OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 10:18:07 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 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Discussion between some different Catholic groups  (Read 3663 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,287


WWW
« Reply #135 on: March 14, 2013, 11:16:03 PM »

Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

LBK answered the question.  The 100th Anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima.  I should have added that to my original post.   Embarrassed

Note the irony in that Pope Francis was elected on March 13.  The apparitions started on the 13th day of the month back in 1917.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,287


WWW
« Reply #136 on: March 14, 2013, 11:18:33 PM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #137 on: March 15, 2013, 12:39:56 AM »

Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

At the very least, it is the centenary of the apparition's appearance.

So any other special thing?  Will us schismatic apostates suddenly burst into flames that year?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #138 on: March 15, 2013, 01:07:30 AM »

do you believe the apparition at fatima to be true , yes or no
Catholics are not required to take a position one way or the other on private revelations.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #139 on: March 15, 2013, 01:13:33 AM »

True or not, you shouldn't be treating it as doctrine or dogma.
That is correct. I think I may have misunderstood what you were implying in a previous post. I agree with what you are now saying here.   
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« Reply #140 on: March 15, 2013, 02:18:50 AM »

Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.

Sorry to see you say that. I admired your resistance to relativism and your tenacity, even if I disagreed with you on the issues you insisted upon.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #141 on: March 15, 2013, 02:20:54 AM »

William, why are thou so reactionary?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« Reply #142 on: March 15, 2013, 02:22:56 AM »

William, why are thou so reactionary?

Why are you not?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #143 on: March 15, 2013, 05:49:46 AM »

I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 


If there is no cardinal, how will you have a new true Pope of Rome?
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
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 #144 on: March 15, 2013, 07:07:17 AM »

I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 


Does that not strike as condemning your position as a sedevacantist? As we do not, and never have, accepted such a doctrine it really can't touch us as Orthodox but it would seem hard to understand how you can simultaneously believe your quote to be true, consider yourself catholic and yet call the Pope of Rome a heretic.

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #145 on: March 15, 2013, 08:39:04 AM »

I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 

and yet your Apostolic See is missing its Roman Pontiff, and you are without means to get a successor of the blessed Peter.

Do you have a vicar of that "true vicar of Christ" for your decapitated church?

As our Orthodox Patriarchs of True Catholic Church of Christ told your same Pastor Aeternus
Quote
...Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17), has been compelled to combat. She has triumphed over all unto this day, and she will triumph for ever, being manifested as mightier and more illustrious after each struggle... Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10)....This heresy, which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the middle of the seventh century, at first and secretly, and then under various disguises, over the Western Provinces of Europe, until by degrees, creeping along for four or five centuries, it obtained precedence over the ancient orthodoxy of those parts, through the heedlessness of Pastors and the countenance of Princes. Little by little it overspread not only the hitherto orthodox Churches of Spain, but also the German, and French, and Italian Churches, whose orthodoxy at one time was sounded throughout the world, with whom our divine Fathers such as the great Athanasius and heavenly Basil conferred, and whose sympathy and fellowship with us until the seventh Ecumenical Council, preserved unharmed the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy. Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia. The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in them much worldly advantage, and "much gain," and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will, separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men...Yet the Papacy has not on this account ceased to annoy the peaceful Church of God, but sending out everywhere so-called missionaries, men of reprobate minds, it compasses land and sea to make one proselyte, to deceive one of the Orthodox, to corrupt the doctrine of our LORD, to adulterate, by addition, the divine Creed of our holy Faith, to prove the Baptism which God gave us superfluous, the communion of the Cup void of sacred efficacy, and a thousand other things which the demon of novelty dictated to the all-daring Schoolmen of the Middle Ages and to the Bishops of the elder Rome, venturing all things through lust of power. Our blessed predecessors and fathers, in their piety, though tried and persecuted in many ways and means, within and without, directly and indirectly, "yet confident in the LORD," were able to save and transmit to us this inestimable inheritance of our fathers, which we too, by the help of God, will transmit as a rich treasure to the generations to come, even to the end of the world. But notwithstanding this, the Papists do not cease to this day, nor will cease, according to wont, to attack Orthodoxy,—a daily living reproach which they have before their eyes, being deserters from the faith of their fathers. Would that they made these aggressions against the heresy which has overspread and mastered the West. For who doubts that had their zeal for the overthrow of Orthodoxy been employed for the overthrow of heresy and novelties, agreeable to the God-loving counsels of Leo III and John VIII, those glorious and last Orthodox Popes, not a trace of it, long ago, would have been remembered under the sun, and we should now be saying the same things, according to the Apostolic promise. But the zeal of those who succeeded them was not for the protection of the Orthodox Faith, in conformity with the zeal worthy of all remembrance which was in Leo III., now among the blessed.
 In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold. In this Encyclical, he addresses those who at different times have gone over from different Christian Communions, and embraced the Papacy, and of course are favorable to him, extending his arguments also to the Orthodox, either particularly or without naming them; and, citing our divine and holy Fathers (p. 3, 1.14-18; p. 4, 1.19; p. 9, 1.6; and pp. 17, 23), he manifestly calumniates them and us their successors and descendants: them, as if they admitted readily the Papal commands and rescripts without question because issuing from the Popes is undoubted arbiters of the Catholic Church; us, as unfaithful to their examples (for thus he trespasses on the Fold committed to us by God), as severed from our Fathers, as careless of our sacred trusts, and of the soul's salvation of our spiritual children. Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne."
Each one of our brethren and sons in Christ who have been piously brought up and instructed, wisely regarding the wisdom given him from God, will decide that the words of the present Bishop of Rome, like those of his schismatical predecessors, are not words of peace, as he affirms (p. 7,1.Cool, and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement, agreeably to the practice of his antisynodical predecessors. We are therefore sure, that even as heretofore, so hereafter the Orthodox will not be beguiled. For the word of our LORD is sure (John x. 5), A stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. The Throne of Rome is esteemed that of St. Peter by a single tradition, but not from Holy Scripture, where the claim is in favor of Antioch, whose Church is therefore witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used." We say then that the Apostolic Church of Antioch had no right of exemption from being judged according to divine Scripture and synodical declarations, though truly venerated for the throne of St. Peter. But what do we say? The blessed Peter, even in his own person, was judged before all for the truth of the Gospel, and, as Scripture declares, was found blamable and not walking uprightly. What opinion is to be formed of those who glory and pride themselves solely in the possession of his Throne, so great in their eyes? Nay, the sublime Basil the great, the Ecumenical teacher of Orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, to whom the Bishops of Rome are obliged to refer us (p. 8, 1.31), has clearly and explicitly above ( 7) shown us what estimation we ought to have of the judgments of the inaccessible Vatican:—"They neither," he says, "know the truth, nor endure to learn it, striving against those who tell them the truth, and strengthening themselves in their heresy." So that these our holy Fathers whom his Holiness the Pope, worthily admiring as lights and teachers even of the West, accounts as belonging to us, and advises us (p. Cool to follow, teach us not to judge Orthodoxy from the holy Throne, but the Throne itself and him that is on the Throne by the sacred Scriptures, by Synodical decrees and limitations, and by the Faith which has been preached, even the Orthodoxy of continuous teaching. Thus did our Fathers judge and condemn Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, and Macedonius and Nestorius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Peter Gnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch, with others. For if the abomination of desolation stood in the Holy Place, why not innovation and heresy upon a holy Throne? Hence is exhibited in a brief compass the weakness and feebleness of the efforts in behalf of the despotism of the Pope of Rome
pretter prophecy than the one you have been claiming for the fall of Rome.
Quote
...From such ignorance of the Apostolic and Catholic food on which we live emanates another sententious declaration of his (p. vii. 1. 22): "It is not possible that unity of doctrine and sacred observance should be preserved among you," paradoxically ascribing to us the very misfortune from which he suffers at home; just as Pope Leo IX wrote to the blessed Michael Cerularius, accusing the Greeks of changing the Creed of the Catholic Church, without blushing either for his own honor or for the truth of history. We are persuaded that if his Holiness will call to mind ecclesiastical archaeology and history, the doctrine of the holy Fathers and the old Liturgies of France and Spain, and the Sacramentary of the ancient Roman Church, he will be struck with surprise on finding how many other monstrous daughters, now living, the Papacy has brought forth in the West: while Orthodoxy, with us, has preserved the Catholic Church as an incorruptible bride for her Bridegroom, although we have no temporal power, nor, as his Holiness says, any sacred "observances," but by the sole tie of love and affection to a common Mother are bound together in the unity of a faith sealed with the seven seals of the Spirit (Rev. v. 1), and by the seven Ecumenical Councils, and in obedience to the Truth. He will find, also, flow many modern papistical doctrines and mysteries must be rejected as "commandments of men" in order that the Church of the West, which has introduced all sorts of novelties, may be changed back again to the immutable Catholic Orthodox faith of our common fathers. As his Holiness recognizes our common zeal in this faith, when he says (p. viii. l.30), "let us take heed to the doctrine preserved by our forefathers," so he does well in instructing us (l. 31) to follow the old pontiffs and the faithful of the Eastern Metropolitans. What these thought of the doctrinal fidelity of the Archbishops of the elder Rome, and what idea we ought to have of them in the Orthodox Church, and in what manner we ought to receive their teachings, they have synodically given us an example ( 15), and the sublime Basil has well interpreted it ( 7). As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #146 on: March 15, 2013, 08:39:05 AM »

Ya I did bring  up sedevacantism  and then I thought we were to have a discussion on the papacy , you said "Your problem comes from your lack of means to end it." which is true but this is to happen in the end days and was in fact predicted by Pope Leo XIII
postdicted, more like it.
Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael – a
Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago,
and then suppressed

Suppressed? It's still said. I used to say the short form with my sons, although at the time I didn't know its original.  I got some Arabic translations from the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Btw, your source
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf

Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and
controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds
itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to
the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to
consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near
the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly
understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could
destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to
some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will
give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will
be given the time and the power.”
Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael
(which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the
Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded
portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930,
Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and
indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.

highlights of the prayer

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with
gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate
Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred
possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up
the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the
light of the world, they have raised the throne of their
abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when
the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

but seeing that you don't believe in the popes then it's a mute point.
Sure enough. Our Lord said "I will be with you always, all the days, even to the end of the Age." So I don't have to worry about a demise like yours happening to His Church.

also there's this

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will
fully come to pass in the last days.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “... there is good reason to fear lest this
great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils
which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the
‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3)

and this

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the
Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church
will be in eclipse.”
happened in 1017.
so our Lady of LaSalette was lying? how about fatima, was that true or not? and when did I say Our Lord said He wouldn't be with us always?
Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.
do you believe the apparition at fatima to be true , yes or no
no
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #147 on: March 15, 2013, 08:39:05 AM »

Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse
Oh? What privileged Fatima?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #148 on: March 15, 2013, 08:39:05 AM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?
certainly not your source.

"And that Rock was Christ" I Cor. 10:4

The Gospel of Matthew was written for the Hebrews of Antioch.  Peter is still there:


Here is a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
"Thou are Peter and upon this rock...."

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America's
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.


Let's look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:


1...."That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers


2....That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8 ) Church Fathers


3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers


4....That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5....That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.


Archbishop Kenrick summarises

"If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold
for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and
it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine
that where there is something disputed the choice must
be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the
consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair to say that the
Orthodox are dunderheads over this matter.
Are the Church Fathers also dunderheads?


And you should remember that 65 of the bishops gathered
at the First Vatican Council REFUSED to vote for the
proposed dogma of papal infallibility. Were they
also blockheads? Wouldn't one say that IF the doctrine
had been so normal and accepted in the Catholic Church
in the centuries prior to Vatican I that there would
never have been such a solid block of resisting bishops
who refused to vote for it in 1869.
This was only 133 years ago, quite recently.

You can check these facts in several major Catholic writings...

"How the Pope Became Infallible" by August Bernhard Hasler.
"Infallible? - An Unresolved Enquiry" by Hans Kung.

They say that at the opening of Vatican I only 50 bishops
were in favour of Pope Pius IX's desire to have the Popes
declared infallible. 130 of the bishops had declared
beforehand that they were against Papal Infallibility,
and the rest of the bishops, 620 were undecided.

I have secrhed the Net a few times to try and find the actual Fathers on whom he based his statistics but have never found anything.   Anybody have any knowledge of this?
Many years! Irish Hermit!
Logged

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

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #149 on: March 15, 2013, 09:03:14 AM »

Speaking of Fatima, apparently the new pope is a devotee...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2997031/posts
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #150 on: March 15, 2013, 09:49:27 AM »

Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

LBK answered the question.  The 100th Anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima.  I should have added that to my original post.   Embarrassed

Note the irony in that Pope Francis was elected on March 13.  The apparitions started on the 13th day of the month back in 1917.

That is interesting. We have 1 pope, elected 3-13-13.
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 #151 on: March 15, 2013, 10:09:01 AM »

Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

Pope Francis has 4 years to fulfill Fatima in 2017.

What's in 2017?

LBK answered the question.  The 100th Anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima.  I should have added that to my original post.   Embarrassed

Note the irony in that Pope Francis was elected on March 13.  The apparitions started on the 13th day of the month back in 1917.

That is interesting. We have 1 pope, elected 3-13-13.

Only in America - everywhere else it's 13-03-13

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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #152 on: March 15, 2013, 11:42:47 AM »

Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.

Sorry to see you say that. I admired your resistance to relativism and your tenacity, even if I disagreed with you on the issues you insisted upon.
Read the bolded part of my post above. I still believe that all Catholics should profess the Immactulate Conception, the dogma of Purgatory, Papal Infalliblity, etc. I just have no desire to beat Eastern Catholics over the head with this. This needs to be sorted out between them their bishops. I'm not going to enter a house that is not my own and start cleaning up.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #153 on: March 15, 2013, 11:31:58 PM »

Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse
Oh? What privileged Fatima?
I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #154 on: March 15, 2013, 11:35:11 PM »

I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 


Does that not strike as condemning your position as a sedevacantist? As we do not, and never have, accepted such a doctrine it really can't touch us as Orthodox but it would seem hard to understand how you can simultaneously believe your quote to be true, consider yourself catholic and yet call the Pope of Rome a heretic.

James
easy
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be
a member of the Church.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,
De Romano Pontifice
, II, 30:
"
A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (
per se
) ceases to be pope and
head
, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all
the ancient Fathers
who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction
St. Francis De Sales (17
th
century), Doctor of the Church,
The Catholic Controversy
, pp.
305-306: "
Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly
a heretic, he falls ipso facto from
his dignity and out of the Church
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #155 on: March 16, 2013, 12:10:00 AM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #156 on: March 16, 2013, 12:15:41 AM »

I was told that sedevacantists really know there stuff.
The Dimon brothers have a whole lot of material on their site and on you tube, but they are wrong on many issues.

Can you prove it? They love debates on any issue, maybe you can give them a call or write an email to them.
It is easy to prove they are wrong. For example, they say that the Orthodox cannot be saved which is obviously false.
how is it obviously false,The Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside the church, so he debate is whether orthodoxy is in the church or not, do you believe jews who die jewish can be saved?
Father Feeney was excommunicated, was he not? How many Catholic cardinals or Catholic bishops agree with you that an Orthodox Christian cannot be saved? Answer: Zero. If it is true, then why, according to the Catholic rules,  are Orthodox Christians allowed to receive Catholic  Holy Communion (although according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, they are not permitted to do so, and according to Catholic rules, they are encouraged to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this).
the cardinals of today are heretics and are not catholic, the vatican 2 sect loves the schismatic orthodox but what does the true church of Christ say about it

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: ʺ... all the
faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of
Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that
the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of
ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.ʺ113 


If there is no cardinal, how will you have a new true Pope of Rome?
the Vatican II sect is the Whore of Babylon, don't worry about a true pope of Rome, you better worry instead about your salvation
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #157 on: March 16, 2013, 12:17:17 AM »

do you believe the apparition at fatima to be true , yes or no
Catholics are not required to take a position one way or the other on private revelations.
why can you not answer yes or no or I just don't know, read up on the link I gave to the Orthodox guy.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,387



« Reply #158 on: March 16, 2013, 12:27:15 AM »

I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,287


WWW
« Reply #159 on: March 16, 2013, 12:28:31 AM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #160 on: March 16, 2013, 12:30:51 AM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #161 on: March 16, 2013, 07:54:24 AM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #162 on: March 16, 2013, 08:19:22 AM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite-Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 60


« Reply #163 on: March 16, 2013, 12:18:09 PM »

Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

I believe Fatima to be a true apparition.  In my youth, I did not.  Neither (directly) affects my salvation.  If you say it does, then you commit the heresy of believing that public revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle, which has been confirmed from time immemorial in the Catholic Church, and prove yourself to be in error.
Logged
orthros
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite-Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 60


« Reply #164 on: March 16, 2013, 12:22:00 PM »

I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?

This is a bigger problem with sedevacantism.

You have the conclavist sedevacantists (who elected their own Pope and thus are no longer technically sedes) such as Pope Michael I and Pius XIII/Fr. Lucian Pulvumacher's group.

You have the independent sedevacantists (called "home alone" sedes) who stay at home and just recite the Rosary (or some other pious prayers) every Sunday.

You have SSPV, which were the 9 priests who broke off from the (non-sede, but traditional) SSPX.

You have CMRI, who I think has now kisses and made up with the SSPV but which historically has not gotten along with them.

Then you have the Dimond Brothers' unique brand of theology that condemns pretty much everyone else here.


There are others I've forgotten or neglected, I'm sure.


It's worse than tracking the splits in the Presbyterian Church.  God help us if one of these is right, because the chances of successfully parsing this out are materially zero.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,387



« Reply #165 on: March 16, 2013, 01:24:40 PM »

This is a bigger problem with sedevacantism.

You have the conclavist sedevacantists (who elected their own Pope and thus are no longer technically sedes) such as Pope Michael I and Pius XIII/Fr. Lucian Pulvumacher's group.

You have the independent sedevacantists (called "home alone" sedes) who stay at home and just recite the Rosary (or some other pious prayers) every Sunday.

You have SSPV, which were the 9 priests who broke off from the (non-sede, but traditional) SSPX.

You have CMRI, who I think has now kisses and made up with the SSPV but which historically has not gotten along with them.

Then you have the Dimond Brothers' unique brand of theology that condemns pretty much everyone else here.


There are others I've forgotten or neglected, I'm sure.


It's worse than tracking the splits in the Presbyterian Church.  God help us if one of these is right, because the chances of successfully parsing this out are materially zero.

Precisely. There's actually a CMRI parish here in town, and I must say I have a great deal of respect for their priest. He has three parishes that range all across the state - it really takes determination to drive so many hours between parishes regularly without living in a specific place.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,387



« Reply #166 on: March 16, 2013, 01:25:52 PM »

I believe Fatima to be a true apparition.  In my youth, I did not.  Neither (directly) affects my salvation.  If you say it does, then you commit the heresy of believing that public revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle, which has been confirmed from time immemorial in the Catholic Church, and prove yourself to be in error.

Wouldn't Fatima be problematic for your identity as a Melkite? It pretty much smacks down traditional Eastern theology by affirming Western theology. Just curious though, not trying to offend.
Logged
orthros
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite-Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 60


« Reply #167 on: March 16, 2013, 01:56:54 PM »

I believe Fatima to be a true apparition.  In my youth, I did not.  Neither (directly) affects my salvation.  If you say it does, then you commit the heresy of believing that public revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle, which has been confirmed from time immemorial in the Catholic Church, and prove yourself to be in error.

Wouldn't Fatima be problematic for your identity as a Melkite? It pretty much smacks down traditional Eastern theology by affirming Western theology. Just curious though, not trying to offend.

How so? I don't see any apparent contradiction. Can you explain?
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« Reply #168 on: March 16, 2013, 02:05:45 PM »

God help us if one of these is right, because the chances of successfully parsing this out are materially zero.

You just gotta love the combination of unwillingness to compromise and exclusivist religions.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,387



« Reply #169 on: March 16, 2013, 02:11:58 PM »

How so? I don't see any apparent contradiction. Can you explain?

Specifically things like purgatory, God's wrath wanting to be poured out on the earth with Mary holding it back, and (IIRC) the immaculate conception. The theological assumptions each of these ideas are hard to reconcile with Eastern theology's assumptions. In other words, it seems to me that if Fatima is completely true then Eastern theology is flawed at best.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 02:12:23 PM by Nephi » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #170 on: March 16, 2013, 02:52:45 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?

Well, I didn't mean that you have to know that there's a difference between e.g. Pope Michael I and the dozens of people in communion with him, and Pope Francis and the billion+ people in communion with him. But I do think it makes you appear more intelligent if you do. Smiley

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

I wouldn't literally put them anywhere (unless they asked me for a ride somewhere) but whenever I start a thread about them I put it in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthros
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite-Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 60


« Reply #171 on: March 16, 2013, 03:27:37 PM »

How so? I don't see any apparent contradiction. Can you explain?

Specifically things like purgatory, God's wrath wanting to be poured out on the earth with Mary holding it back, and (IIRC) the immaculate conception. The theological assumptions each of these ideas are hard to reconcile with Eastern theology's assumptions. In other words, it seems to me that if Fatima is completely true then Eastern theology is flawed at best.

Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't know any statements of Fatima that overly relate to Purgatory.  Hell, yes.  And perhaps that's one point, that they showed Hell as a place where people are in flames of torment.  But that concept is not foreign to most Melkites, and I'm guessing more believe in that "version" of Hell than the "River of Fire" scenario of Hell and Heaven being in the same place. 

The Immaculate Conception was more of a Lourdes thing.  Strangely, the Antiochians seem to love Lourdes, although I personally am much more neutral about it.

As for the Theotokos holding back God's wrath, again, if you buy into "River of Fire" it's contradictory.  But I just finished The Last Akathist last night, and sang "O Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us" about 75 times.  I do believe Mary's prayers effect mercy; again, most Melkites are probably in my corner on this one.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #172 on: March 16, 2013, 04:59:06 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?

Well, I didn't mean that you have to know that there's a difference between e.g. Pope Michael I and the dozens of people in communion with him, and Pope Francis and the billion+ people in communion with him. But I do think it makes you appear more intelligent if you do. Smiley
Just numbers.  I can count.

But the division in this section isn't according to numbers. Just dogma.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

I wouldn't literally put them anywhere (unless they asked me for a ride somewhere) but whenever I start a thread about them I put it in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section.
Somehow I think they'd protest that.
Logged

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

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,387



« Reply #173 on: March 16, 2013, 06:11:46 PM »

Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't know any statements of Fatima that overly relate to Purgatory.  Hell, yes.  And perhaps that's one point, that they showed Hell as a place where people are in flames of torment.  But that concept is not foreign to most Melkites, and I'm guessing more believe in that "version" of Hell than the "River of Fire" scenario of Hell and Heaven being in the same place.  
The references to Hell aren't a problem, but there are a number of explicit references to purgatory.  Here's one:
Quote
And Amelia?’

‘She will be in Purgatory until the end of the world.’


The Immaculate Conception was more of a Lourdes thing.  Strangely, the Antiochians seem to love Lourdes, although I personally am much more neutral about it.
It was just an affirmation of the immaculate conception that came before. This wasn't directly at Fatima, but was to Sr Lucy later:
Quote
My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

1. Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.


As for the Theotokos holding back God's wrath, again, if you buy into "River of Fire" it's contradictory.  But I just finished The Last Akathist last night, and sang "O Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us" about 75 times.  I do believe Mary's prayers effect mercy; again, most Melkites are probably in my corner on this one.
I'm not familiar with the "River of Fire," although I believe fully that the Theotokos' prayers are the most efficacious. That said, the Fatima accounts portray that God wants to destroy everyone right this second because of our offences against him, but the only thing staying Christ's hand is Mary's direct intervention. It's the relationship God has with/toward humanity that I think is problematic, not the Virgin's intervention on our behalf.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 06:12:49 PM by Nephi » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #174 on: March 16, 2013, 08:38:48 PM »

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).

To paraphrase MAbp Shevchuk: Who are we to determine who is canonical in Catholicism and who is not?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #175 on: March 16, 2013, 09:23:12 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".

Oh, he was just being modest.

Wink

But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.

Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.

Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?

We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions.  Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .

brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 

Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #176 on: March 16, 2013, 09:25:32 PM »

Ialmisry,  who is the rock?

Jesus Christ.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

Did your sect throw out the OT, especially with Moses drawing water from the rock?
Did your sect throw out the NT when Jesus ministered to the Samaritan Woman and told her that he was living water?

This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern "Orthodox" scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern "Orthodox" work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that peter is the rock:

"There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. jesus will build the church upon Cephas." p 48
"By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church." p 72

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, De. poenit. 4, 387 A.D "Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...when I name Peter I name that unbroken ROCK, that firm foundation..."
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D) Against Eunomians, 4
"Peter...ho on account of the pre-eminence of his faith recieved UPON HIMSELF the building of the Church."
St Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), Oration 26 "of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and desrving of the choice, one is called ROCK and entrusted with the foundations of the Church..."

The keys of the kingdom are given to Peter
Jesus prays for Peter's faith to fail not in Luke 22:24-32?
Peter is mentioned over 100 times in the new testament, the next closest apostle is St John, who is named 29 times
every list of the 12 apostles has Peter first
In Matthew's list , Peter is not only mentioned first, but called "first" or "chief" Matthew 10: " Now the names......The first (protos) is called Peter
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal.
Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1:15-20
In Acts 2 we see St Peter's primacy as the pope in his long speech to the jews.
The first gentile convert is told to specifically go to St Peter. the head of the church in Acts 10:4-6
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter in John 21
So let me rephrase the question , who is the Rock in Matthew 16-19  ?

The question has already been answered twice: First by me and second by ialmisry.
Question was answered and you are clearly wrong.
I explained how your sect is incorrect in detail how although Jesus is the rock that  Peter is clearly  the rock in Matthew 16. You can not refute the evidence I presented  so my explanation still stands.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #177 on: March 16, 2013, 09:26:59 PM »

yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even  to these orthodox scholars  who Jesus was referring to as the rock

In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.

So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built?  St. Peter himself says "no".
1 Cor. 3:11)
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”


 
You  fail to realize that the bible speaks of all the Apostles as foundations

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Is there a contradiction between Rev 21:14 and 1 Cor 3:11? No ofcourse not. The fact that Christ is the only foundation as 1 Cor 3:11 teaches simply means that everything comes from Christ. All true authority in the Church must come from Christ because the Church itself comes from Christ. Anything outside of Christ is a false foundation.

 

"Peter’s authority comes precisely from Jesus Christ, as matthew 16 shows. It’s quite obvious,therefore that if Jesus is the one who established these things in Peter, then what’s set up in peter is not a foundation other than of Christ. It’s the very foundation of Christ."


So the fact that Christ is the foundation or the cornerstone,as we read in Ephesians 2:20,does not mean that Christ Himself could not or did not establish one apostle to have a perpetual office which would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For example: Jesus is the Good Shepherd ( John 10:14), but He also gives the responsibility of shepherding all His sheep to Peter, as in John 21:15-17. Jesus is the one with the keys (Rev. 1:18,Rev3:7),but He gives His keys to Peter.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #178 on: March 16, 2013, 09:29:08 PM »

I suggest you do some research, start here
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/our_lady_of_fatima.php

Which sedevacantist group are you affiliated with?

This is a bigger problem with sedevacantism.

You have the conclavist sedevacantists (who elected their own Pope and thus are no longer technically sedes) such as Pope Michael I and Pius XIII/Fr. Lucian Pulvumacher's group.

You have the independent sedevacantists (called "home alone" sedes) who stay at home and just recite the Rosary (or some other pious prayers) every Sunday.

You have SSPV, which were the 9 priests who broke off from the (non-sede, but traditional) SSPX.

You have CMRI, who I think has now kisses and made up with the SSPV but which historically has not gotten along with them.

Then you have the Dimond Brothers' unique brand of theology that condemns pretty much everyone else here.


There are others I've forgotten or neglected, I'm sure.


It's worse than tracking the splits in the Presbyterian Church.  God help us if one of these is right, because the chances of successfully parsing this out are materially zero.
let me clear it up for you
The sedevacantist groups you mention (except the dimonds)  are not true Catholics since they reject the clear dogma of the true Catholic Church that there is no salvation outside of the church. So do you believe there is salvation outside the church?
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #179 on: March 16, 2013, 09:33:09 PM »

Catholics are not required to believe in private revelations. As a Traditionalist, you should know this.

As a Catholic you should know that Marian Apparitions are required dogma from Traditionalists.  Isn't that how they figured out that Pope John Paul II was a modernist Pope?  Because he didn't consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as she requested in Fatima?
certain apparitions were false, not fatima ofcourse

I believe Fatima to be a true apparition.  In my youth, I did not.  Neither (directly) affects my salvation.  If you say it does, then you commit the heresy of believing that public revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle, which has been confirmed from time immemorial in the Catholic Church, and prove yourself to be in error.
don't worry about if i would say, concentrate on what I actually say, Fatima is important because it proves the Catholic religion, so for eastern orthodox it would be a good idea for them to look into the matter, for catholics if one doesn't believe in fatima it wouldn't necessarily affect their salvation, it would just mean that person is ignorant.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  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 0.234 seconds with 72 queries.