Topic: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew

[Wyatt]

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.

We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.

You clearly believe the line has not been crossed yet. But on what grounds do you believe this? The canons don't just forbid mutual communion with heretics; they forbid mutual prayer. The line was crossed when the anathemas were lifted. If and when full communion comes, it will only be the final end of the descent into heresy.

You're assuming two things: A. that your communion is the true Church, and B. that one party is heretical. I disagree with you on both points, so we appear to be at an impasse.

[William]

Jonathan,

Is your Old Calendar jurisdiction one of the ones that believes that "World Orthodoxy" has valid sacraments?

[Ortho_cat]

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.

Once they concelebrate i will believe that the schism has been healed...

[username!]

JGross, I never said they didn't, re-read my post, I said they lifted the excommunications but nothing has changed, so it must be empty, and howwould they really proove it ever ended if they can declare it over and no one listens? 

Heresy is a huge word to throw around.  To be a heretic is to be orthodox then leave and drag other people into your beliefs.  I'm just happy that I belong to a communion that is recognised world-wide as being Eastern Orthodox and I can share in the sacraments with every other Orthodox person that is in communion with me, hence, the whole Orthodox church.

[PeterTheAleut]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.

I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.

[stanley123]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?

The New Testament revelations are a done thing? So as the New Testament reveals slaves should remain subject to their masters, regardless of how harsh they may be? If there is slavery somewhere in the world today, and the reports are that it does exist, Christians should not encourage their liberty, but rather should encourage them to be obedient to their masters, regardless of how harsh their masters may be as was commanded in the New Testament? That doesn't seem right. It seems like it would be better to encourage freedom for slaves and not that they continue to submit and obey their harsh masters? 

[Wyatt]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?

Easy. Christ was talking about the Church, not just the Apostles.

[Shiny]

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.

[biro]

You really know how to make somebody feel welcome.

[Shiny]

You really know how to make somebody feel welcome.

Of course, that's why I never put out a welcome mat.

But seriously the point of this section on the board is not about bickering between RC's and Orthodox, as Fr. Anastasios has already said in the past.

[dzheremi]

Just the same, I would think that any errors put forth by RCs would give Orthodox an opportunity to expose them to right teaching, even if they don't take to it (though some will). I don't know if openly questioning their participation here really furthers that.

[Shiny]

Just the same, I would think that any errors put forth by RCs would give Orthodox an opportunity to expose them to right teaching, even if they don't take to it (though some will). I don't know if openly questioning their participation here really furthers that.

I'm just getting real tired of the same old canards RC's keep employing. How people like Isa and Fr. Ambrose cotinue dialouging with them I'll never get. It truly is a hopeless endeavor. The best excuse I ever heard for someone posting on this board was "Oh it's because Orthodox skew Eastern Catholic beliefs so I have to correct them.". No you do not. This is an Orthodox Christian message board not an EC one. If an Orthodox member wants to inquire about joining the EC then they will find the proper outlets to do so.

If we are really that wrong about the RC faith, let us be. It doesn't really matter to the committed Orthodox, they won't change. There was what maybe one occurence of an Orthodox becoming RC and that was never due to the polemics of the RC's here?

Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.

[biro]

Okay, if you say so.     

[dzheremi]

My guess would be that Isa and Fr. Ambrose and others probably continue doing it because that's what you do when you are convinced that a brother is in error. I am sure that when Jesus Christ told Peter that he is to forgive his brother not only seven times, but seventy times seven, He said that with the knowledge that this was beyond the amount that would be considered tiresome (as it still is). But that's still what we are to do.

[stanley123]

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? ...Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.

My purpose has been to learn a little bit about the Orthodox Church. A while back, I did try to take an Orthodox catechism class which was given by an Orthodox priest, however, he said that  I would not be able to join since his class was not open to heretics.  
I have been somewhat distressed by some of what has gone on in the RCC recently with the huge  increase in marriage annulments (in the USA),  the sex scandals, the so-called "abuses" in the Roman liturgy, changes in disciplinary teachings, etc.  I see the Orthodox Church as an Apostolic Church, with an exceptionally fine liturgy and a certain stability in teaching, and I wanted to know a little more about what are the differences between the two Churches. R. Catholics have been talking about possible reunion with the E. Orthodox Church, but since neither side is willing to make concessions to the other, and since there is a whole lot of bad blood between the two Churches,  I don't see it happening (at least for a long while at best).

[stanley123]

Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.

I have tried to contribute within my capability. For example, there was a discussion a while back where one poster claimed that Maple was a superior program to Mathematica. My contribution to that discussion was to illustrate with an example of a calculation which Mathematica performed correctly, while Maple did not.

[biro]

"Thank you, thank you- I didn't know I was the worst person in the world until you told me."

- Eugene O'Neill, 'Long Day's Journey Into Night'

[mike]

Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.

I have tried to contribute within my capability. For example, there was a discussion a while back where one poster claimed that Maple was a superior program to Mathematica. My contribution to that discussion was to illustrate with an example of a calculation which Mathematica performed correctly, while Maple did not.

MATLAB!

[Jonathan Gress]

JGross, I never said they didn't, re-read my post, I said they lifted the excommunications but nothing has changed, so it must be empty, and howwould they really proove it ever ended if they can declare it over and no one listens? 

Heresy is a huge word to throw around.  To be a heretic is to be orthodox then leave and drag other people into your beliefs.  I'm just happy that I belong to a communion that is recognised world-wide as being Eastern Orthodox and I can share in the sacraments with every other Orthodox person that is in communion with me, hence, the whole Orthodox church.

But it's not true that nothing has changed. Before, the Pope and the Patriarch didn't pray together. Now they do.

[Jonathan Gress]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.

I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.

[Jonathan Gress]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?

The New Testament revelations are a done thing? So as the New Testament reveals slaves should remain subject to their masters, regardless of how harsh they may be? If there is slavery somewhere in the world today, and the reports are that it does exist, Christians should not encourage their liberty, but rather should encourage them to be obedient to their masters, regardless of how harsh their masters may be as was commanded in the New Testament? That doesn't seem right. It seems like it would be better to encourage freedom for slaves and not that they continue to submit and obey their harsh masters? 

Well I would say that it would be inconsistent with the Gospel to encourage slaves to rebel, but it would be consistent to encourage masters to free their slaves.

[Jonathan Gress]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?

Easy. Christ was talking about the Church, not just the Apostles.

The Orthodox believe that all the dogmatic truth of the faith was revealed to the Apostles on Pentecost, but these dogmas were at first held in the heart and were not necessarily yet couched in precise formulas. The purpose of the later dogmatic pronouncements of the Fathers was not because these later pronouncements represent new dogmatic revelations, but rather they are Spirit-guided expositions of dogmas that have previously been held in an unexpounded form.

[PeterTheAleut]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.

I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.

Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.

[Jonathan Gress]

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.

We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.

You clearly believe the line has not been crossed yet. But on what grounds do you believe this? The canons don't just forbid mutual communion with heretics; they forbid mutual prayer. The line was crossed when the anathemas were lifted. If and when full communion comes, it will only be the final end of the descent into heresy.

You're assuming two things: A. that your communion is the true Church, and B. that one party is heretical. I disagree with you on both points, so we appear to be at an impasse.

Hm I think I forgot you were different from Ortho_cat. But I would still disagree with your assertion that "nothing has changed". I don't know how anyone can maintain this position amid all the evidence for mutual prayer. Just in case none of you has seen it, here is the famous video of the Pope's visit to the Phanar, where you can see the deacon commemorating the Pope's name and bowing to him, as he would to an Orthodox hierarch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH7x5kGAKIY

[Jonathan Gress]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.

I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.

Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.

I didn't say "you mean" but "I think you mean". And I believe your own grievances refer to your interesting argument that you can accept the authority of the Apostolic Canons, except when it involves conceding that the said canons completely undermine your assertions about what the Church has traditionally believed about the validity of heretical baptism. When you tell me that the Canons are not sufficient evidence for what the Church believed, I reasonably point out that this must entail you do not accept their authority, after which you claim that I "put words in your mouth".

I pointed out that you can't say you accept the canons one moment and not accept them the next. Interestingly, other contributors supported me in this, showing that I'm not alone in thinking that you like to resort to chicanery in order to wriggle out of losing an argument. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[PeterTheAleut]

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.

I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.

Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.

I didn't say "you mean" but "I think you mean".

"I think you mean...", "You mean..."... Is there really a difference? You're still projecting your thoughts into the other person's mind.

And I believe your own grievances refer to your interesting argument that you can accept the authority of the Apostolic Canons, except when it involves conceding that the said canons completely undermine your assertions about what the Church has traditionally believed about the validity of heretical baptism. When you tell me that the Canons are not sufficient evidence for what the Church believed, I reasonably point out that this must entail you do not accept their authority, after which you claim that I "put words in your mouth".

Asserting your certainty that St. Basil the Great means nothing to me? I had never said anything about St. Basil prior to that post.

Asserting that my personal opinion is that the Apostolic Canons are bogus? I never said that the Apostolic Canons are bogus and went to great pains to repeat to you that the only thing I considered bogus was your interpretation of said Apostolic Canons.

Yes, these are both attempts to put words into my mouth. You did it to me, and now you've done it to serb1389. You really need to stop doing that and start actually engaging what other people say.

I pointed out that you can't say you accept the canons one moment and not accept them the next. Interestingly, other contributors supported me in this, showing that I'm not alone in thinking that you like to resort to chicanery in order to wriggle out of losing an argument. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Yes, we do have a few posters here who are critical of my debate style, but we also have a good number of posters here who have voiced their criticisms of your debate style. I'd say we're even.

I also notice that those contributors whose "support for your position" you like to cite here, Iconodule and jckstraw72, commented only on my debate style. They offered no words whatsoever in defense of the actual substance of your arguments on that thread.

[Jonathan Gress]

Given that your own reputation is hardly impeccable, I don't think you have the moral authority to point fingers at me and tell me how I should be conducting my arguments as if you're the impartial judge in this situation.

When someone says "truth is not a static process", what am I supposed to understand by that? I understood it to mean that this person does not believe revelation was something given all at once, as the Orthodox Church believes, but something gradually doled out over time, as the Catholics believe. I think that's a heresy and I said so. It then turned out this person didn't seem to mean that, but really it's his own problem in not expressing very clearly what he actually believed.

I don't know what you're referring to about St Basil. And no, it is not true that all you ever objected to was my "interpretation" of the Apostolic Canons. You were the one who first challenged my appeal to the authority of the Canons by objecting that they only appeared in the 4th century. If that isn't challenging their authority, what does the date of their appearance have to do with my argument?

[Wyatt]

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.

I wonder if deep down you are truly scared and doubting your faith and that that is the real reason that you are lashing out at Catholics.

Also, the reason why we keep using the "regurgitated vomit" (redundancy? vomited vomit?) is because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements. So yes, we do often sound like a broken record, but it is because you guys tend to completely ignore our points. We raise a valid point about the something pertaining to our faith, and you all just resort to the old Eastern Orthodox mantra of "but like......the Pope is a heretic and junk." Who is really denying the truth here?

[biro]

What does "Matlab" mean?

[elijahmaria]

Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?  I had it in here a minute ago, and now its gone...

[Jetavan]

Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?

That's not kosher.

[Irish Hermit]

, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements.

I am sure that most of the Orthodox do not understand how the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium presents binding infallible teaching to the Catholic Church, without issuing magisterial statements.  Could you share with us, briefly?

Years ago when I made enquiries I was told that examples of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were Limbo and the (material) fires of purgatory.

[Irish Hermit]

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:

It has nothing to do with the magisterium. Nihil obstats are issued by individual bishops.

No, they are not issued by bishops.  They are issued by theologians.  Their work is to examine a book and declare that it is free from doctrinal error and that what is in it may be believed by the Catholic faithful.

All a nihil obstat says is that nothing within a literary work is inherently heretical. It does not in any way say that the magisterium approves every letter of the book as official Church teaching.

Since a Nihil Obstat is not issued by a bishop you are correct in saying that it is not the approval of the magisterium.


Btw, it is the Imprimatur which a bishops issues which permits a work to be printed with his blessing. 

.....  seriously, if you want to convince people to think like you do, at least make it appear like you know and are presenting facts.

Well, I do agree with that.  All the Catholics on here have lost a little credibility since they are confused about Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs and who issues what!

[elijahmaria]

Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?

That's not kosher.

Prolly why I can't find it...somebody threw the blasted thing in the trash...no doubt!

[elijahmaria]

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:

Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

[Irish Hermit]

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:

Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.    The Nihil Obstat is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

[elijahmaria]

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:

Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.    The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

[Irish Hermit]

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:

Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.    The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

[elijahmaria]

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:

Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.    The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

[JamesRottnek]

There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.

You're quite wrong Michal.  Clearly, St. John (Maximovitch) is the patron saint of the Orthodox World and Church.  I mean, what other saint lived in so much of it?

[Shiny]

Thank you Stanely for your post and your sincerity.

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.

I wonder if deep down you are truly scared and doubting your faith and that that is the real reason that you are lashing out at Catholics.

Also, the reason why we keep using the "regurgitated vomit" (redundancy? vomited vomit?) is because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements. So yes, we do often sound like a broken record, but it is because you guys tend to completely ignore our points. We raise a valid point about the something pertaining to our faith, and you all just resort to the old Eastern Orthodox mantra of "but like......the Pope is a heretic and junk." Who is really denying the truth here?

So out of all this nonsense you still haven't answered my question. Let's try this again.

Why do you still post on this forum? It is clear that you are in no way interested in joining the Orthodox Church nor are you interested in Orthodoxy itself.

My faith rests on the solid pillars of Orthodoxy. It is like a rock. If RC's, like Stanely, who are interested in the Church and want to learn more and maybe think about possibly becoming a member then I have absoultley no issue with it. I welcome them and hope they find the answers here to be illuming. The issue I have is when RC's who have no intention joining the Orthodox or even remotely interested in what they believe still post here and continue to bicker and embroil themselves over issues that have been tireless refuted by Orthodox members. I believe Fr. Ambrose took care of the rest of your post so I won't bother with it.

[mike]

There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.

You're quite wrong Michal.  Clearly, St. John (Maximovitch) is the patron saint of the Orthodox World and Church.  I mean, what other saint lived in so much of it?

Holy Spirit. j/k

[Irish Hermit]

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:

Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.    The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.

[William]

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? ...Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.

My purpose has been to learn a little bit about the Orthodox Church. A while back, I did try to take an Orthodox catechism class which was given by an Orthodox priest, however, he said that  I would not be able to join since his class was not open to heretics.  

The class or the Church?

[elijahmaria]

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:

Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.    The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.

The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it. 

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.