OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 05:57:49 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: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson  (Read 4344 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,105


« Reply #90 on: November 06, 2012, 05:22:54 PM »

And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.

Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition.
The topic here is  the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.

I see what you did there
22 posts later and now   the light  goes off.......not much gets by you eh?  Grin

I'm very slow.


Would you even concede Benedict being the Bishop of Rome?

I'm one of those hipster-doofus sedevacantists.
fixed it for you. Grin
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,728



« Reply #91 on: November 06, 2012, 05:27:45 PM »

Hey man, I'm of the saner kind of sedevacantist  Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 05:29:48 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #92 on: November 06, 2012, 05:42:00 PM »

Actually, not all traditionalists like the traditional-wing of CAF -- in much the same way that not all Eastern Catholics like the eastern-wing of CAF.

Which is exactly why they are a better audience Wink
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #93 on: November 06, 2012, 07:28:46 PM »

Martel, why don't you come home inside? It must be terribly lonely out there to be the lone last proper Christian. We have cozy beards and baklava!
Baklava most defintely, but you can keep those scruffy beards.  Grin

Thanks for the offer anyway.  Wink

Scruffy's going to get one of them $300 haircuts. This one's lost its pizzazz.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 75


« Reply #94 on: November 13, 2012, 10:28:20 AM »

Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
Hallelujah.
I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.
I don't think that Bishop Williamson is the reason for the failed negotiations.  In fact, it sounds like he hasn't really been "in the loop" at the SSPX for a while.  I think the real sticking point between the SSPX and the Roman bureaucracy continues to be the place of Vatican II in Roman Catholic teaching.
At one point throughout the negotiations, Bp. Fellay was starting to sound very positive about normalization of relations with Rome. Suddenly, the ultra-anti-VII crowd started moaning and groaning, and Bp. Fellay reversed his position. We know that Bp. Williamson is the most vocal proponent of the ultra-anti-VII idea and I would have a hard time believing that he didn't influence the reversal of position on the part of Bp. Fellay.
That is one way of looking at it, but I think you are giving too much importance to Bishop Williamson.  I think the "anti-Vatican II" crowd is still alive and well in the SSPX, and I think Bishop Fellay, as sympathetic as he is to reuniting with Rome, ultimately decided in favor of that group.  I think Vatican II remains the main sticking point between Rome and the SSPX and I do not see that changing any time soon.  In fact, some recent comments from Pope Benedict in support of Vatican II make it seem unlikely that communion will be restored between Rome and the SSPX in the foreseeable future.

Correct. Vatican II is the sticking point.
Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 75


« Reply #95 on: November 13, 2012, 10:37:39 AM »

Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

moi aussi.

- From a different perspective than at least Choy, I would have to say me too.
If SSPX is what the RCC was - which is confirmed basically by taking a brief look at pre-conciliar catechisms -  then the Novus Ordo VaticanII church of Rome cannot be reconciled with its own past.
There are 2 different religions in play here. With VaticanII a new one was invented (Not to say there were no such innovations before, as I have become aware of during the last year)
Sedevacantism is a theological opinion and an option, but rests on the belief that the RCC is the true church. That is very hard to believe.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #96 on: November 13, 2012, 11:36:55 AM »

Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

moi aussi.

- From a different perspective than at least Choy, I would have to say me too.
If SSPX is what the RCC was - which is confirmed basically by taking a brief look at pre-conciliar catechisms -  then the Novus Ordo VaticanII church of Rome cannot be reconciled with its own past.
There are 2 different religions in play here. With VaticanII a new one was invented (Not to say there were no such innovations before, as I have become aware of during the last year)
Sedevacantism is a theological opinion and an option, but rests on the belief that the RCC is the true church. That is very hard to believe.

The attitude of the traditionalists confirms that they are not bearers of Truth.  By their fruits you will know them.
Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 75


« Reply #97 on: November 13, 2012, 04:28:33 PM »

Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

moi aussi.

- From a different perspective than at least Choy, I would have to say me too.
If SSPX is what the RCC was - which is confirmed basically by taking a brief look at pre-conciliar catechisms -  then the Novus Ordo VaticanII church of Rome cannot be reconciled with its own past.
There are 2 different religions in play here. With VaticanII a new one was invented (Not to say there were no such innovations before, as I have become aware of during the last year)
Sedevacantism is a theological opinion and an option, but rests on the belief that the RCC is the true church. That is very hard to believe.

The attitude of the traditionalists confirms that they are not bearers of Truth.  By their fruits you will know them.

In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #98 on: November 13, 2012, 06:36:22 PM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #99 on: November 13, 2012, 08:44:20 PM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

Yeah, shouldn't they be over at CAF bugging the OF crowd?  Grin
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #100 on: November 13, 2012, 08:45:13 PM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

Yeah, shouldn't they be over at CAF bugging the OF crowd?  Grin
Nah, they should be on FishEasters working themselves into a frenzy over the fact that Catholics believe that God might save a non-Catholic.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #101 on: November 13, 2012, 08:49:44 PM »

In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?

Growth has nothing to do with it.  I can cite a few neo-arianist groups that are growing as well.  I don't see how growth in membership proves anything here.  I believe Traditionalism is a fad, and right now it is the "in" thing, that is why there is a growth.  At some point people will grow tired with it with all this hating and complaining and accusing and the obvious disregard for the Pope.  The focus of Traditionalism isn't spiritual growth, but a focus on novelty such as Latin and external practices but completely devoid of the spiritual aspect of it.  I've heard Traditionalists market Latin as some magical language, "the devil hates it, it is very effective for exorcisms."  I have yet heard any Traditionalist explain how one gets to heaven speaking Latin.

Yes, there are Orthodox loonies as well, no doubt.  I've come across them too.  But there is a verifiable set of teachings that the Orthodox adheres to and what I can say is true Orthodoxy.  For Traditionalists, aside from "the Pope is wrong and we're right, give us our Latin back," I don't know what else they actually stand for.  There is no depth to the cause other than a fanatical attachment to externals which is not resiprocated with the spiritual aspect of such practices.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #102 on: November 13, 2012, 08:52:11 PM »

In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?

Growth has nothing to do with it.  I can cite a few neo-arianist groups that are growing as well.  I don't see how growth in membership proves anything here.  I believe Traditionalism is a fad, and right now it is the "in" thing, that is why there is a growth.  At some point people will grow tired with it with all this hating and complaining and accusing and the obvious disregard for the Pope.  The focus of Traditionalism isn't spiritual growth, but a focus on novelty such as Latin and external practices but completely devoid of the spiritual aspect of it.  I've heard Traditionalists market Latin as some magical language, "the devil hates it, it is very effective for exorcisms."  I have yet heard any Traditionalist explain how one gets to heaven speaking Latin.

Yes, there are Orthodox loonies as well, no doubt.  I've come across them too.  But there is a verifiable set of teachings that the Orthodox adheres to and what I can say is true Orthodoxy.  For Traditionalists, aside from "the Pope is wrong and we're right, give us our Latin back," I don't know what else they actually stand for.  There is no depth to the cause other than a fanatical attachment to externals which is not resiprocated with the spiritual aspect of such practices.
Well, let's be careful. The traditionalists are at least correct about the fact that we need to get our liturgical home in order, and we need to continue to get modernist priests and bishops to retire. I'm in agreement with them there.
That being said, you are correct about a lot of what you have said. Consequently, I'd prefer a Byzantine Catholic parish or traditionalist one.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #103 on: November 13, 2012, 08:54:35 PM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

Yeah, shouldn't they be over at CAF bugging the OF crowd?  Grin
Nah, they should be on FishEasters working themselves into a frenzy over the fact that Catholics believe that God might save a non-Catholic.

I love how an ultra-trad I know explained to me how they can be a Church (the SSPX) without a bishop (he denies they are under Fellay in any ecclesiastical sense).  Just a bunch of legalisms which he claims canon law supporting their existence.  I don't see how a lack of bishop can be replaced by canon law to justify the existence of a Church.  I thought they are traditionalists, I don't know how they could have missed St. Ignatius of Antioch's teaching which is by all intents and purposes, traditional.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #104 on: November 13, 2012, 08:57:43 PM »

Well, let's be careful. The traditionalists are at least correct about the fact that we need to get our liturgical home in order, and we need to continue to get modernist priests and bishops to retire. I'm in agreement with them there.
That being said, you are correct about a lot of what you have said. Consequently, I'd prefer a Byzantine Catholic parish or traditionalist one.

That is what I do not get.  Of all the wonderful things to say about traditionalism and traditions (and the Orthodox has a ton of these, they don't have to make stuff up on their own), I wonder why they stuck to baseless polemics that sound more fitting with cults than with an Apostolic Church.  I agree with you about the need to get the Liturgy right, but with the traditionalists it seems that they don't see anything more than the externals.  Like how they defend kneeling.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #105 on: November 13, 2012, 08:57:53 PM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

Yeah, shouldn't they be over at CAF bugging the OF crowd?  Grin
Nah, they should be on FishEasters working themselves into a frenzy over the fact that Catholics believe that God might save a non-Catholic.

I love how an ultra-trad I know explained to me how they can be a Church (the SSPX) without a bishop (he denies they are under Fellay in any ecclesiastical sense).  Just a bunch of legalisms which he claims canon law supporting their existence.  I don't see how a lack of bishop can be replaced by canon law to justify the existence of a Church.  I thought they are traditionalists, I don't know how they could have missed St. Ignatius of Antioch's teaching which is by all intents and purposes, traditional.
Agreed. I sympathize with their desire for continuity with the past, but I don't think they really understand what that means.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,105


« Reply #106 on: November 13, 2012, 10:25:05 PM »

In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?

Growth has nothing to do with it.  I can cite a few neo-arianist groups that are growing as well.  I don't see how growth in membership proves anything here.  I believe Traditionalism is a fad, and right now it is the "in" thing, that is why there is a growth.  At some point people will grow tired with it with all this hating and complaining and accusing and the obvious disregard for the Pope.  The focus of Traditionalism isn't spiritual growth, but a focus on novelty such as Latin and external practices but completely devoid of the spiritual aspect of it.  I've heard Traditionalists market Latin as some magical language, "the devil hates it, it is very effective for exorcisms."  I have yet heard any Traditionalist explain how one gets to heaven speaking Latin.

Yes, there are Orthodox loonies as well, no doubt.  I've come across them too.  But there is a verifiable set of teachings that the Orthodox adheres to and what I can say is true Orthodoxy.  For Traditionalists, aside from "the Pope is wrong and we're right, give us our Latin back," I don't know what else they actually stand for.  There is no depth to the cause other than a fanatical attachment to externals which is not resiprocated with the spiritual aspect of such practices.
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #107 on: November 14, 2012, 12:00:38 AM »

The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.
Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 75


« Reply #108 on: November 14, 2012, 04:48:06 AM »

The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.

We will let YOU carry on with YOUR delusions about Catholic traditionalism, its adherents and denial of spirituality within the movement. It is utter nonsense and absolute rubbish to judge the entire traditional movement based on the few examples you know yourself. I have been a part of it for more than 10 years and I have to say I take offence by this, since I am myself included in your sweeping statements and neither I nor anyone else knows me as the caricature you are presenting.
There are nutters everywhere, mate.

However, I agree with you regarding Trent and I agree with you about legalism. The latter is prevalent everywhere in the RCC, including in post-VII Rome where on the surface it seems that it is a closed chapter, but where reality is very different.
There are reasons for that I am inquiring into Orthodoxy and amongst those is spirituality. Not because there is necessarily a lack of it, but because the Eastern spirituality is different and appeals very much to me. Legalism is absolutely another of those treasons, along with Trent being(often) "the beginning" of everything.
Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 75


« Reply #109 on: November 14, 2012, 05:02:07 AM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,502



« Reply #110 on: November 14, 2012, 07:56:25 AM »

Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought. 

And banished some of the potential converts like me. I would have converted to Orthodoxy even if the traditional mass was still the standard mass but it certainly didn't do any good to find out that the regular Finnish RC mass is more low church than the regular Finnish Lutheran mass.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #111 on: November 14, 2012, 09:17:53 AM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.

I think you've got the wrong impression of Papist (Chris). Of all posters here, I'd say he is one of the most friendly toward traditionalist Catholics.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #112 on: November 14, 2012, 09:19:07 AM »

The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent. 

I would even go back 2 councils earlier than that. The Council of Florence defined (re)union in a way completely unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox, and thereby set the direction for centuries to come. This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 75


« Reply #113 on: November 14, 2012, 10:23:43 AM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.

I think you've got the wrong impression of Papist (Chris). Of all posters here, I'd say he is one of the most friendly toward traditionalist Catholics.

Peter J,

Maybe I did. It was probably the wholesale caricature which preceded that post which led me to read it as insulting and unnecessary.
Papist, if it wasn't your intention, I am sorry for becoming a bit aggressive.
Let us start again  Smiley
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #114 on: November 14, 2012, 10:28:31 AM »

This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #115 on: November 14, 2012, 11:20:21 AM »

This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #116 on: November 14, 2012, 11:35:22 AM »

This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.

I'd have said that had already been done quite effectively when the robber council that deposed St. Photios was designated as the Eighth Ecumenical by Rome in the 12th century. Ignoring the council of 879 that reinstated St. Photios, annulled the previous and condemned the filioque in favour of the council of 869, when the latter had been universally accepted for over 200 years, was clearly signifying that we were out (not to mention re-writing RC history in an almost Orwellian manner).

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #117 on: November 14, 2012, 11:37:14 AM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
You misunderstand me. I have no problem with SSPXers being here (honestly, it wouldn't matter one way or another if I did). I was just curious as to why two suddenly showed up when we have really never had much of a SSPX presence here. That's all.
And for the record, I totally empathize with the plight of the SSPX. I know that the SSPX, for the most part, actually agree with more of Vatican II than do most modernist priests.
That being said, I also see serious problems with the SSPX.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 11:38:40 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #118 on: November 14, 2012, 11:40:07 AM »

Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.

I think you've got the wrong impression of Papist (Chris). Of all posters here, I'd say he is one of the most friendly toward traditionalist Catholics.

Peter J,

Maybe I did. It was probably the wholesale caricature which preceded that post which led me to read it as insulting and unnecessary.
Papist, if it wasn't your intention, I am sorry for becoming a bit aggressive.
Let us start again  Smiley
Yes, let us start again. Perhaps I wasn't clear on what I meant. Just so you know, I love the Latin mass, and prefer it to the Novus Ordo. I am alwo quite the Thomist and long for a return to a more traditional practice of the Catholic faith.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #119 on: November 14, 2012, 12:30:13 PM »

This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.

I'd have said that had already been done quite effectively when the robber council that deposed St. Photios was designated as the Eighth Ecumenical by Rome in the 12th century. Ignoring the council of 879 that reinstated St. Photios, annulled the previous and condemned the filioque in favour of the council of 869, when the latter had been universally accepted for over 200 years, was clearly signifying that we were out (not to mention re-writing RC history in an almost Orwellian manner).

James

My impression is that "the Latins" of the 15th century were genuinely surprised to learn that "the Greeks" counted 7 ecumenical councils and not 8. It's possible I'm wrong about that, but in any case, we can be sure that they didn't have a perfect knowledge of the events in question, so I wouldn't say that they were "clearly signifying" anything by calling Constantinople IV "the 8th ecumenical council". (In fact, I believe the way it came up at Florence is that "the Latins" said something like: We don't have a copy of the 8th ecumenical council. Can you give us one?)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #120 on: November 14, 2012, 12:47:44 PM »

This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.

I'd have said that had already been done quite effectively when the robber council that deposed St. Photios was designated as the Eighth Ecumenical by Rome in the 12th century. Ignoring the council of 879 that reinstated St. Photios, annulled the previous and condemned the filioque in favour of the council of 869, when the latter had been universally accepted for over 200 years, was clearly signifying that we were out (not to mention re-writing RC history in an almost Orwellian manner).

James

My impression is that "the Latins" of the 15th century were genuinely surprised to learn that "the Greeks" counted 7 ecumenical councils and not 8. It's possible I'm wrong about that, but in any case, we can be sure that they didn't have a perfect knowledge of the events in question, so I wouldn't say that they were "clearly signifying" anything by calling Constantinople IV "the 8th ecumenical council". (In fact, I believe the way it came up at Florence is that "the Latins" said something like: We don't have a copy of the 8th ecumenical council. Can you give us one?)

But Pope John VIII accepted our Constantinople IV (which Orthodox are quite at liberty to consider the 8th Ecumenical) condemnation of filioque and all at the time, so to claim that this had been forgotten a couple of centuries later when the prior robber council was named ecumenical by the post-Schism Roman church seems rather convenient - hence my reference to an Orwellian re-writing of history.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #121 on: November 14, 2012, 01:47:09 PM »

The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

Well, every delusion I have about traditionalism in the Catholic Church has been soundly refuted by Orthodoxy.  So don't worry about me Wink
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #122 on: November 15, 2012, 12:11:27 AM »

Charles Martel,

Let us put down our swords and guns for a moment and why don't you try exploring Orthodoxy?  I guarantee you that you will find the Traditional and True Christian faith that you are looking for, without the angst you have to go through within Roman Catholicism.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #123 on: November 15, 2012, 12:04:32 PM »

Charles Martel,

Let us put down our swords and guns for a moment and why don't you try exploring Orthodoxy?  I guarantee you that you will find the Traditional and True Christian faith that you are looking for, without the angst you have to go through within Roman Catholicism.
Maybe because he has already found the faith in the Catholic Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #124 on: November 15, 2012, 01:51:06 PM »

This is one of those situations where I read your post shortly after you posted it, but then was busy most of the day; I'll try to remember everything I was going to say in reply.

This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.

I'd have said that had already been done quite effectively when the robber council that deposed St. Photios was designated as the Eighth Ecumenical by Rome in the 12th century. Ignoring the council of 879 that reinstated St. Photios, annulled the previous and condemned the filioque in favour of the council of 869, when the latter had been universally accepted for over 200 years, was clearly signifying that we were out (not to mention re-writing RC history in an almost Orwellian manner).

James

My impression is that "the Latins" of the 15th century were genuinely surprised to learn that "the Greeks" counted 7 ecumenical councils and not 8. It's possible I'm wrong about that, but in any case, we can be sure that they didn't have a perfect knowledge of the events in question, so I wouldn't say that they were "clearly signifying" anything by calling Constantinople IV "the 8th ecumenical council". (In fact, I believe the way it came up at Florence is that "the Latins" said something like: We don't have a copy of the 8th ecumenical council. Can you give us one?)

But Pope John VIII accepted our Constantinople IV (which Orthodox are quite at liberty to consider the 8th Ecumenical) condemnation of filioque and all at the time, so to claim that this had been forgotten a couple of centuries later when the prior robber council was named ecumenical by the post-Schism Roman church seems rather convenient - hence my reference to an Orwellian re-writing of history.

James

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm open the possibility that naming Constantinople 869 as an ecumenical council is suspicious and/or Orwellian. But even if it was, a relatively small number of people were guilty of that. Most "Latins" simply passed on what was handed to them.

But what's more, I don't think anyone, even whoever first had the idea of calling it an ecumenical council, meant that the "Greeks" were "out". (Sorry for all the quotation marks.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,105


« Reply #125 on: November 15, 2012, 02:16:55 PM »

Charles Martel,

Let us put down our swords and guns for a moment and why don't you try exploring Orthodoxy?  I guarantee you that you will find the Traditional and True Christian faith that you are looking for, without the angst you have to go through within Roman Catholicism.
I am an Orthodox, an Orthodox Roman Catholic.

Although I will admit I came on here to learn exactly where the EOC was coming from and our differences and similarities.

I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Speaking of laying down weapons, I first starting posting on here for a call for unity with Eastern Christians against Muslim persecution  against Christians in Syria and other countries in that region and many Orthodox came at me with guns blazing still jaded about differences from a thousand years ago with Rome. It's almost as if you Orthodox despise the Latins more than the Mohammedans and pagans that are at your throats in your own nations. I had no idea there was so much animosity for the Vatican still existed in the East.


But I am still willing to take up your offer and be reasonable choy.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #126 on: November 15, 2012, 02:44:18 PM »

Charles Martel,

Let us put down our swords and guns for a moment and why don't you try exploring Orthodoxy?  I guarantee you that you will find the Traditional and True Christian faith that you are looking for, without the angst you have to go through within Roman Catholicism.
Maybe because he has already found the faith in the Catholic Church.

Not if he's with the SSPX.

And sorry but I just want to be honest here.  I'm not a priest or anyone with the capacity to be a spiritual father or someone who can decently assess one's spiritual growth.  But from what I see from people with the SSPX, I don't see good spirituality.  It is an honest assessment on my part.  I see them do nothing but complain and accuse and be all negative.  I absolutely do not see Christ in all that.  I'm not trying to start a second round of arguments here, just being honest about what I see with the SSPX.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 02:47:53 PM by choy » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #127 on: November 15, 2012, 03:11:42 PM »

I am an Orthodox, an Orthodox Roman Catholic.

Not meaning to divert the thread onto grammar, but I find your statement a tad strange. The capital O implies that you mean "Orthodox" as a proper name.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #128 on: November 15, 2012, 03:44:43 PM »

I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who believe in papal supremacy or filioque?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 03:49:44 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,728



« Reply #129 on: November 15, 2012, 03:50:10 PM »

I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

 Wink
Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #130 on: November 15, 2012, 03:51:44 PM »

I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who [don't] believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

Depending which side of the issue you're on.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #131 on: November 15, 2012, 05:19:09 PM »

I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who [don't] believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

Depending which side of the issue you're on.


I'm on Batman's side

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #132 on: November 15, 2012, 05:23:39 PM »

I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who [don't] believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

Depending which side of the issue you're on.


I'm on Batman's side


Bruce Wayne was raised Episcopalian. Hence, when he recited the creed as a child, he professed the filioque.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #133 on: November 15, 2012, 05:26:57 PM »

I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who [don't] believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

Depending which side of the issue you're on.


I'm on Batman's side


Bruce Wayne was raised Episcopalian. Hence, when he recited the creed as a child, he professed the filioque.

But as the World's Greatest Detective, he soon found out the Filioque to be heretical Wink
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,728



« Reply #134 on: November 15, 2012, 05:27:29 PM »


Bruce Wayne was raised Episcopalian. Hence, when he recited the creed as a child, he professed the filioque.

That's bad, man.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:28:03 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
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 0.187 seconds with 73 queries.