OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 06:42:18 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern opinion of Western Saints and Visionaries  (Read 5609 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #45 on: August 27, 2013, 06:39:53 PM »

Yes but the wisdom of the principle is universal and can be applied. Since you know of it, use it

I just don't see how it applies to the Sacred Heart. Or the Immaculate Conception.

It's just as true that delusion breeds more delusion.   

Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #46 on: August 27, 2013, 06:42:36 PM »

I like Bernard of Clairvaux (But not the idea that he was breastfed by the Theotokos And William of St. Thierry.  Smiley




Same here
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #47 on: August 27, 2013, 06:47:30 PM »

Yes but the wisdom of the principle is universal and can be applied. Since you know of it, use it

I just don't see how it applies to the Sacred Heart. Or the Immaculate Conception.

How it applies to SH , IC and those elders you mentioned is that; one must not be hasty in judgment/action lest they find themselves fighting/condemning (in this case) God

THAT is the principle of Gamiliel's test.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 06:49:26 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #48 on: August 27, 2013, 06:50:19 PM »

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol

I suppose you could call true or false two extremes, if you want to.

Quote
If you don't believe these peasant girls then by all means dismiss their claims. But don't go claiming,its from Satan now. As you saw the pharasies did that and look how that turned out Tongue

Yeah, you keep bringing them up for some reason. I don't see how it is Pharisaical in the slightest to insist on correct doctrine, and to be wary of demons and the various visions and messages they tempt the faithful with, but I guess I am an extremist because I'm tempted to answer your repeated allusions to the Pharisees with a few of my own to the Montanists and others who accepted new supposed revelations given to the faithful...and of course, we can all look at how that turned out for them, as well.
Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #49 on: August 27, 2013, 07:00:08 PM »

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol

I suppose you could call true or false two extremes, if you want to.

Quote
If you don't believe these peasant girls then by all means dismiss their claims. But don't go claiming,its from Satan now. As you saw the pharasies did that and look how that turned out Tongue


Yeah, you keep bringing them up for some reason. I don't see how it is Pharisaical in the slightest to insist on correct doctrine, and to be wary of demons and the various visions and messages they tempt the faithful with, but I guess I am an extremist because I'm tempted to answer your repeated allusions to the Pharisees with a few of my own to the Montanists and others who accepted new supposed revelations given to the faithful...and of course, we can all look at how that turned out for them, as well.

OH MY GOSH Roll Eyes FACE PALM

lol One more time : correct doctrine is not the issue.  The issue is neither condemnation of what you refuse to believe. The issue is claiming its from Satan. The Pharasies did this and some guy earlier in the thread was guilty of doing the same. The problem is the pharasies ,in so doing this, blasphemed the Holy Spirit and there is always this possibility as you don't know the true origins of the doctrine and neither did they know the origin of Christs power over demons.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #50 on: August 27, 2013, 07:10:48 PM »

If it is not in line (as far as what you know about what has been revealed) with what you believe to be true them by all means dismiss it. However don't go a step further and attempt to ascribe origins to the doctrine like the pharasies did. That is my contention with the other poster saying IC is a demonic deception

Some of our greatest Saints and Elders considered Western mystics to be the victims of demonic delusion. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov especially, in his book On prelest dwells on this subject.

http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-is-spiritual-delusion 

You might enjoy this little history of visions seen by western heretics:

Marian Apparitions:  Divine Intevention or Delusion?
By Miriam Lambouras
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #51 on: August 27, 2013, 07:14:04 PM »

The view of the Orthodox Fathers and Elders on delusion (prelest, plane) and its diagnosis is quite consistent and cogent. It's not something someone just dreamt up or had a revelation about, but the fruit of the experience of countless generations of ascetics. If they don't possess the charisma of spiritual discernment, then I don't know who does.

What they say about imagination, sensual impressions, stigmata, visions and apparitions of "angels of light" is rooted in and confirmed by their own spiritual life and experience with teaching disciples.  
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #52 on: August 27, 2013, 07:17:03 PM »

I like Bernard of Clairvaux (but not the idea that he was breastfed by the Theotokos). And William of St. Thierry.  Smiley




And bad art.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2013, 07:19:09 PM »

This is how the Chief Priests thought also. Seeing Jesus perform exorcisms and miracles outside of their own, they were quick to condemn its as the work of Satan for if it was not from them( The keepers of faith appointed by God) who ,other than Satan, could it be from?

Alas! They found themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Rejecting truths prematurely, before they were revealed to them.

So Lourdes is equal to the death and resurrection of Christ.  Got it.   Undecided  

This is why I said the parallel magisterium of seers worries me more than the phenomena themselves.

This is deliberately off base and  you know this.

I was only addressing the incident Christ performing exorcisms in front of the Jewish Priests who condemned it as from Satan because it was not from them.
And they were actually wrong and blasphemed God in the process.

Moral of the of the story is watch your words and do not be so quick to dismiss things not revealed to you yet  as of Satan.

There's more in that Gospel passage than meets your eye. See the thread on King Solomon's Ring, IIRC.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #54 on: August 27, 2013, 07:20:28 PM »

lol One more time : correct doctrine is not the issue.
 

You sure about that? Huh

Quote
The issue is neither condemnation of what you refuse to believe. The issue is claiming its from Satan. The Pharasies did this and some guy earlier in the thread was guilty of doing the same. The problem is the pharasies ,in so doing this, blasphemed the Holy Spirit and there is always this possibility as you don't know the true origins of the doctrine and neither did they know the origin of Christs power over demons.

I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you. As you'd have it, we cannot say for sure where it comes from, so there's always some outside chance that it could be right (that's what I meant by giving anyone the benefit of the doubt; I'm not actually doing that or suggesting anyone else do so). And, as luck would have it, we do not make any kind of binding proclamations regarding the life of the Holy Spirit as it may or may not exist in other communions (regardless of what "some guy" earlier in the thread may have written, as was his right). So that is a non-concern. What is a very real concern, however, is that any of the faithful should be taken in by the Latin visions and come to believe in the very false doctrines promulgated with reference to them. Because we can in fact tell where these erroneous ideas came from, so it's not really a mystery or something that we need to watch for in the sense that you are advocating. Indeed, such delusions are dangerous, but not because we might fail to appraise them properly. For every one that is rejected, the Fathers have done so already. To give but one example, St. Athanasius the Apostolic pointed out in his Epistula ad Adelphium (c. 370 AD) that it is wrong to worship the Body of Christ (as in, the literal physical anatomy or pieces thereof) considered as a separate thing, apart from the Word, so we do not wonder about your popular "Sacred Heart" devotion, rooted as it is in post-Schism/17th century religious orders and private visions given to Marguerite Marie Alacoque that encourage doing just that which St. Athanasius has told us is wrong to do.

So we are not at a loss as to how to consider these things. However, for your benefit, please note that I have written all this without even once saying that the visions themselves came from the Devil, or anywhere else. So perhaps now you can understand without trying to make us hedge our bets in favor of your "well, maybeeee..." theology. That's spiritually dangerous and theologically bankrupt.
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2013, 07:28:51 PM »

You might enjoy this little history of visions seen by western heretics:

Marian Apparitions:  Divine Intevention or Delusion?
By Miriam Lambouras
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx

Looks interesting - thanks!  Smiley
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: 37,963



« Reply #56 on: August 27, 2013, 07:48:03 PM »

Yes but the wisdom of the principle is universal and can be applied. Since you know of it, use it

I just don't see how it applies to the Sacred Heart. Or the Immaculate Conception.

How it applies to SH , IC and those elders you mentioned is that; one must not be hasty in judgment/action lest they find themselves fighting/condemning (in this case) God

THAT is the principle of Gamiliel's test.
How about Muhammad's ascension to heaven: should we give it the same benefit of the doubt?
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #57 on: August 27, 2013, 08:53:56 PM »

Yes but the wisdom of the principle is universal and can be applied. Since you know of it, use it

I just don't see how it applies to the Sacred Heart. Or the Immaculate Conception.

How it applies to SH , IC and those elders you mentioned is that; one must not be hasty in judgment/action lest they find themselves fighting/condemning (in this case) God

THAT is the principle of Gamiliel's test.
How about Muhammad's ascension to heaven: should we give it the same benefit of the doubt?


You're childish
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #58 on: August 27, 2013, 08:56:41 PM »

The view of the Orthodox Fathers and Elders on delusion (prelest, plane) and its diagnosis is quite consistent and cogent. It's not something someone just dreamt up or had a revelation about, but the fruit of the experience of countless generations of ascetics. If they don't possess the charisma of spiritual discernment, then I don't know who does.

What they say about imagination, sensual impressions, stigmata, visions and apparitions of "angels of light" is rooted in and confirmed by their own spiritual life and experience with teaching disciples.  

Yet they are still fallible... so,can I ask you what their take on stigmata is?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #59 on: August 27, 2013, 09:03:20 PM »

lol One more time : correct doctrine is not the issue.
 

You sure about that? Huh

Quote
The issue is neither condemnation of what you refuse to believe. The issue is claiming its from Satan. The Pharasies did this and some guy earlier in the thread was guilty of doing the same. The problem is the pharasies ,in so doing this, blasphemed the Holy Spirit and there is always this possibility as you don't know the true origins of the doctrine and neither did they know the origin of Christs power over demons.

I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you. As you'd have it, we cannot say for sure where it comes from, so there's always some outside chance that it could be right (that's what I meant by giving anyone the benefit of the doubt; I'm not actually doing that or suggesting anyone else do so). And, as luck would have it, we do not make any kind of binding proclamations regarding the life of the Holy Spirit as it may or may not exist in other communions (regardless of what "some guy" earlier in the thread may have written, as was his right). So that is a non-concern. What is a very real concern, however, is that any of the faithful should be taken in by the Latin visions and come to believe in the very false doctrines promulgated with reference to them. Because we can in fact tell where these erroneous ideas came from, so it's not really a mystery or something that we need to watch for in the sense that you are advocating. Indeed, such delusions are dangerous, but not because we might fail to appraise them properly. For every one that is rejected, the Fathers have done so already. To give but one example, St. Athanasius the Apostolic pointed out in his Epistula ad Adelphium (c. 370 AD) that it is wrong to worship the Body of Christ (as in, the literal physical anatomy or pieces thereof) considered as a separate thing, apart from the Word, so we do not wonder about your popular "Sacred Heart" devotion, rooted as it is in post-Schism/17th century religious orders and private visions given to Marguerite Marie Alacoque that encourage doing just that which St. Athanasius has told us is wrong to do.

So we are not at a loss as to how to consider these things. However, for your benefit, please note that I have written all this without even once saying that the visions themselves came from the Devil, or anywhere else. So perhaps now you can understand without trying to make us hedge our bets in favor of your "well, maybeeee..." theology. That's spiritually dangerous and theologically bankrupt.

"Well maybeee theology" LOL that's not my position either. Are you blatantly not listening to what I'm saying?

e.g. Islam is not true. It contradicts the Catholic faith. Its heresy. Is it from Satan ? I don't know and won't pretend to know. All I know is the truth revealed to me and it contradicts this truth.

How is that "well maybeee..." theology. There is not even a hint of the possibility of me accepting Islam so there's no "maybe" or "give it the benefit of the doubt".

You're being unnecessarily argumentative WOW
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,959


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #60 on: August 27, 2013, 09:39:55 PM »

You are reading things into what I said.

I overstated nothing. What's similar is there is faction who believe themselves the only source of truth and keepers of faith and there is an opposed who presents something they do not accept.

As a general principle, OK, but why pretend to be neutral when we are both Christians?  There's clearly a difference between the Jewish leadership's rejection of Christ and the Orthodox neutrality on/discouragement of belief in private revelations that are by all accounts entirely unnecessary to be a good Christian.  The Jewish priesthood believed they were basing their condemnation of Christ on their interpretation of the Scriptures (the "source" of truth).  But we believe that Christ himself is the Truth Incarnate, through whom and only through whom we properly understand the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.  And he clearly admitted as much when called on it in various ways in the Gospels.  We don't give the Jews the benefit of the doubt on that matter: the Jewish leadership largely rejected him, but the entire people did not reject him.  As St Paul says about humans in general in Romans 1, "they are without excuse".  All of that is public revelation.  It is of the substance of Christian faith.  Why be neutral about it?  Are you an adherent of the Jesus Seminar or something?  There's no justification for being neutral unless you're straining to make a ridiculous comparison between us and the Sanhedrin.    

Our acceptance or rejection of Western spiritual phenomena is based on the Orthodox faith and what is in accordance with it.  If a RC has a vision which promotes a RC belief that Orthodox regard as erroneous (if not outright heretical) in terms of the publicly revealed Orthodox faith, what should the Orthodox believe about it?  If an Orthodox has a vision which rejects papal infallibility, what will you or the Vatican have to say about that?  Will they say "we should give it the benefit of the doubt because you never know"?  Or will they say "no vision that comes from God would contradict our faith" and reject it outright?  They did the latter with such visions as those of Veronica Leuken in Bayside, NY.  They were judged to be contrary to RC faith and/or morals, and condemned.  All we are applying is the same principle.  You just don't like it because we're not jumping on your preferred bandwagon.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe there was something supernatural and "of God" in Lourdes and Fatima; I believe that because I trust the basic story and I know the positive effect their messages of increased prayer and penance have had on myself and others.  I don't have all the answers regarding how to account for things like Our Lady's identification as "the Immaculate Conception", I have some ideas of why things may have happened the way they did that don't involve Satan, but it's all just a hunch.  I don't claim it as the Church's opinion, it's just mine, and I'm willing to accept correction if I'm wrong.  But I don't pretend for one minute that "Immaculate Conception", as RCs believe it, is an Orthodox doctrine, or that it (or other "revelations" that give credence to RC beliefs or practices) may be more Orthodox than I thought because someone claimed a vision confirmed it for them.  That's ludicrous.  No one is required to believe any of these things.  So again and again, we return to the substance of the faith.

Quote
Its one thing to dismiss what is being presented. It is entirely another to say it has its origins from Satan. This is certainly against giving every claim the benefit of the doubt. Its ok to dismiss and leave it at that. Its another to take it one step further and claim demonic,origins of what is being presented as you will be in a lot of trouble if what is presented is actually from God.

LOL.  You're so into Gamaliel that you pass over his student:

Quote
Galatians 1 (RSV)

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Exactly how much benefit of the doubt do you want?  Your St Bernadette says her Lady called herself the Immaculate Conception (not "I am/was immaculately conceived" but "I am the Immaculate Conception").  You inform us of that vision.  Our official response is along the lines of "The Immaculate Conception is not an Orthodox teaching, so we cannot agree that that message is of divine origin".  If the Lady told St Bernadette "My son is dead, he lived to be 75 and had children with that Mary of Magdala, and your maternal grandfather is a direct descendent", would the RC's really give it any more benefit of the doubt than we did in the first example?  Don't be silly.    

Now, some go a little further and, identifying the Immaculate Conception as heretical, assign its origins to the demonic.  I don't know that I feel comfortable saying so outright, but they have a point: what/who is the origin of heresy?  One of the Matins antiphons on 15 August in the old Roman Breviary addresses the Mother of God, saying "Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou hast trampled down all the heresies in the whole world"...it's probably safe to say that heresy does not come from God.  Then?  Even if it is of human origin alone, it is false and is used to deceive people and lead them away from the Truth.  That is the work of the demons.  So it's not like it's an absolutely extreme nonsensical view.  Again, we start from the faith and go forward, we don't start with visions and read backward.      

How about Muhammad's ascension to heaven: should we give it the same benefit of the doubt?

You're childish


No, he's not.  He's applying your logic to other "private revelations" claimed by others.
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #61 on: August 27, 2013, 11:33:33 PM »

This is a very open debate/discussion topic

What is your (An Easterner) position on certain Catholic saints and mystics who claim to have certain visions that trouble the Orthodox position.

Do any of you easterners (Both Catholic and Orthodox) have devotions to any wester saints of the post schism Catholic Church?

I rather like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Faustina Kowalska (especially the Divine Mercy chaplet). Although, I wouldn't exactly say I have a "devotion" to them even if I might be inclined to say a short prayer to St. Francis, or on the rare occasion pray the DM chaplet.

And overall I take a rather agnostic stance on visions, or at least ones that contradict Orthodoxy. I suppose the visionary may have transmitted the vision wrong (misrecalling, pressure, influence, assumptions, etc.) even if the base vision did in fact happen.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #62 on: August 27, 2013, 11:42:37 PM »

The Divine Mercy chaplet

 Roll Eyes

"As often as you hear the clock strike the third hour immerse yourself completely in My mercy, adoring and glorifying it, invoke its omnipotence for the whole world, and particularly for poor sinners, for at that moment mercy was opened wide for every soul."

Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #63 on: August 27, 2013, 11:51:47 PM »

The Divine Mercy chaplet

 Roll Eyes

"As often as you hear the clock strike the third hour immerse yourself completely in My mercy, adoring and glorifying it, invoke its omnipotence for the whole world, and particularly for poor sinners, for at that moment mercy was opened wide for every soul."



Not sure what you're getting at, but you should note that I specified the "chaplet."
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #64 on: August 28, 2013, 12:01:02 AM »

The Divine Mercy chaplet

 Roll Eyes

"As often as you hear the clock strike the third hour immerse yourself completely in My mercy, adoring and glorifying it, invoke its omnipotence for the whole world, and particularly for poor sinners, for at that moment mercy was opened wide for every soul."

Not sure what you're getting at, but you should note that I specified the "chaplet."

Which "Jesus" recommended to Sr. Faustina to pray at the third hour, in order to take "a spiritual bath" in his mercy or something.

I guess it trumps them canonical hours. 
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,959


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 28, 2013, 12:03:07 AM »

Which "Jesus" recommended to Sr. Faustina to pray at the third hour, in order to take "a spiritual bath" in his mercy or something.

I guess it trumps them canonical hours. 

Anything has trumped the canonical hours in RCism for centuries.  I won't criticise "Jesus" too much for that.  Tongue
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,259


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #66 on: August 28, 2013, 12:06:07 AM »

Which "Jesus" recommended to Sr. Faustina to pray at the third hour, in order to take "a spiritual bath" in his mercy or something.

I guess it trumps them canonical hours. 

Anything has trumped the canonical hours in RCism for centuries.  I won't criticise "Jesus" too much for that.  Tongue

 laugh laugh Kiss
Logged
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,083



« Reply #67 on: August 28, 2013, 12:07:37 AM »

Who is this "Jesus"? Is he honored in the West for having had a vision?
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #68 on: August 28, 2013, 12:17:05 AM »

Who is this "Jesus"? Is he honored in the West for having had a vision?

Apparently, he's this whimsical lover of many a Western nun who keeps talking to them in visions and reveals how exactly he is to be pleased. See the revelations of St. Brigitta, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the Divine Mercy chaplet, and so on and so on.
Logged
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,083



« Reply #69 on: August 28, 2013, 12:18:38 AM »

Who is this "Jesus"? Is he honored in the West for having had a vision?

Apparently, he's this whimsical lover of many a Western nun who keeps talking to them in visions and reveals how exactly he is to be pleased. See the revelations of St. Brigitta, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the Divine Mercy chaplet, and so on and so on.

I suppose this answers the OP's question. Lips Sealed
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 12:20:35 AM by lovesupreme » Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #70 on: August 28, 2013, 12:33:51 AM »

The Divine Mercy chaplet

 Roll Eyes

"As often as you hear the clock strike the third hour immerse yourself completely in My mercy, adoring and glorifying it, invoke its omnipotence for the whole world, and particularly for poor sinners, for at that moment mercy was opened wide for every soul."

Not sure what you're getting at, but you should note that I specified the "chaplet."

Which "Jesus" recommended to Sr. Faustina to pray at the third hour, in order to take "a spiritual bath" in his mercy or something.

I guess it trumps them canonical hours.  

Anyone reading her diary can easily see that her visions are contrary to Orthodox belief, but that doesn't mean the chaplet isn't a nice prayer (IMO it is, but others can feel free to disagree). Again, I specified the "chaplet" (as in the specific set of prayers set on a rope) and not "Divine Mercy" in general (including the visions' claims about said chaplet).
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 12:35:40 AM by Nephi » Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #71 on: August 28, 2013, 12:41:54 AM »

"Well maybeee theology" LOL that's not my position either. Are you blatantly not listening to what I'm saying?

I am reading what you write and paying attention when you write things like this:

Quote
there is always this possibility as you don't know the true origins of the doctrine and neither did they know the origin of Christs power over demons.

In addition to going back to your inappropriate analogy between the miracles of Christ and your own false RC doctrines, it sure has heck does sound like "well, maybe..." ("there's always a possibility that etc"). Whereas I provided a solid example of why we don't work that way -- we know, from the Fathers who received the true Christian faith and doctrine from the apostles and their holy disciples, what is proper and what is not. We do not have to say "Well, maybe we don't really know...we'd best leave the Latins to come up with whatever thing they can think of, because who can say where its origins truly lie?" We know many of them lie in private revelations, and such were not enough to exonerate Montanus, to echo my earlier point, nor Muhammad, to echo Isa's (which is absolutely germane to the conversation; it is ridiculous that you should brush it off so casually).

Quote
e.g. Islam is not true. It contradicts the Catholic faith. Its heresy. Is it from Satan ? I don't know and won't pretend to know. All I know is the truth revealed to me and it contradicts this truth.

And that is all that really needs to be said regarding the false Roman doctrines that separate your church from Orthodoxy, too. That others may say more is within their rights as a matter of emphasizing what heresy there is out there masquerading as true Christian doctrine, so that people don't walk away with the impression that the false teachings of the RCC are somehow just another expression of Christianity or whatever (and not, y'know, wrong). Our fathers were no less bold in opposing heresies of the past, were they not? "Athansius contra mundum" and all that. That's Orthodoxy. Now that doesn't mean that we need to go around telling every Roman Catholic or whoever that they're heretics, but rather that we should not admit any innovation for the sake of appeasing a non-Orthodox person's sense that to definitely condemn a doctrine would be going to far. If that's what is necessary, given the situation, that's just what we'll do.

Quote
How is that "well maybeee..." theology. There is not even a hint of the possibility of me accepting Islam so there's no "maybe" or "give it the benefit of the doubt".

I don't see why not, as a Muslim very well could argue as you have argued, that there is a possibility that you do not know the true roots of their revelation or doctrine, so where would you get off rejecting it?

Quote
You're being unnecessarily argumentative WOW

Not really. I don't in fact even feel like arguing about any particular piece of Roman Catholic doctrine. I know what is true and what is false, and have accepted which is which in council with a particular church and attendant theological, ecclesiological, Christological, etc. tradition that is much larger, older, and deeper than I could ever hope to be. I don't need to wonder about what if the visions given to some French teenager 400 years ago, bringing some new piece of theology that is against the preexisting Orthodox faith, could some how be true, and maybe I'm just not seeing it. That's ludicrous. Even if I don't say that it is from demons (because what would be the point of that, from my perspective? I do not even acknowledge it; it could be from Mars, for all I know), I do know that it does not come from the Apostles, from the Fathers, or from any other teachers in the faith. So that's enough for me. It's good not to pry too much into things, you know? Being Orthodox is hard enough without wondering about the non-Orthodox.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 12:44:50 AM by dzheremi » Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #72 on: August 28, 2013, 12:46:53 AM »

Anyone reading her diary can easily see that her visions are contrary to Orthodox belief, but that doesn't mean the chaplet isn't a nice prayer (IMO it is, but others can feel free to disagree). Again, I specified the "chaplet" (as in the specific set of prayers set on a rope) and not "Divine Mercy" in general (including the visions' claims about said chaplet).

So you don't want to rescue any deceased relatives from Purgatory, nor make sure that you've confessed and received the Eucharist before you die, thereby heading straight to heaven? Ok.

Prayers are not just beautiful compositions. It does matter who wrote/recommends them and under what circumstances. Otherwise, I suppose the Mahamrityunjaya and Gayatri mantras are kinda nice.
Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #73 on: August 28, 2013, 12:51:17 AM »

Anyone reading her diary can easily see that her visions are contrary to Orthodox belief, but that doesn't mean the chaplet isn't a nice prayer (IMO it is, but others can feel free to disagree). Again, I specified the "chaplet" (as in the specific set of prayers set on a rope) and not "Divine Mercy" in general (including the visions' claims about said chaplet).

So you don't want to rescue any deceased relatives from Purgatory, nor make sure that you've confessed and received the Eucharist before you die, thereby heading straight to heaven? Ok.

Prayers are not just beautiful compositions. It does matter who wrote/recommends them and under what circumstances. Otherwise, I suppose the Mahamrityunjaya and Gayatri mantras are kinda nice.

Ok. Wink
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,545


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 28, 2013, 07:03:19 AM »

I like Bernard of Clairvaux (but not the idea that he was breastfed by the Theotokos). And William of St. Thierry.  Smiley




And bad art.

But good aim.
Logged

Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #75 on: August 28, 2013, 07:15:59 AM »

There may be some saints because God can save anyone. And there may be some visions as God do miracles to everyone.
Yet that does not mean Catholics are right because then Islam would also be right.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 28, 2013, 07:38:07 AM »

Truly the fathers, ancient and modern, are fallible human beings, but I question whether this means that we should all therefore give 14-year-old French peasant girls and the like the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their supposed visions.

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol

Shall we be lukewarm?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,371



« Reply #77 on: August 28, 2013, 09:19:40 AM »

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol

If you don't believe these peasant girls then by all means dismiss their claims. But don't go claiming,its from Satan now. As you saw the pharasies did that and look how that turned out Tongue

Are you serious? Listen to yourself. There is truth and there is falsehood - is that extreme, in your opinion? These visions or revelations or whatever are either true or false. If it's not true (and contrary to the Faith), then it is false. It is a lie or delusion or deception. We know who is the Father of Lies, do we not?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,578



« Reply #78 on: August 28, 2013, 09:34:38 AM »

Who is this "Jesus"? Is he honored in the West for having had a vision?

The ethnic Middle Eastern Jesus.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #79 on: August 28, 2013, 09:48:04 AM »

You are reading things into what I said.

I overstated nothing. What's similar is there is faction who believe themselves the only source of truth and keepers of faith and there is an opposed who presents something they do not accept.

As a general principle, OK, but why pretend to be neutral when we are both Christians?  There's clearly a difference between the Jewish leadership's rejection of Christ and the Orthodox neutrality on/discouragement of belief in private revelations that are by all accounts entirely unnecessary to be a good Christian.  The Jewish priesthood believed they were basing their condemnation of Christ on their interpretation of the Scriptures (the "source" of truth).  But we believe that Christ himself is the Truth Incarnate, through whom and only through whom we properly understand the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.  And he clearly admitted as much when called on it in various ways in the Gospels.  We don't give the Jews the benefit of the doubt on that matter: the Jewish leadership largely rejected him, but the entire people did not reject him.  As St Paul says about humans in general in Romans 1, "they are without excuse".  All of that is public revelation.  It is of the substance of Christian faith.  Why be neutral about it?  Are you an adherent of the Jesus Seminar or something?  There's no justification for being neutral unless you're straining to make a ridiculous comparison between us and the Sanhedrin.    

Our acceptance or rejection of Western spiritual phenomena is based on the Orthodox faith and what is in accordance with it.  If a RC has a vision which promotes a RC belief that Orthodox regard as erroneous (if not outright heretical) in terms of the publicly revealed Orthodox faith, what should the Orthodox believe about it?  If an Orthodox has a vision which rejects papal infallibility, what will you or the Vatican have to say about that?  Will they say "we should give it the benefit of the doubt because you never know"?  Or will they say "no vision that comes from God would contradict our faith" and reject it outright?  They did the latter with such visions as those of Veronica Leuken in Bayside, NY.  They were judged to be contrary to RC faith and/or morals, and condemned.  All we are applying is the same principle.  You just don't like it because we're not jumping on your preferred bandwagon.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe there was something supernatural and "of God" in Lourdes and Fatima; I believe that because I trust the basic story and I know the positive effect their messages of increased prayer and penance have had on myself and others.  I don't have all the answers regarding how to account for things like Our Lady's identification as "the Immaculate Conception", I have some ideas of why things may have happened the way they did that don't involve Satan, but it's all just a hunch.  I don't claim it as the Church's opinion, it's just mine, and I'm willing to accept correction if I'm wrong.  But I don't pretend for one minute that "Immaculate Conception", as RCs believe it, is an Orthodox doctrine, or that it (or other "revelations" that give credence to RC beliefs or practices) may be more Orthodox than I thought because someone claimed a vision confirmed it for them.  That's ludicrous.  No one is required to believe any of these things.  So again and again, we return to the substance of the faith.

Quote
Its one thing to dismiss what is being presented. It is entirely another to say it has its origins from Satan. This is certainly against giving every claim the benefit of the doubt. Its ok to dismiss and leave it at that. Its another to take it one step further and claim demonic,origins of what is being presented as you will be in a lot of trouble if what is presented is actually from God.

LOL.  You're so into Gamaliel that you pass over his student:

Quote
Galatians 1 (RSV)

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
That's fine. The issue is not correct doctrine like I said. The issue is ascribing origins to certain teachings.
Are you deliberately not listening to anything I said?

how much benefit of the doubt do you want?  Your St Bernadette says her Lady called herself the Immaculate Conception (not "I am/was immaculately conceived" but "I am the Immaculate Conception").  You inform us of that vision.  Our official response is along the lines of "The Immaculate Conception is not an Orthodox teaching, so we cannot agree that that message is of divine origin".  If the Lady told St Bernadette "My son is dead, he lived to be 75 and had children with that Mary of Magdala, and your maternal grandfather is a direct descendent", would the RC's really give it any more benefit of the doubt than we did in the first example?  Don't be silly.    

Now, some go a little further and, identifying the Immaculate Conception as heretical, assign its origins to the demonic.  I don't know that I feel comfortable saying so outright, but they have a point: what/who is the origin of heresy?  One of the Matins antiphons on 15 August in the old Roman Breviary addresses the Mother of God, saying "Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou hast trampled down all the heresies in the whole world"...it's probably safe to say that heresy does not come from God.  Then?  Even if it is of human origin alone, it is false and is used to deceive people and lead them away from the Truth.  That is the work of the demons.  So it's not like it's an absolutely extreme nonsensical view.  Again, we start from the faith and go forward, we don't start with visions and read backward.      

How about Muhammad's ascension to heaven: should we give it the same benefit of the doubt?

You're childish


No, he's not.  He's applying your logic to other "private revelations" claimed by others.

Not my logic at all. Rather what he and you misunderstood to be my logic...
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #80 on: August 28, 2013, 09:55:19 AM »

Truly the fathers, ancient and modern, are fallible human beings, but I question whether this means that we should all therefore give 14-year-old French peasant girls and the like the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their supposed visions.

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol


Shall we be lukewarm?

FACEPALM lol  Roll Eyes NO!

You like many others clearly don't recognize what two extremes I'm talking about which is causing so much confusion

The one extreme is rejecting it and calling it of satan
The other is giving them the benefit of the doubt

This is how you guys apparently see things from what I get from your posts and interpretation of my posts.

I advocate neither position. There is a middle ground you know? Which is perfectly orthodox

It is : Simple rejection of teachings that contradict what you believe to be true and leaving it at that ( without attempting to ascribe origins of the teaching like saying its demonic or from Satan)
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 10:05:40 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #81 on: August 28, 2013, 09:59:52 AM »

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol

If you don't believe these peasant girls then by all means dismiss their claims. But don't go claiming,its from Satan now. As you saw the pharasies did that and look how that turned out Tongue

Are you serious? Listen to yourself. There is truth and there is falsehood - is that extreme, in your opinion? These visions or revelations or whatever are either true or false. If it's not true (and contrary to the Faith), then it is false. It is a lie or delusion or deception. We know who is the Father of Lies, do we not?

So too the pharasies thought. But who is the father delusion? Or mental dementia? Or psychological problems? Satan too? Because what if this is really a product of psychosis rather than diabolical deception? A hallucination which was thought to be vision but was in fact all in their heads? Then clearly its not from Satan but from a human natural mental disorder that God has given this person in his infinite wisdom for whatever reason.

NOTE : This is meant to be understood universally and apply to all claimed apparitions visions

All I'm saying is there is a right way to reject teachings and a wrong way.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 10:03:36 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 37,963



« Reply #82 on: August 28, 2013, 10:01:49 AM »

Truly the fathers, ancient and modern, are fallible human beings, but I question whether this means that we should all therefore give 14-year-old French peasant girls and the like the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their supposed visions.

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol

Shall we be lukewarm?
I wouldn't recommend it.
"And to the angel of the church in La-odice'a write: 'The words of the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of God's creation. "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth."
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: 37,963



« Reply #83 on: August 28, 2013, 10:04:00 AM »

Truly the fathers, ancient and modern, are fallible human beings, but I question whether this means that we should all therefore give 14-year-old French peasant girls and the like the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their supposed visions.

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol


Shall we be lukewarm?

FACEPALM lol

You like many others clearly don't recognize what two extremes I'm talking about which is causing so much confusion

The one extreme is rejecting it and calling it of satan
The other is giving them the best nefit of the doubt

This is how you guys apparently see things from what I get from your posts and interpretation of my posts.

I advocate neither position. There is a middle ground you know? Which is perfectly orthodox
yes, ignore them.
It is : Simple rejection of teachings that contradict what you believe to be true and leaving it at that ( without attempting to ascribe origins of the teaching like saying its demonic or from Satan)
Not so simple when someone is attempting to ascribe origins of the teaching like saying its angelic or from God.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 10:06:51 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #84 on: August 28, 2013, 10:06:36 AM »

Truly the fathers, ancient and modern, are fallible human beings, but I question whether this means that we should all therefore give 14-year-old French peasant girls and the like the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their supposed visions.

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol


Shall we be lukewarm?

FACEPALM lol

You like many others clearly don't recognize what two extremes I'm talking about which is causing so much confusion

The one extreme is rejecting it and calling it of satan
The other is giving them the best nefit of the doubt

This is how you guys apparently see things from what I get from your posts and interpretation of my posts.

I advocate neither position. There is a middle ground you know? Which is perfectly orthodox
yes, ignore them.

That's perfectly ok
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #85 on: August 28, 2013, 10:11:36 AM »

Truly the fathers, ancient and modern, are fallible human beings, but I question whether this means that we should all therefore give 14-year-old French peasant girls and the like the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their supposed visions.

Where do you all get this "Give them the benefit of the doubt" from what I said? You guys are very extreme people. Its either one extreme or the other lol


Shall we be lukewarm?

FACEPALM lol

You like many others clearly don't recognize what two extremes I'm talking about which is causing so much confusion

The one extreme is rejecting it and calling it of satan
The other is giving them the best nefit of the doubt

This is how you guys apparently see things from what I get from your posts and interpretation of my posts.

I advocate neither position. There is a middle ground you know? Which is perfectly orthodox
yes, ignore them.
It is : Simple rejection of teachings that contradict what you believe to be true and leaving it at that ( without attempting to ascribe origins of the teaching like saying its demonic or from Satan)
Not so simple when someone is attempting to ascribe origins of the teaching like saying its angelic or from God.
Still as simple. You reject it as it doesn't conform to what you've been taught by your church. Leave it at that. You're just being difficult
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 10:12:23 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #86 on: August 28, 2013, 11:00:07 AM »

Sometimes it is not enough to personally reject something you know to be wrong. I've posted several times in other threads about a recent situation in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church wherein one of their archbishops in the Midwest USA disciplined a priest for teaching against the Immaculate Conception doctrine, as it is not a part of Orthodox tradition. Without strong condemnation (in tandem with teaching and reinforcing true Orthodox doctrine among the people), the errant archbishop would probably still be teaching and acting wrongly concerning this issue. When heresies begin creeping into your church, you have to be able to deal with them (that particular situation was dealt with by appeal to Alexandria, after finding no help from the relevant Ethiopian ecclesiastical authorities), not just say "well, I don't personally believe it since I don't recognize it as part of our tradition." It is precisely because it is not part of the apostolic faith, but that some are trying to present it as such, that we are even having the conversations we're having in this thread.

Incidentally, when I was Roman Catholic myself, I disbelieved in this vision business (never said a novena in my life), and I can say that it is really not as simple as being free to reject these things. You are certainly free to not observe them, but openly rejecting them, particularly the most popular/well-known (e.g., Lourdes, Fatima, etc.) effectively puts you out of the RC mainstream.
Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #87 on: August 28, 2013, 11:08:21 AM »

Sometimes it is not enough to personally reject something you know to be wrong. I've posted several times in other threads about a recent situation in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church wherein one of their archbishops in the Midwest USA disciplined a priest for teaching against the Immaculate Conception doctrine, as it is not a part of Orthodox tradition. Without strong condemnation (in tandem with teaching and reinforcing true Orthodox doctrine among the people), the errant archbishop would probably still be teaching and acting wrongly concerning this issue. When heresies begin creeping into your church, you have to be able to deal with them (that particular situation was dealt with by appeal to Alexandria, after finding no help from the relevant Ethiopian ecclesiastical authorities), not just say "well, I don't personally believe it since I don't recognize it as part of our tradition." It is precisely because it is not part of the apostolic faith, but that some are trying to present it as such, that we are even having the conversations we're having in this thread.

That's fine

You can still firmly condemn and reprimand someone without having to say "What you teach if from Satan!". It is enough to forbid them from doing such and tell them that it is heresy and why. That is all I'm saying

Incidentally, when I was Roman Catholic myself, I disbelieved in this vision business (never said a novena in my life), and I can say that it is really not as simple as being free to reject these things. You are certainly free to not observe them, but openly rejecting them, particularly the most popular/well-known (e.g., Lourdes, Fatima, etc.) effectively puts you out of the RC mainstream.

True, but you are within your rights to do so
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #88 on: August 28, 2013, 11:23:27 AM »

Who is this "Jesus"? Is he honored in the West for having had a vision?

The ethnic Middle Eastern Jesus.

No. You see, he's usually blond and blue-eyed...

« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 11:54:06 AM by Romaios » Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #89 on: August 28, 2013, 11:41:04 AM »

That's fine

You can still firmly condemn and reprimand someone without having to say "What you teach if from Satan!". It is enough to forbid them from doing such and tell them that it is heresy and why. That is all I'm saying

It is good enough that St. Paul himself warned against the arrival and popularity of what he called the "doctrines of demons" in the form of false teachings that would arise in the Church (1 Timothy). Should he have toned it down a bit? I don't think so. It is not a matter of a simple difference of opinion, as though we are each free to have our own interpretations of what the faith is and what it isn't - particularly as Rome has elevated what was once a matter of private theological opinion to the level of dogma, requiring assent from all believers who are in communion with it. So please don't then turn around and tell me that it is somehow inappropriate as a matter of principle to condemn these false teachings as strongly as they are asserted. If you teach what we know to be false and misleading and faith-destroying as somehow being from God, then who has committed the greater offense: Us for having offended you by pointing out that you are following the father of all lies in affirming that which distorts the apostolic faith, or you by actually doing so, and ascribing to God or His angels or His mother all kinds of novelty?

I know already that you will be unhappy reading this, and probably maintain that this is an unfair depiction of Roman Catholicism, and I'm being unreasonable/extremist or whatever, but...well, you did ask for our opinions on these matters. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not interested in placating anyone. The faith is not a game, and we do not give out trophies for getting it whatever percent right. The fact that Rome has added all kinds of nonsense to its formerly Orthodox faith makes it impossible for me to consider its inventions as somehow equally fine alternatives to the faith whole and preserved, such as you will find only in the Orthodox Church. And what could be strong enough to draw the venerable and formerly Orthodox Church of Rome away from its apostolic foundations? You might not call it Satan, but certainly deviations from the truth do not come from God, as God is not the author of error or confusion.


Quote
Incidentally, when I was Roman Catholic myself, I disbelieved in this vision business (never said a novena in my life), and I can say that it is really not as simple as being free to reject these things. You are certainly free to not observe them, but openly rejecting them, particularly the most popular/well-known (e.g., Lourdes, Fatima, etc.) effectively puts you out of the RC mainstream.

True, but you are within your rights to do so

That is the most interesting thing...a little illustration of what is wrong with Rome in an everyday, micro-level sense, if you will. While you can with regularity tune into the Roman Catholic television station EWTN and find these things being celebrated and expounded upon at great length (all to the detriment of traditional practices, such as praying the hours), eh...if you don't want to believe in them, you don't have to. And the Latins wonder why so many are nominally Catholic only. Sad. These false pseudo-spiritualities have all but replaced the authentic (pre-Schism) tradition of Western Christianity, but hey, at least you don't have to actually believe them, even if the rest of your church does, so it's fine.

Nope. No believer is an island. It hurts everyone when such falsehoods are embraced, and retreating into your own personal cove of acceptable beliefs does not do anything to change the sad situation in which many find themselves. This is how we end up isolated from the churches of our birth, as the faith that once nourished our forefathers is pushed aside in favor of a half-believed in novelty rooted in heresies of the type that the Orthodox pillars of the Church, East and West, once fought valiantly against. But, hey, as Rome shows, you don't have to believe in what they upheld, either...
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 11:51:16 AM by dzheremi » Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  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 0.189 seconds with 72 queries.