stanley, why does it concern you? If you're God or actually a person in responsibility (tribunal judge, bishop), I can see why. But otherwise, just forget about it and let God sort it out whether a tribunal's particular decisions are "true" or not.

As for the overturning of decisions, well, that happens. It's called the wheels of justice.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2011, 05:26:47 AM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
You might want to take a look at the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don't believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Now what happened in this case is that the annulment was granted and the tribunal declared that there never was any marriage. OK. So that’s the way it is. But wait, what if you dispute this, which is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy did. Then what. Then after ten years, the RCC decided that they were wrong,and reversed themselves, saying that the marriage was valid in the first place.
Now what about all those annulments which were not disputed. How do you know which ones would and which ones would not be overturned if you never try to overturn them?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/



That sounds like a case of scandalous use of annulment process, but you can't just generalize with one broad stroke that ALL annulments granted in the U.S. are uncanonical  based on one mishap.  If the Vatican is allowing such big mistakes of this nature to go either unchecked or unpunished then they are just as guilty (If not even more so) Then the messed u marriage tribunal system here in the states.

I still just couldn't fathom that God would allow such a thing to occur in his own Church or damn those souls who placed their trust in that Church for a proper verdict. 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2011, 09:28:46 AM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.


Robb,

Council of Trent, session 24:

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
Let Trent be anathema.

Some history of anullments put it best "the canonists left it to the theologians to figure out how one instance of sexual intercourse made the marriage alone immune to St. Peter's otherewise absolute power to bind and loose."

I found the exact quote:
Quote
The popes and canonists left it up to theologians to explain how an indissoluble union could be dissolved before consummation and why sexual intercourse produced an indissolubility that was impervious to the power of the keys.
Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments By Pierre Hégy, Joseph Martos
http://books.google.com/books?id=QDsMG2U3IZwC&pg=PA136&dq=theologians+keys+sex+annulment&hl=en&ei=h5cHTpuLHcj40gHXzpjZCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,038



« Reply #113 on: June 27, 2011, 09:55:35 AM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
You might want to take a look at the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don't believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Now what happened in this case is that the annulment was granted and the tribunal declared that there never was any marriage. OK. So that’s the way it is. But wait, what if you dispute this, which is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy did. Then what. Then after ten years, the RCC decided that they were wrong,and reversed themselves, saying that the marriage was valid in the first place.
Now what about all those annulments which were not disputed. How do you know which ones would and which ones would not be overturned if you never try to overturn them?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/



That sounds like a case of scandalous use of annulment process, but you can't just generalize with one broad stroke that ALL annulments granted in the U.S. are uncanonical  based on one mishap.  If the Vatican is allowing such big mistakes of this nature to go either unchecked or unpunished then they are just as guilty (If not even more so) Then the messed u marriage tribunal system here in the states.

I still just couldn't fathom that God would allow such a thing to occur in his own Church or damn those souls who placed their trust in that Church for a proper verdict. 

Please read:

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.

Robb, I have to say that this is not one of your best posts. Far from it. Your argument apparently involves the assumption that the end result of a phony annulment (followed by a phony remarriage of course) is damnation. But this assumption is absurd, since then any phony marriage would lead to damnation.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 27, 2011, 10:05:45 AM »

I still trust the decisions of the Vatican and the bishops appointed by them on these matters.  If they RCC can error by allowing millions of people to be damned by giving out phony annulments then she has obviously defected from the truth.  These hair brained idea espoused by many traditionalist on the supposed invalidity of annulments sound just as strange as their other ideas about all Novus Ordo masses being invalid because of bad translations, or all priestly ordinations in the new rite being invalid dot to incorrect formula.  The list of traditionalsit paranoia and conspiracy theories regarding the post Vatican II Church is an endless sea of muck.

I don't take such a legalistic view of things.  I can't fathom that God would be so cruel as allow his Church to error about such important issues and thus damn millions of people to Hell on account of it.  I see the RCC as being Gods voice on Earth and not just the keepers of some long ago traditions.  This is the reason why I abandoned the trad Catholic movement and embraced the modern Church.  I just couldn't buy into the cold, calculating cruelty that the traditionalist would have me believe was God.  He wouldn't damn people for listening to his Church.
You might want to take a look at the book: “Shattered Faith,” by the Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Here’s how her Catholic husband, Joseph Kennedy explains the Catholic theory of annulments to his non-Catholic wife: “Of course I think we had a true marriage. But that doesn’t matter now. I don't believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook.”
Now what happened in this case is that the annulment was granted and the tribunal declared that there never was any marriage. OK. So that’s the way it is. But wait, what if you dispute this, which is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy did. Then what. Then after ten years, the RCC decided that they were wrong,and reversed themselves, saying that the marriage was valid in the first place.
Now what about all those annulments which were not disputed. How do you know which ones would and which ones would not be overturned if you never try to overturn them?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/



That sounds like a case of scandalous use of annulment process, but you can't just generalize with one broad stroke that ALL annulments granted in the U.S. are uncanonical  based on one mishap.  If the Vatican is allowing such big mistakes of this nature to go either unchecked or unpunished then they are just as guilty (If not even more so) Then the messed u marriage tribunal system here in the states.

I still just couldn't fathom that God would allow such a thing to occur in his own Church or damn those souls who placed their trust in that Church for a proper verdict. 

Why not?  You generalize things with one broad stroke all the time.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #115 on: June 27, 2011, 11:35:09 AM »

In this case, where is the part where Kennedy had no kids with his first marriage and and six kids with his second (sham) marriage?

Oh, none? I didn't think so.

-

It's pretty simple, on appeal Rome ruled that the tribunal erred. Roma locuta est.

And anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Kennedys pressured the Boston tribunal to give them it, over the wife's objections. Good for her for exposing the tribunal.
Good for her that she had the resources to fight it all the way back to the Vatican.

And that's what is operative.  How many do not have such resources, and get stuck with a "faulty" judgement (in quotation marks because what is a faulty judgement in a foolish system?)?

As for your scholastic answer, the fact that his new wife is of child bearing age and could easily have been even younger exposes the jesuitry for what it is.  I know couples who had kids in their second marriage, after an "annulment." I'll bet you do too.  Since you have to get divorced before you seek an annulment, many (most?) have no interest in contesting an annulment, not matter how bogus, and of those who would, very few have the resources to run off to the Vatican (literally) to do so.  But we are told by the Corban masters that mutual consent doesn't count in their factories, people can't agree to dissolve a "valid" marriage.

I could no doubt do a search of publically known annulments (most are not, I understand), but that hardly seems worth the trouble, as the "theoretical" example is quite firmly based on reality.  Far more than the Vatican's Corban, and the faith in it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #116 on: June 27, 2011, 11:57:59 AM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 27, 2011, 12:15:23 PM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.

Your personal life is clouding your judgment
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #118 on: June 27, 2011, 01:51:35 PM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.

Your personal life is clouding your judgment
Oh? do tell, how so? Do give details.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 27, 2011, 01:54:07 PM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.

Your personal life is clouding your judgment
Oh? do tell, how so? Do give details.

I don't need to...You broadcast on a very broad spectrum. 
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #120 on: June 27, 2011, 03:10:06 PM »

You have such an incredible bias against the Catholic Church in general
I have such a credible bias towards the Catholic Church in general and in particular.

As for the Vatican, I make no apologies for my bias towards Truth and the Catholic Church (basically the same thing, or the same Person).  If the Vatican is weighed in the scales of Truth and found wanting, oh well.
and against the annulment process in particular that your witness is not credible at all in this particular area of Catholic teaching.
Why? Because I've been invited to Corban and crumpettes, and have declined, while you wash it all down with magisterial Kool-Aid?

Annulments are not Catholic teaching: they are a post schism invention of the Vatican.

Your personal life is clouding your judgment
Oh? do tell, how so? Do give details.

I don't need to...You broadcast on a very broad spectrum.  
so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 03:10:37 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 27, 2011, 03:28:19 PM »


Both of you cool it.

Now.  
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 03:28:37 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: June 27, 2011, 03:30:48 PM »

so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.

No.  By your own admission and periodic reference, you have had an unhappy divorce and an even unhappier annulment.  In that light you judge the Catholic Church.  I am not persuaded by those who have a bone to pick that is quite as personal and sore as the one you display here.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #123 on: June 27, 2011, 04:00:22 PM »

so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.

No.  By your own admission and periodic reference, you have had an unhappy divorce and an even unhappier annulment.  In that light you judge the Catholic Church.  I am not persuaded by those who have a bone to pick that is quite as personal and sore as the one you display here.
What annulment?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: June 27, 2011, 04:32:53 PM »

so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.

No.  By your own admission and periodic reference, you have had an unhappy divorce and an even unhappier annulment.  In that light you judge the Catholic Church.  I am not persuaded by those who have a bone to pick that is quite as personal and sore as the one you display here.
What annulment?



The way you've spoken about it, it seemed as though you've gone through an annulment process.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps you are not even divorced yet.  Perhaps there never was a marriage.  I can only speak about what it seems that you've been indicating over time.  It's ugly whatever it is.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #125 on: June 27, 2011, 04:52:06 PM »

The funny thing about the heresy of Modernism is that it doesn't claim to restore the "true" ancient teaching like the old heresies all claimed. Instead it proclaims a "brave new world" where the apostolic teaching has "evolved" or been "updated" to meet "modern needs". It's remarkable when you think of the massive revolution in the West and in Catholicism in the 20th century that the Modernists may have brought on crisis and catastrophe, but they didn't prevail, and their influence is steadily on the wane in the Catholic Church even as the are triumphant in outside society.
The question i am addressing is whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church has been updated to meet modern needs. According to what you say here, modernism is steadily on the wane in the RCC.
However, I don't think that is true. And the example, that I give is the example of the teaching of the RCC on what constitutes a valid marriage. Before Vatican II, annulments were given for only the most extremely serious of solid reasons. After Vatican II, in the USA, almost anyone can get a marriage annulment for very trivial reasons. For example, consider the book: Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. This book is "Designed as a practical companion to the author's previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law."

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)

Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.

Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.

About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.

The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.

Obviously, these are things that can come up in any marriage.
So it is clear that contrary to what was written by the poster quoted, modernism has entered the Catholic Church since, for example,  the annulment process has been watered down to the extent that almost anyone in the USA can get a marriage annulment .
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #126 on: June 27, 2011, 05:09:31 PM »

so it was yet another broad assertion not backed up.  so our readers should just add it to your pile.

No.  By your own admission and periodic reference, you have had an unhappy divorce and an even unhappier annulment.  In that light you judge the Catholic Church.  I am not persuaded by those who have a bone to pick that is quite as personal and sore as the one you display here.
What annulment?



The way you've spoken about it, it seemed as though you've gone through an annulment process.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps you are not even divorced yet.  Perhaps there never was a marriage.  I can only speak about what it seems that you've been indicating over time.  It's ugly whatever it is.
Oh, you got the last part right.  However, my views on marriage, divorce and annulments, the Orthodox ones, are the same I held long before I was married, let alone divorced.

According to the State of IL and Orthodox Church there was a marriage, no matter what the Vatican thinks.

If someone had a happy divorce, would that disqualify them from speaking?  I mean, they have a vested interest in supporting the annulmnet scheme.  As for me
Jah - the only thing i would add is that i think it is true that the marriage bond is eternal. our marriage service has no "till death do us part." i have been taught that the marriage crowns are together on the heavenly altar. although there will obviously not be sexual relations in Heaven, the bond remains i think - ideally that relationship is part of what got you to Heaven in the first place!

What about divorced/remarried couples? I don't think there is a marriage bond in heaven."29But Jesus answered and said to them, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.  For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:29-30)
LOL. Yes, I'm in a quandry-do I have to remarry to be rid of my ex-wife? I have a vested interest in there being no marriage in heaven....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #127 on: June 27, 2011, 05:17:47 PM »

Oh, you got the last part right.  However, my views on marriage, divorce and annulments, the Orthodox ones, are the same I held long before I was married, let alone divorced.

All right. 
Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #128 on: June 28, 2011, 06:35:07 PM »

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.

Without specifics, this claim is meaningless.

Quote
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted

All rules need to be interpreted.  This applies to Orthodoxy as well as to Catholicism.  But to what rules were the priest referring?

Quote
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)

Yep. 

Quote
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.

How can any devotion guarantee saving grace?  Is faith irrelevant? Is there no difference between the sacraments and sacramentals of the Church?  God's love and mercy are unconditional!  There is nothing, absolutely nothing, we can do, must do, to make God love us more than he does.  That is gospel, the gospel.

Quote
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.

Hmmm, I think your priest needs to explain precisely what he means.

Quote
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.

There is a distinction between mortal and grave sin: clearly murder is objectively a more serious sin than, say, theft or gossip.  I think everyone would agree about that.  But mortal sin also includes what might be described as subjective conditions: e.g., it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.  For any given individual, gossip might well be a mortal sin, i.e., fundamental rejection of God and his grace. 
 
Quote
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.

Your priest is expressing his personal opinion, not the position of the Catholic Church.

Quote
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.


Yep.  Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, etc.--I suppose these can be accurately described as "different" spiritualities.  But that doesn't mean they are "wrong" or contradictory.  Nor does it mean that Orthodoxy can be reduced to one "spirituality," whatever that might mean.

There are reasons, good reasons, why one might choose to be Orthodox rather than Catholic; but it is important to state these reasons accurately and nonpolemically.

Fr Aidan+ 
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,707


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #129 on: June 28, 2011, 06:46:08 PM »

Quote from: akimel
Yep.  Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, etc.--I suppose these can be accurately described as "different" spiritualities.  But that doesn't mean they are "wrong" or contradictory.  Nor does it mean that Orthodoxy can be reduced to one "spirituality," whatever that might mean.

There are reasons, good reasons, why one might choose to be Orthodox rather than Catholic; but it is important to state these reasons accurately and nonpolemically.

Fr Aidan+ 

Very well said.  Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #130 on: July 10, 2011, 10:29:33 AM »

since many (most) don't have the hundreds of dollars to get everything from amazon, some links:
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_INDEX.HTM
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.

A textbook of systematic theology, written in Pre-Revolutionary Russia published by ROCOR, 20th century.


volumes 1 & 2[/quote]
http://books.google.com/books?id=-sU80t3ncpgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:VZVsh4VV5OYC&hl=en&ei=orMZTuStLOWNsAL4u5jCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=VZVsh4VV5OYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

20th century Romanian experiential/discursive treatment of themes of Orthodox dogma and engagement with the 20th century.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1PwtAAAAYAAJ&q=The+Mystery+of+Faith:+An+Introduction+to+the+Teaching+and+Spirituality+of+the+Orthodox+Church&dq=The+Mystery+of+Faith:+An+Introduction+to+the+Teaching+and+Spirituality+of+the+Orthodox+Church&hl=en&ei=t7QZToXBIOypsALNofnBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/5_1

The personal teaching of Met. Hilarion, a leading post-communism Russian bishop with pastoral care of Western Europe, and representing the Russian Church to the non-Orthodox.

to be cont....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: July 10, 2011, 11:00:25 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.


I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well.  

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation.  

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?


Here we are.  This is a short list of books that I know are used in real parishes to catechize real inquirers and real Orthodox faithful.  I have read them all, among others, over the years and use them regularly as reference books.  You will find an essentially similar faith in all of them taken as a whole but each one presents some widely variant details between and among themselves and also when weighed against what I find regularly on the Internet that is claimed to be universal Orthodox teaching and truth.  Enjoy!:

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308941315&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Experience-Revelation/dp/0917651707/ref=pd_sim_b_1

volumes 1 & 2

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Faith-Introduction-Teaching-Spirituality/dp/0232524726/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942148&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Faith-Christian-Foundations/dp/9608677823/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942993&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Christ-Nicholas-Cabasilas/dp/0913836125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943208&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Outline-Orthodox-Patristic-Dogmatics/dp/0974561843/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943288&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Theology-Historical-Trends-Doctrinal/dp/0823209679/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Tradition-Orthodox-Witness-Contemporary/dp/0913836486/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943651&sr=1-9

http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=pd_sim_b_4



I doubt if anyone will spend circa $500 to purchase 12 books so they can go chasing through them harem-scarem in a futile attempt to guess whatever citations Mary has in mind.

Couldn't she simply post here the citations which she wants us to see?

We have been accused of "deviance" in  our teaching and apparently Mary believes that these books provide proof of that.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:00:57 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: July 10, 2011, 11:27:35 AM »

What is this obsession with many Catholics saying we Orthodox have a variety of beliefs across the board?  I mean it's so unsupported by fact that it amazes me that it keeps getting said.  There is more variety in theology in different Catholic dioceses in the U.S. than anything else.  Just because it says "Greek Orthodox", "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Russian Orthodox" doesn't mean they are all different religions--obvious to even the most novice inquirer.  This is a very ignorant statement.  So, I would ask you to show proof of your consistent claims.


I have seven Orthodox texts that I have seen used in catechesis for inquirers and catechumen in an assortment of jurisdictions.  They all have things to say about certain teachings that are different enough to be quite noticeable.  I don't think that I am obligated to spend time citing them here.  I will note that I have seen and heard these differences in teaching over time and that is that.

The onus is on you really to go and read these Orthodox texts which are used in catechesis in Orthodoxy and compare them.  It has taken me years to see these things.  Perhaps you are not as well versed as you think you are.

Mary
7, huh?  that shouldn't be too many and too hard for you to list here, IOW, yes, you are obligated that much.  A few citations of what you allege would be nice as well. 

Indeed.  You have until Monday, June 27 @ 9:30am EDT to, at the very least, list these sources; you don't have to quote them, but it would be nice or you will be placed on post moderation. 

This an official request.


That's not a problem Schultz.  Mother has a broken hip and bowel cancer, generally in that order which is out of order in order of magnitude,  so I am pretty busy right now but I'll do what I can over the weekend to pull them out of my library.

Do I need full citations or will Author/Title do?


Here we are.  This is a short list of books that I know are used in real parishes to catechize real inquirers and real Orthodox faithful.  I have read them all, among others, over the years and use them regularly as reference books.  You will find an essentially similar faith in all of them taken as a whole but each one presents some widely variant details between and among themselves and also when weighed against what I find regularly on the Internet that is claimed to be universal Orthodox teaching and truth.  Enjoy!:

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308941315&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Experience-Revelation/dp/0917651707/ref=pd_sim_b_1

volumes 1 & 2

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Faith-Introduction-Teaching-Spirituality/dp/0232524726/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942148&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Faith-Christian-Foundations/dp/9608677823/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942993&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Christ-Nicholas-Cabasilas/dp/0913836125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943208&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Outline-Orthodox-Patristic-Dogmatics/dp/0974561843/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943288&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Theology-Historical-Trends-Doctrinal/dp/0823209679/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Tradition-Orthodox-Witness-Contemporary/dp/0913836486/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308943651&sr=1-9

http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=pd_sim_b_4



I doubt if anyone will spend circa $500 to purchase 12 books so they can go chasing through them harem-scarem in a futile attempt to guess whatever citations Mary has in mind.

Couldn't she simply post here the citations which she wants us to see?

We have been accused of "deviance" in  our teaching and apparently Mary believes that these books provide proof of that.


They do.  And I've read each one and never spent anywhere NEAR 500 dollars to have them in my library.  Interlibrary Loan and old dogeared copies from used book stores are fine with me.

You forget that I made serious strides toward transferring to Orthodoxy.  Along the way I did some serious study and investigating, so I you can poke fun at me all you like but you are the loser there, not me.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:28:18 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,196


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #133 on: July 10, 2011, 11:29:09 AM »

All hat and no cattle is our Mary ....
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #134 on: July 10, 2011, 06:27:16 PM »

continued
http://books.google.com/books?id=47ncMCfOj58C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

A modern (some would perhaps say 'modernist') collection of essays on reform and restatement of liturgical theology, by Fr. Schmemann of the emigre Russian turned OCA of the later 20th century.

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Our-Faith-Christian-Foundations/dp/9608677823/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308942993&sr=1-2[/quote]
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_bookinfo.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_prologue.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_scripture.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_tradition.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_salvation.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_secondcoming.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_thousandyearreign.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_glossalalia.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_magic_occultism.aspx

A series of questions and answers with the renowed 20th century Romanian spiritual elder Cleopa. The link Mary has is on the Holy Mysteries, which I could not find online (in English).  The above are from the same serial work, so it represents the same viewpoint, i.e. Elder Cleopa's (and Orthodoxy, which he represents).

http://books.google.com/books?id=f7D-5Q-Q19MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=editions:f7D-5Q-Q19MC&biw=1259&bih=623

What was a classic description of Orthodoxy, its history and beliefs, by the convert Metropolitan Timothy/Kallistos Ware of Britain (whose monastery is in Greece).  It has gone through several editions, the later ones IMHO less satisfactory than the previous ones.  In fact, the differences Mary alludes to could be shown perhaps between editions of this same work, done by one author. Is Met. Kallistos in dissention from himself?

http://books.google.com/books?id=iE45LzrfZuwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=nicholas+cabasilas&hl=en&ei=TR4aTvSSNLCosALlu_3BBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nicholas%20cabasilas&f=false
A patristic work of the 14th century Roman Empire by one of the original Hesychists, commenting on the Holy Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist as the basis of Christian life and experience.

http://books.google.com/books?id=U50KAAAACAAJ&dq=An+Outline+of+Orthodox+Patristic+Dogmatics&hl=en&ei=hh8aTre_LtSrsAKhmsTBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
Unfortunately, no preview. Other works of Fr. Rominides, a Greek priest theologian, educated in 20th century America and Greece, who taught in both places and in Lebanon, with an emphasis on hesychasm and the heritage of the East Roman Empire, can be seen here.:
http://www.romanity.org/
http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm#roman

http://books.google.com/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Byzantine+Theology:+Historical+Trends+and+Doctrinal+Themes&hl=en&ei=PCQaToWDLOqosAK59OXBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
A collection of historical essays essays by Fr. Meyendorff (whose hand I kissed in gratitude for bringing me to Orthodoxy, a month before he went to his reward) on "historical trends and dogmatic themes" in the history of Orthodoxy.


http://books.google.com/books?id=72QXSflRMqcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Living+Tradition:+Orthodox+Witness+in+the+Contemporary+World&hl=en&ei=ZSIaTq79A6OnsALoztXCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
A collection of essays by Fr. Meyendorff on the relevance of the Tradition Orthodoxy preserves in issues of the contemporary world and the present state of the Church and its relationship to the world and other confessions (including the Vatican).

http://books.google.com/books?id=dxqvWwPSCSwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
A exposition of the mystical thread that runs through Orthodox dogmas and their relevance to personal piety, by Vladimir Lossky of the second generation of Russian emigrees in France.  A personal favorite of mine, from when I first discovered Orthodoxy, but not so sure how good it would serve as a catechesis for new comers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
TheodoraElizabeth3
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 342


« Reply #135 on: July 13, 2011, 02:01:22 PM »

Since the CC's stance on artificial birth control is one of its most recognizable stances to many people, I wanted to comment on it.

I've known people who are active with the Couple to Couple League - Catholic Natural Family Planning organization. There are dioceses in my area whose bishops and priests absolutely refuse to allow any NFP literature to be put in parish literature racks. These bishops and priests also downright refuse to meet with the CCL people and refuse to allow NFP classes to be held at parishes.

Then there's the local cardinal archbishop who while he gives public lip service to the CC's stance on ABC and that couples to use NFP, he will do absolutely nothing to the priests who refuse to have themselves or their parishes associated with NFP in any way (no literature, classes, speakers). One woman tried to have a table at parish ministry fair, to hand out literature and answer questions. The priest told her it would not happen as long as he was there and to not bother to ask again.

Multiple Catholic friends across the US have told me that they are told in their pre-Cana (marriage prep) classes that yes, the CC only approves of NFP, but "you don't have to bother with that and you can use ABC if you want." This is by Church-approved teachers AND priests.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #136 on: July 13, 2011, 02:06:22 PM »

Since the CC's stance on artificial birth control is one of its most recognizable stances to many people, I wanted to comment on it.

I've known people who are active with the Couple to Couple League - Catholic Natural Family Planning organization. There are dioceses in my area whose bishops and priests absolutely refuse to allow any NFP literature to be put in parish literature racks. These bishops and priests also downright refuse to meet with the CCL people and refuse to allow NFP classes to be held at parishes.

Then there's the local cardinal archbishop who while he gives public lip service to the CC's stance on ABC and that couples to use NFP, he will do absolutely nothing to the priests who refuse to have themselves or their parishes associated with NFP in any way (no literature, classes, speakers). One woman tried to have a table at parish ministry fair, to hand out literature and answer questions. The priest told her it would not happen as long as he was there and to not bother to ask again.

Multiple Catholic friends across the US have told me that they are told in their pre-Cana (marriage prep) classes that yes, the CC only approves of NFP, but "you don't have to bother with that and you can use ABC if you want." This is by Church-approved teachers AND priests.

That's right.  And this also explains why Father Ambrose can go to the USCCB and find data heavily freighted against Natural Family Planning.  But that does not stop young men and women from starting parish based classes and circumventing those pastors and bishops who think Humanae Vitae is bunko.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #137 on: July 13, 2011, 02:33:57 PM »

Since the CC's stance on artificial birth control is one of its most recognizable stances to many people, I wanted to comment on it.

I've known people who are active with the Couple to Couple League - Catholic Natural Family Planning organization. There are dioceses in my area whose bishops and priests absolutely refuse to allow any NFP literature to be put in parish literature racks. These bishops and priests also downright refuse to meet with the CCL people and refuse to allow NFP classes to be held at parishes.

Then there's the local cardinal archbishop who while he gives public lip service to the CC's stance on ABC and that couples to use NFP, he will do absolutely nothing to the priests who refuse to have themselves or their parishes associated with NFP in any way (no literature, classes, speakers). One woman tried to have a table at parish ministry fair, to hand out literature and answer questions. The priest told her it would not happen as long as he was there and to not bother to ask again.

Multiple Catholic friends across the US have told me that they are told in their pre-Cana (marriage prep) classes that yes, the CC only approves of NFP, but "you don't have to bother with that and you can use ABC if you want." This is by Church-approved teachers AND priests.

That's right.  And this also explains why Father Ambrose can go to the USCCB and find data heavily freighted against Natural Family Planning.  But that does not stop young men and women from starting parish based classes and circumventing those pastors and bishops who think Humanae Vitae is bunko.


And, as you never tire of raising the hew and cry, such actions against your much vaunted "magisterium" is above their (the married great unwashed) pay grade.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 02:34:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #138 on: July 13, 2011, 02:44:36 PM »

Since the CC's stance on artificial birth control is one of its most recognizable stances to many people, I wanted to comment on it.

I've known people who are active with the Couple to Couple League - Catholic Natural Family Planning organization. There are dioceses in my area whose bishops and priests absolutely refuse to allow any NFP literature to be put in parish literature racks. These bishops and priests also downright refuse to meet with the CCL people and refuse to allow NFP classes to be held at parishes.

Then there's the local cardinal archbishop who while he gives public lip service to the CC's stance on ABC and that couples to use NFP, he will do absolutely nothing to the priests who refuse to have themselves or their parishes associated with NFP in any way (no literature, classes, speakers). One woman tried to have a table at parish ministry fair, to hand out literature and answer questions. The priest told her it would not happen as long as he was there and to not bother to ask again.

Multiple Catholic friends across the US have told me that they are told in their pre-Cana (marriage prep) classes that yes, the CC only approves of NFP, but "you don't have to bother with that and you can use ABC if you want." This is by Church-approved teachers AND priests.

That's right.  And this also explains why Father Ambrose can go to the USCCB and find data heavily freighted against Natural Family Planning.  But that does not stop young men and women from starting parish based classes and circumventing those pastors and bishops who think Humanae Vitae is bunko.


And, as you never tire of raising the hew and cry, such actions against your much vaunted "magisterium" is above their (the married great unwashed) pay grade.

You make no sense here...What else is new?
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #139 on: July 13, 2011, 03:10:21 PM »

Since the CC's stance on artificial birth control is one of its most recognizable stances to many people, I wanted to comment on it.

I've known people who are active with the Couple to Couple League - Catholic Natural Family Planning organization. There are dioceses in my area whose bishops and priests absolutely refuse to allow any NFP literature to be put in parish literature racks. These bishops and priests also downright refuse to meet with the CCL people and refuse to allow NFP classes to be held at parishes.

Then there's the local cardinal archbishop who while he gives public lip service to the CC's stance on ABC and that couples to use NFP, he will do absolutely nothing to the priests who refuse to have themselves or their parishes associated with NFP in any way (no literature, classes, speakers). One woman tried to have a table at parish ministry fair, to hand out literature and answer questions. The priest told her it would not happen as long as he was there and to not bother to ask again.

Multiple Catholic friends across the US have told me that they are told in their pre-Cana (marriage prep) classes that yes, the CC only approves of NFP, but "you don't have to bother with that and you can use ABC if you want." This is by Church-approved teachers AND priests.

That's right.  And this also explains why Father Ambrose can go to the USCCB and find data heavily freighted against Natural Family Planning.  But that does not stop young men and women from starting parish based classes and circumventing those pastors and bishops who think Humanae Vitae is bunko.


And, as you never tire of raising the hew and cry, such actions against your much vaunted "magisterium" is above their (the married great unwashed) pay grade.

You make no sense here...What else is new?
Nothing new: I just repeated your old routine. That's why it doesn't make any sense.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #140 on: July 13, 2011, 03:15:58 PM »

Since the CC's stance on artificial birth control is one of its most recognizable stances to many people, I wanted to comment on it.

I've known people who are active with the Couple to Couple League - Catholic Natural Family Planning organization. There are dioceses in my area whose bishops and priests absolutely refuse to allow any NFP literature to be put in parish literature racks. These bishops and priests also downright refuse to meet with the CCL people and refuse to allow NFP classes to be held at parishes.

Then there's the local cardinal archbishop who while he gives public lip service to the CC's stance on ABC and that couples to use NFP, he will do absolutely nothing to the priests who refuse to have themselves or their parishes associated with NFP in any way (no literature, classes, speakers). One woman tried to have a table at parish ministry fair, to hand out literature and answer questions. The priest told her it would not happen as long as he was there and to not bother to ask again.

Multiple Catholic friends across the US have told me that they are told in their pre-Cana (marriage prep) classes that yes, the CC only approves of NFP, but "you don't have to bother with that and you can use ABC if you want." This is by Church-approved teachers AND priests.

That's right.  And this also explains why Father Ambrose can go to the USCCB and find data heavily freighted against Natural Family Planning.  But that does not stop young men and women from starting parish based classes and circumventing those pastors and bishops who think Humanae Vitae is bunko.


And, as you never tire of raising the hew and cry, such actions against your much vaunted "magisterium" is above their (the married great unwashed) pay grade.

You make no sense here...What else is new?
Nothing new: I just repeated your old routine. That's why it doesn't make any sense.

Petty per usual.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #141 on: July 13, 2011, 03:18:49 PM »

Since the CC's stance on artificial birth control is one of its most recognizable stances to many people, I wanted to comment on it.

I've known people who are active with the Couple to Couple League - Catholic Natural Family Planning organization. There are dioceses in my area whose bishops and priests absolutely refuse to allow any NFP literature to be put in parish literature racks. These bishops and priests also downright refuse to meet with the CCL people and refuse to allow NFP classes to be held at parishes.

Then there's the local cardinal archbishop who while he gives public lip service to the CC's stance on ABC and that couples to use NFP, he will do absolutely nothing to the priests who refuse to have themselves or their parishes associated with NFP in any way (no literature, classes, speakers). One woman tried to have a table at parish ministry fair, to hand out literature and answer questions. The priest told her it would not happen as long as he was there and to not bother to ask again.

Multiple Catholic friends across the US have told me that they are told in their pre-Cana (marriage prep) classes that yes, the CC only approves of NFP, but "you don't have to bother with that and you can use ABC if you want." This is by Church-approved teachers AND priests.

That's right.  And this also explains why Father Ambrose can go to the USCCB and find data heavily freighted against Natural Family Planning.  But that does not stop young men and women from starting parish based classes and circumventing those pastors and bishops who think Humanae Vitae is bunko.


And, as you never tire of raising the hew and cry, such actions against your much vaunted "magisterium" is above their (the married great unwashed) pay grade.

You make no sense here...What else is new?
Nothing new: I just repeated your old routine. That's why it doesn't make any sense.

Petty per usual.
It's your routine.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #142 on: July 13, 2011, 03:20:00 PM »



This merry go round has come to an end.  Thank you for participating and please come visit us again.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.641 seconds with 170 queries.