Topic: questions from a catholic for the eastern orthodox

[JoeS2]

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic church and I am saved thank you very much.

[sedevacantist]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

[JoeS2]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

You know that I cant help but think that if you were an Orthodox saying this on CAF you would have been kicked off long ago.....But we are much more understanding......Peace be with you!

[sedevacantist]

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic church and I am saved thank you very much.

even the protestants believe they are saved, just because they believe it doesn't make it so, and to be frank deep down I do hope you are saved , I hope my good friends and family will be saved who don't practice the catholic faith to it's fullest , but after all the research I just don't see how it's possible, I believe the few are saved and I can only hope I will be saved, I'm not scared of anything in life any more except that I won't be saved....my salvation isn't secure because as the blessed Paul said we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, so I do fear it, I think you should too

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do
the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and
other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”5
 

[choy]

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic church and I am saved thank you very much.

even the protestants believe they are saved, just because they believe it doesn't make it so, and to be frank deep down I do hope you are saved , I hope my good friends and family will be saved who don't practice the catholic faith to it's fullest , but after all the research I just don't see how it's possible, I believe the few are saved and I can only hope I will be saved, I'm not scared of anything in life any more except that I won't be saved....my salvation isn't secure because as the blessed Paul said we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, so I do fear it, I think you should too

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do
the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and
other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”5
 

So the Pope of Rome saying that only those under him are saved.

Sounds Protestant.

[JoeS2]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

they go to hell where there's no fire, limbo, which biblical passage that I posted are you not in agreement with?

Didn't the RCC do away with the myth of Limbo some years ago?

[choy]

Didn't the RCC do away with the myth of Limbo some years ago?

That's the original and real RCC, not the RCC of sedevacantist which personally interprets Canon Law.

[SolEX01]

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.

,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ

You parrot the Most Holy Family Monastery website which displays articles on UFO's and other conspiracy theories.

, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

You said you were going to embarrass me, which I interpreted as having upset you.  I hold no ill will towards you.   

[choy]

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Obviously.  You're still a sedevacantist.

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.

Rather than misinterpret our guidelines on what should be discussed here and what should be discussed there, why don't you leave this to the moderators to explain and stop playing moderator yourself?

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.

But dialogue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is permitted here on the Orthodox-Catholic Board, even if the intent on either side is to convince others to convert from the other side. Again, this comes down to you reporting posts to the moderators rather than misrepresenting the rules in your attempts to play moderator.

[SolEX01]

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.

Rather than misinterpret our guidelines on what should be discussed here and what should be discussed there, why don't you leave this to the moderators to explain and stop playing moderator yourself?

It wasn't my intention to play moderator.  I should have quit at "PM Fr. George for access to the Private fora."

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.

But dialogue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is permitted here on the Orthodox-Catholic Board, even if the intent on either side is to convince others to convert from the other side. Again, this comes down to you reporting posts to the moderators rather than misrepresenting the rules in your attempts to play moderator.

I don't think sedevacantist is a Catholic; hence, the charge of proselytizing.  I didn't want to report him because of his self-admission at failing to save people.  I'll exercise better discernment.   

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.

Rather than misinterpret our guidelines on what should be discussed here and what should be discussed there, why don't you leave this to the moderators to explain and stop playing moderator yourself?

It wasn't my intention to play moderator.  I should have quit at "PM Fr. George for access to the Private fora."

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.

But dialogue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is permitted here on the Orthodox-Catholic Board, even if the intent on either side is to convince others to convert from the other side. Again, this comes down to you reporting posts to the moderators rather than misrepresenting the rules in your attempts to play moderator.

I don't think sedevacantist is a Catholic; hence, the charge of proselytizing.

Well, he certainly isn't Orthodox. It's well known that sedevacantist believes in the claims of the papacy to universal sovereignty and infallibility. AISI, that makes him a Roman Catholic. He's just a Catholic who believes that his Church has not had a valid pope since at least as early as 1962, if not earlier. That belief, however, does not make him any less qualified to represent the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in dialogue with the Orthodox than--let's say--Papist.

[Cyrillic]

so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what

No, I think you shouldn't accept the Papacy and her claims to begin with.

[sedevacantist]

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.
 etc,
, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

You said you were going to embarrass me, which I interpreted as having upset you.  I hold no ill will towards you.  

I was going to embarass you with information to prove your position wrong, ie if you think the gov't didn't lie about 9/11, if I told you that you believed in ufo's instead of Christ  I think you would take offense too, ...I hold no ill towards you too

quote tags fixed. S1389

[sedevacantist]

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic church and I am saved thank you very much.

even the protestants believe they are saved, just because they believe it doesn't make it so, and to be frank deep down I do hope you are saved , I hope my good friends and family will be saved who don't practice the catholic faith to it's fullest , but after all the research I just don't see how it's possible, I believe the few are saved and I can only hope I will be saved, I'm not scared of anything in life any more except that I won't be saved....my salvation isn't secure because as the blessed Paul said we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, so I do fear it, I think you should too

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do
the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and
other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”5
 

So the Pope of Rome saying that only those under him are saved.

Sounds Protestant.

protestants believe in faith alone...your list of nonsensical remarks just keeps growing by the minute

[podkarpatska]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

[Peter J]

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,....

No one said you were (well, as far as I can recall).

[sedevacantist]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

[sedevacantist]

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,....

No one said you were (well, as far as I can recall).

when did I say someone said I was?, I meant  that it doesn't look like anyone here is interested in changing their views, what's your point? do you believe as a catholic you are supposed to convert others to the true faith?

[SolEX01]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?

[Peter J]

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,....

No one said you were (well, as far as I can recall).

when did I say someone said I was?

Oh, I never said that you said someone said that.

[sedevacantist]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?

like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

[SolEX01]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?

like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.

Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   

So what you would argue is that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these unnatural acts are fully culpable in their sin and thus commit a Mortal Sin cutting themselves off from Sanctifying Grace that extends to them Eternal Life? Is that honestly what you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

That is my understanding of Roman Catholic theology.  I do not have to justify it any more than you can justify Orthodox theology on any topic.

Brilliant reasoning.  I can say any untruth about your Church and it becomes true because that is how I understand it.

Most of us live by understandings because we do not have the "coins" or the "dice" to really discover the "facts" about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world.

I have many RC friends; I do not discuss theology with them because I don't want to engage in these "clanging of cymbals" discussions as experienced on the Internet.  However, because the Catholics and Orthodox are passionate (yup, that's not a healthy condition) about their stances, the only way to learn about the other's position is to "clang the cymbals" because we can also Praise God through the "clanging of the cymbals" just as Elijah ordered fire down from Heaven to burn the water drenched sacrifices

True genius.  I wish I'd had the coins to do that in my graduate theses.  Would have saved a great deal of time.

Big risks = Big rewards (if one has nothing to lose)   

Eastern Orthodoxy is not a simple faith at all.

Freely you have received; Freely give. (Matthew 10:8 )

When one is received into Roman Catholicism; one is automatically bounded by the IC, by Humanae Vitae, et al. as the price paid upon entering the Catholic Communion.  What is there to give back when one has to obey more canon laws, some of them have automatic and permanent excommunications without recourse via Penance, than civil laws?   

In worldly everyday conversations; we hear the familiar phrase…Nothing is free in life. Now the reality…freedom of any kind is a gift that is presented with a cost of humanity, dignity and the sharing with others. We need not receive a penny for a favor; but await a reward of gratitude and joyful heart of another human being.…!

source

It changes to meet the current theological winds.

What theological winds?  St. John Climacus is a Saint in your Church as well ... how many RC Bishops and Popes have we seen falling off the ladder?

For example, you used believe in Purgatory and Original sin, but now that it's in style to be as anti-Latin as possible you don't. How unfortunate.

You state that as fact; hence, I defer to those who can contest that better than I can.   

[PeterTheAleut]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?

like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.

Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

[Cyrillic]

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

[SolEX01]

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.

[SolEX01]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?

like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.

Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

Goes back to what I said in 1/2011: "Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world."

[PeterTheAleut]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?

like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.

Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

Goes back to what I said in 1/2011: "Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world."

Instead, we have thousands upon thousands of hierarchical encyclicals and scores of local councils that many Orthodox around the world think are legally binding upon themselves. How is that any different?

[SolEX01]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?

like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.

Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

Goes back to what I said in 1/2011: "Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world."

Instead, we have thousands upon thousands of hierarchical encyclicals and scores of local councils that many Orthodox around the world think are legally binding upon themselves. How is that any different?

I don't know.   

[ialmisry]

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

I am a bit surprised that you would take the decisions and choices of one family in their unique situation and extrapolate all manner of things about Orthodox from it.

My mother was baptized into the Roman Catholic church at the age of six (in about 1935), along with three of her siblings. This was not a 'convert' family. Similarly my own grandson was a year old before his parents (both lifelong Roman Catholics) baptized him into the Roman Catholic church.

Do I think this was stretching it? I certainly do,  these two examples are incredible breaches of normal practice. I myself was baptized into the RC church right out of the hospital (following RC custom of the day, my parents didn't go, but they filmed my godparents taking me away to church and bringing me back to the party). I had my children baptized in the Roman Catholic church very soon right out of the hospital (I attended but the congregation was not present).

Among Roman Catholics there is such an incredible variety of adherence it would be foolish for anyone to make any assumptions of what is proper or correct by their example. This case of an Orthodox family is no different, one should not infer anything from the example of one family at any given time in their faith journey.

I suggest that if you have any more questions about Holy Orthodoxy there is plenty of written material available. Read "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by Saint John Damascene (a Doctor of your church) for starters. It is available on Kindle.

You can learn more from "The Orthodox Way" by bishop Kallistos Ware.

kind regards

St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics. 

Too bad he isn't one (btw, my own priest makes that same mistake).

[ialmisry]

St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics. 

It's true

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.

Who was burning for hatred of Aristotle?

[ialmisry]

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.

I found them

instant conclave.  Just add water.

[Cyrillic]

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where? 

The graveyard.

[JoeS2]

I found them

instant conclave.  Just add water.

 

[ialmisry]

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.

No, they are done.  Only a supreme pontiff can make a cardinal, only cardinals can elect a supreme pontiff according to the rules in effect in 1958, only a "supreme pontiff" can change the rules, and all the cardinals made by "supreme pontiffs" before 1958 have all died long ago.

[SolEX01]

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.

you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, 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."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)

I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?

like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.

Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

Goes back to what I said in 1/2011: "Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world."

Instead, we have thousands upon thousands of hierarchical encyclicals and scores of local councils that many Orthodox around the world think are legally binding upon themselves. How is that any different?

I don't know.   

I've thought about this based on the thread in Convert Issues about Legalism.

The hierarchical encyclicals and scores of legal councils are intended to provide freedom to the Orthodox.

One can argue that the Popes issue their documents for the freedom of their own people.  Since the Pope is a head of state and can speak ex cathedra because he's infallible, his encyclicals are like ones coming from a dictator - restricting freedom.

[SolEX01]

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.

No, they are done.  Only a supreme pontiff can make a cardinal, only cardinals can elect a supreme pontiff according to the rules in effect in 1958, only a "supreme pontiff" can change the rules, and all the cardinals made by "supreme pontiffs" before 1958 have all died long ago.

Thank you.

sedevacantist wouldn't recognize any changes in papal election rules from Pope Francis because he doesn't recognize Pope Francis.  Maybe this idea of pre-1958 Bishops might have worked 30 years ago and sedevacantist would have a pre-1958 Pope and enough cardinals that can elect new Popes without the Vatican II taint.  In effect, the Old Calendarist version of Roman Catholic Church.  I was trying to be helpful.   

[JoeS2]

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.

No, they are done.  Only a supreme pontiff can make a cardinal, only cardinals can elect a supreme pontiff according to the rules in effect in 1958, only a "supreme pontiff" can change the rules, and all the cardinals made by "supreme pontiffs" before 1958 have all died long ago.

Thank you.

sedevacantist wouldn't recognize any changes in papal election rules from Pope Francis because he doesn't recognize Pope Francis.  Maybe this idea of pre-1958 Bishops might have worked 30 years ago and sedevacantist would have a pre-1958 Pope and enough cardinals that can elect new Popes without the Vatican II taint.  In effect, the Old Calendarist version of Roman Catholic Church.  I was trying to be helpful.  

Would this non recognition of which I read be a case of self excommunication?