OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 06:05:03 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What they're looking for is Orthodoxy.  (Read 1246 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« on: August 12, 2014, 03:37:16 PM »

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/those-who-return-to-past-are-not.html#more


Quote
Editorial
   Radicati nella Fede
August 2014

In times of perilous confusion we should take a step back.
Isn’t that perhaps what we do in life? Faced with a confusing situation, difficult to untangle, which makes us worried and perplexed, we pause and then take a step back, avoiding the advance into danger.
It is what we have done with regard to the faith.

Quote
For this then,  the decision to stay within the surest Tradition [of the Church] cannot be illegitimate.
The one who stays with the past is not outside the Church. On the other hand, the one who invents a new Christianity is out.


Orthodoxy is the unchanged faith; without ever developing dogmas. I think that Orthodoxy is the authentic Christianity these traditionalists are looking for.  They just don't know it yet.
Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2014, 03:40:51 PM »

My apologies... I think this should have gone in the private forum.
Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2014, 09:25:51 PM »

Wherever this thread belongs, I agree with you. I don't know why more "traditional Catholics" don't find their way to Orthodoxy, especially instead of the ridiculous sedevacantist hypothesis...

Or maybe more of them do: what do I know? Anyway, I'm glad I didn't stop my search for tradition with Trent.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2014, 09:39:04 PM »

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/those-who-return-to-past-are-not.html#more


Quote
Editorial
   Radicati nella Fede
August 2014

In times of perilous confusion we should take a step back.
Isn’t that perhaps what we do in life? Faced with a confusing situation, difficult to untangle, which makes us worried and perplexed, we pause and then take a step back, avoiding the advance into danger.
It is what we have done with regard to the faith.

Quote
For this then,  the decision to stay within the surest Tradition [of the Church] cannot be illegitimate.
The one who stays with the past is not outside the Church. On the other hand, the one who invents a new Christianity is out.

Orthodoxy is the unchanged faith; without ever developing dogmas. I think that Orthodoxy is the authentic Christianity these traditionalists are looking for.  They just don't know it yet.

Yes, and more Catholics seem to be knocking at the doors of Orthodox Churches.

Lord have mercy.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 09:39:41 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2014, 09:40:27 PM »

Wherever this thread belongs, I agree with you. I don't know why more "traditional Catholics" don't find their way to Orthodoxy, especially instead of the ridiculous sedevacantist hypothesis...

Or maybe more of them do: what do I know? Anyway, I'm glad I didn't stop my search for tradition with Trent.

They are knocking ... does anyone hear those sounds?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 579


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2014, 10:17:09 PM »

Wherever this thread belongs, I agree with you. I don't know why more "traditional Catholics" don't find their way to Orthodoxy, especially instead of the ridiculous sedevacantist hypothesis...

I flirted with sedevacantism for longer than I'd like to admit, but at the time it really seemed like the only logical explanation if the Roman Catholic Church was to be the true Church. It was obvious to me that the post-Vatican II church contradicted the pre-Vatican II Church on numerous points. Both couldn't be true, but if the Catholic Church had to be the true Church, it followed that somehow the organization that emerged after Vatican II wasn't the Catholic Church, for if it was the Catholic Church it wouldn't have contradicted itself, thus falling into error.

Looking at the history of the Church though, it hit me that in order to arrive at the infallible papacy of Pius IX and Vatican I, there was no way of getting around the fact that doctrinal development had occurred, which sedevacantists vehemently deny. Once I realized that Vatican II wasn't the first time that the Roman Church had broken from Tradition, and that many of the so called "Traditionalist Catholics" actually clung the tightest to some of those innovations, the choice was obvious.
Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
MalpanaGiwargis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, but Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 42


« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2014, 10:25:27 PM »

I'm one who is beginning to investigate that path. I would offer a few thoughts on why more traditional Catholics don't investigate Orthodoxy. In no particular order:

(1) Tribalism. "I'm Irish/Italian/Polish, etc. Orthodoxy is for Greeks and Russians." The assumption that Orthodoxy is ethnic is definitely a barrier for many.

(2) A perception of moral laxity with respect to divorce and contraception. Such a perception is not fair, obviously, but given Rome's unyielding stance on these issues, it is an issue. Never mind the sophistry of the annulment process...

(3) Orthodoxy = the loss of Latin. It must be remembered that the construction of the "traditional Catholic" identity includes Latin over and against the banal vernaculars most Catholics got in the late 60s/early 70s. It is a marker of identity.

(4) Fear. Though the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church have never wavered in each believing itself to be the true Church, Orthodoxy has always been a bit more positive with respect to the possibility of salvation for non-Orthodox. In contrast, Rome has until quite recently fairly explicitly maintained a simplistic "non-Catholic = damned" for centuries. For a Catholic who has taken their faith seriously, this is a difficult equation to get past, even if one admits the standard "theoretical" exceptions.

(5) The Rosary, the Sacred Heart, the scapular and other Latin devotions. Though not all of these would necessarily be incompatible with Orthodoxy, most would probably be looked on with some suspicion.

There are others, but I think these get at many of the major reasons.
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 579


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2014, 10:28:33 PM »

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/those-who-return-to-past-are-not.html#more


Quote
Editorial
   Radicati nella Fede
August 2014

In times of perilous confusion we should take a step back.
Isn’t that perhaps what we do in life? Faced with a confusing situation, difficult to untangle, which makes us worried and perplexed, we pause and then take a step back, avoiding the advance into danger.
It is what we have done with regard to the faith.

Quote
For this then,  the decision to stay within the surest Tradition [of the Church] cannot be illegitimate.
The one who stays with the past is not outside the Church. On the other hand, the one who invents a new Christianity is out.


Orthodoxy is the unchanged faith; without ever developing dogmas. I think that Orthodoxy is the authentic Christianity these traditionalists are looking for.  They just don't know it yet.


I wish I held your optimism gueranger, and I will continue to pray for our separated brethren, but I just don't see it happening. In order for a Traditionalist Catholic to come to Orthodoxy a large portion their spiritual worldview must be obliterated. Many of the most beloved aspects of traditional Roman Catholic piety are absent, if not condemned, in Orthodoxy. That is the tradition they are seeking solace in, not Orthodoxy, however much their soul may long for it.
Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2014, 12:39:08 AM »

I'm one who is beginning to investigate that path. I would offer a few thoughts on why more traditional Catholics don't investigate Orthodoxy. In no particular order:

(1) Tribalism. "I'm Irish/Italian/Polish, etc. Orthodoxy is for Greeks and Russians." The assumption that Orthodoxy is ethnic is definitely a barrier for many.

(2) A perception of moral laxity with respect to divorce and contraception. Such a perception is not fair, obviously, but given Rome's unyielding stance on these issues, it is an issue. Never mind the sophistry of the annulment process...

(3) Orthodoxy = the loss of Latin. It must be remembered that the construction of the "traditional Catholic" identity includes Latin over and against the banal vernaculars most Catholics got in the late 60s/early 70s. It is a marker of identity.

(4) Fear. Though the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church have never wavered in each believing itself to be the true Church, Orthodoxy has always been a bit more positive with respect to the possibility of salvation for non-Orthodox. In contrast, Rome has until quite recently fairly explicitly maintained a simplistic "non-Catholic = damned" for centuries. For a Catholic who has taken their faith seriously, this is a difficult equation to get past, even if one admits the standard "theoretical" exceptions.

(5) The Rosary, the Sacred Heart, the scapular and other Latin devotions. Though not all of these would necessarily be incompatible with Orthodoxy, most would probably be looked on with some suspicion.

There are others, but I think these get at many of the major reasons.



All of your points are spot on.

(2.) Absolutely. I am still uncomfortable with the Orthodox position on remarriage. The strictness with which the Copts limit divorce is part of the reason I admire them greatly.

(4.) Yes. I still struggle with this, which is ridiculous, but bothers me tremendously. Rome has such solid arguments against Protestants, who are the predominant rivals, that it is very easy to see Rome and the papacy itself as the rock. To believe that with all your soul, for years or decades, creates a powerful psychological hold.

(5.) These things become so dear to your heart as a devout Catholic. Its hard to imagine rejecting or minimizing any of them. But Orthodoxy is the pearl of great price. The Rosary is fine, I have permission to keep praying it, but the scapular had to go. Before I could bring myself to attend an Orthodox Church, I had to investigate the "miraculous" image of Guadalupe in more depth. That was a major hurdle for me. Please don't take the quotation marks an offense, but clearly I no longer believe in that as a miracle. 


Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2014, 07:32:31 AM »

I'm one who is beginning to investigate that path. I would offer a few thoughts on why more traditional Catholics don't investigate Orthodoxy. In no particular order:

(1) Tribalism. "I'm Irish/Italian/Polish, etc. Orthodoxy is for Greeks and Russians." The assumption that Orthodoxy is ethnic is definitely a barrier for many.

(2) A perception of moral laxity with respect to divorce and contraception. Such a perception is not fair, obviously, but given Rome's unyielding stance on these issues, it is an issue. Never mind the sophistry of the annulment process...

(3) Orthodoxy = the loss of Latin. It must be remembered that the construction of the "traditional Catholic" identity includes Latin over and against the banal vernaculars most Catholics got in the late 60s/early 70s. It is a marker of identity.

(4) Fear. Though the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church have never wavered in each believing itself to be the true Church, Orthodoxy has always been a bit more positive with respect to the possibility of salvation for non-Orthodox. In contrast, Rome has until quite recently fairly explicitly maintained a simplistic "non-Catholic = damned" for centuries. For a Catholic who has taken their faith seriously, this is a difficult equation to get past, even if one admits the standard "theoretical" exceptions.

(5) The Rosary, the Sacred Heart, the scapular and other Latin devotions. Though not all of these would necessarily be incompatible with Orthodoxy, most would probably be looked on with some suspicion.

There are others, but I think these get at many of the major reasons.



All of your points are spot on.

(2.) Absolutely. I am still uncomfortable with the Orthodox position on remarriage. The strictness with which the Copts limit divorce is part of the reason I admire them greatly.

(4.) Yes. I still struggle with this, which is ridiculous, but bothers me tremendously. Rome has such solid arguments against Protestants, who are the predominant rivals, that it is very easy to see Rome and the papacy itself as the rock. To believe that with all your soul, for years or decades, creates a powerful psychological hold.

(5.) These things become so dear to your heart as a devout Catholic. Its hard to imagine rejecting or minimizing any of them. But Orthodoxy is the pearl of great price. The Rosary is fine, I have permission to keep praying it, but the scapular had to go. Before I could bring myself to attend an Orthodox Church, I had to investigate the "miraculous" image of Guadalupe in more depth. That was a major hurdle for me. Please don't take the quotation marks an offense, but clearly I no longer believe in that as a miracle. 




For me, as a very recent convert to Orthodoxy from relatively hard-core RC Traddyism, occasionally at least bordering on Sedevacantism, I think 3 and 4 were the worst ones.
Before "breaking free" from believing in RC dogma about the True Church, that was my main stumbling block. I only searched for answers "within" Catholicism, since there could be no other answer.
In the end, the only logical answer "from within" to the changing doctrine of the RC church was - for me - SV'ism, which wasn't very logical either in the end, when I realized for real the consequences of the fact that the Church didn't "start" with Trent.

As for Latin, I miss it a lot. The Liturgy, the Gregorian chant, etc. I am still convinced about the advantages of having a liturgical language and currently I mostly attend the DL in Old Slavonic, which I love  very much.
The Western Rite is not an option for me, since there are no parishes available for me and I just can't bring myself to attend a Liturgy based on an Anglican rite.  The  Pre-schism Gregorian Rite would of course be an entirely different matter and it would be absolutely great to attend it.
 As a former altar boy, you never forget, I guess.
Logged
MalpanaGiwargis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, but Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 42


« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2014, 07:42:52 AM »

For me, as a very recent convert to Orthodoxy from relatively hard-core RC Traddyism, occasionally at least bordering on Sedevacantism, I think 3 and 4 were the worst ones.
Before "breaking free" from believing in RC dogma about the True Church, that was my main stumbling block. I only searched for answers "within" Catholicism, since there could be no other answer.
In the end, the only logical answer "from within" to the changing doctrine of the RC church was - for me - SV'ism, which wasn't very logical either in the end, when I realized for real the consequences of the fact that the Church didn't "start" with Trent.

As for Latin, I miss it a lot. The Liturgy, the Gregorian chant, etc. I am still convinced about the advantages of having a liturgical language and currently I mostly attend the DL in Old Slavonic, which I love  very much.
The Western Rite is not an option for me, since there are no parishes available for me and I just can't bring myself to attend a Liturgy based on an Anglican rite.  The  Pre-schism Gregorian Rite would of course be an entirely different matter and it would be absolutely great to attend it.
 As a former altar boy, you never forget, I guess.

Very sympathetic to your views. I don't have the Latin hang-up personally, though I do love it - it was my undergraduate major and I teach it as well. I was a convert to Catholicism 16 years ago from the denominationally-vague Protestantism I grew up with; I've since married and baptized 3 children in the Catholic Church. My hang-ups are mostly familial: my wife has been OK with attending an Eastern-rite Catholic Church, but does not seem interested at all in Orthodoxy; my oldest child is right at the age Latin kids start preparing for First Communion; my mother converted to Catholicism a few years after I did. I don't want to introduce stress into my family life, but it may ultimately be necessary. Eastern-rite Catholicism has been a refuge from liturgical nonsense, but right now it just feels like a dodge - it doesn't address the fact that I am not sure I believe some Roman dogmas anymore.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2014, 07:48:30 AM »

(5.) These things become so dear to your heart as a devout Catholic. Its hard to imagine rejecting or minimizing any of them. But Orthodoxy is the pearl of great price. The Rosary is fine, I have permission to keep praying it, but the scapular had to go. Before I could bring myself to attend an Orthodox Church, I had to investigate the "miraculous" image of Guadalupe in more depth. That was a major hurdle for me. Please don't take the quotation marks an offense, but clearly I no longer believe in that as a miracle. 

For what it's worth (and some on this forum foam at the mouth at the very sight of it) some Orthodox churches in Mexico have the virgin of Guadalupe on their iconostasis.

You know that I think is one of the biggest obstacles to RC conversion? The false notion that, in order to become Orthodox, they need to ditch everything they loved which was not Eastern or "pre-schism" (whatever that means.)
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2014, 08:46:47 AM »

For me, as a very recent convert to Orthodoxy from relatively hard-core RC Traddyism, occasionally at least bordering on Sedevacantism, I think 3 and 4 were the worst ones.
Before "breaking free" from believing in RC dogma about the True Church, that was my main stumbling block. I only searched for answers "within" Catholicism, since there could be no other answer.
In the end, the only logical answer "from within" to the changing doctrine of the RC church was - for me - SV'ism, which wasn't very logical either in the end, when I realized for real the consequences of the fact that the Church didn't "start" with Trent.

As for Latin, I miss it a lot. The Liturgy, the Gregorian chant, etc. I am still convinced about the advantages of having a liturgical language and currently I mostly attend the DL in Old Slavonic, which I love  very much.
The Western Rite is not an option for me, since there are no parishes available for me and I just can't bring myself to attend a Liturgy based on an Anglican rite.  The  Pre-schism Gregorian Rite would of course be an entirely different matter and it would be absolutely great to attend it.
 As a former altar boy, you never forget, I guess.

Very sympathetic to your views. I don't have the Latin hang-up personally, though I do love it - it was my undergraduate major and I teach it as well. I was a convert to Catholicism 16 years ago from the denominationally-vague Protestantism I grew up with; I've since married and baptized 3 children in the Catholic Church. My hang-ups are mostly familial: my wife has been OK with attending an Eastern-rite Catholic Church, but does not seem interested at all in Orthodoxy; my oldest child is right at the age Latin kids start preparing for First Communion; my mother converted to Catholicism a few years after I did. I don't want to introduce stress into my family life, but it may ultimately be necessary. Eastern-rite Catholicism has been a refuge from liturgical nonsense, but right now it just feels like a dodge - it doesn't address the fact that I am not sure I believe some Roman dogmas anymore.

Ouch, I see your problem with the family. In such a situation - which I am not familiar with - I would be very reserved regarding polemics of every sort.
Do it rather than say it, if you know what I mean. I guess there are several people on this board who may have gone through such a situation before and can offer some sounder advice than I am able to.

Latin teacher? Good for you! My Latin comes entirely from Liturgy and prayers and frequent use of the missal. Unfortunately, I never benefited from a Classical education.

I know several people who stayed in the Eastern Catholic church for a long time due to liturgical reasons, but it is of course no cure for not really believing in the Catholic doctrines.

When I left Catholicism, I just faded out, more or less. I stopped attending and also stopped going to confession, which was very difficult. I received spiritual advice from Orthodox priests all the way.
I found it better to do just fade away than to be constantly contacted and confronted with the same old stuff I used to say myself before. Very tiresome.
Besides, those who were my true friends remained friends after I faded away.
I had no resistance from my family, since my wife is Orthodox. She never pushed me and I was on this path before I met her too. Besides, I am the religious one while my wife comes along more because I want to go. She seems like the Orthodox version of your wife in the sense that she didn't care when I was Catholic but she would never convert to Catholicism herself, since her Orthodox identity is very strong.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,163



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2014, 09:35:27 AM »

We learn to be something by immersion. You just jump into the new "world" and forget about everything else, *at least* temporarily. With this, you let Orthodox aesthetics, way of being and of thinking to "shape" your mind, heart and habits. For a time it *will* be a bit caricatural, but if you know what you're doing and that it is temporary thing, it's ok.

After you do that, you can look outside and, with the new sense of discernement you acquired, judge what you can bring from other churches, religions and philosophies, because you use Orthodoxy as the reference precisely to pick what is "orthodox" in them.

I often go on pilgrimage to Aparecida. I don't think that, given the choice, I would put that particular image on an iconostasis.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,548



« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2014, 09:48:16 AM »

How do you presume to know what we're looking for? ..
Logged
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,548



« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2014, 11:13:52 AM »

Wherever this thread belongs, I agree with you. I don't know why more "traditional Catholics" don't find their way to Orthodoxy, especially instead of the ridiculous sedevacantist hypothesis...

I flirted with sedevacantism for longer than I'd like to admit, but at the time it really seemed like the only logical explanation if the Roman Catholic Church was to be the true Church. It was obvious to me that the post-Vatican II church contradicted the pre-Vatican II Church on numerous points. Both couldn't be true, but if the Catholic Church had to be the true Church, it followed that somehow the organization that emerged after Vatican II wasn't the Catholic Church, for if it was the Catholic Church it wouldn't have contradicted itself, thus falling into error.

Looking at the history of the Church though, it hit me that in order to arrive at the infallible papacy of Pius IX and Vatican I, there was no way of getting around the fact that doctrinal development had occurred, which sedevacantists vehemently deny. Once I realized that Vatican II wasn't the first time that the Roman Church had broken from Tradition, and that many of the so called "Traditionalist Catholics" actually clung the tightest to some of those innovations, the choice was obvious.


IMHO, too much focus on Christianity and not enough Wisdom on practical issues.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 11:14:44 AM by WPM » Logged
Rhinosaur
Homo Vivius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Orthodox Inquirer)
Posts: 194



« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2014, 11:34:00 AM »

I think a major block to Traditional Catholics becoming Orthodox is the papacy.  Traditional Catholics may be closer to Orthodox in terms of liturgy and positions on social issues, but the belief that the pope is the infallible Vicar of Christ strikes me as a big stumbling block.  Note that I am talking about mainstream Traditional Catholics, not sedevacantists.
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 579


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2014, 11:24:49 PM »

Wherever this thread belongs, I agree with you. I don't know why more "traditional Catholics" don't find their way to Orthodoxy, especially instead of the ridiculous sedevacantist hypothesis...

I flirted with sedevacantism for longer than I'd like to admit, but at the time it really seemed like the only logical explanation if the Roman Catholic Church was to be the true Church. It was obvious to me that the post-Vatican II church contradicted the pre-Vatican II Church on numerous points. Both couldn't be true, but if the Catholic Church had to be the true Church, it followed that somehow the organization that emerged after Vatican II wasn't the Catholic Church, for if it was the Catholic Church it wouldn't have contradicted itself, thus falling into error.

Looking at the history of the Church though, it hit me that in order to arrive at the infallible papacy of Pius IX and Vatican I, there was no way of getting around the fact that doctrinal development had occurred, which sedevacantists vehemently deny. Once I realized that Vatican II wasn't the first time that the Roman Church had broken from Tradition, and that many of the so called "Traditionalist Catholics" actually clung the tightest to some of those innovations, the choice was obvious.


IMHO, too much focus on Christianity and not enough Wisdom on practical issues.

Can one be too focused on following Christ? And does not all wisdom come from Him who is the Word of God before all ages?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 11:25:17 PM by Sam G » Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2014, 01:01:22 AM »

I'm one who is beginning to investigate that path. I would offer a few thoughts on why more traditional Catholics don't investigate Orthodoxy. In no particular order:

(1) Tribalism. "I'm Irish/Italian/Polish, etc. Orthodoxy is for Greeks and Russians." The assumption that Orthodoxy is ethnic is definitely a barrier for many.

You can be Orthodox in Italian just as easily as in Greek or Russian. Though I know what they mean, as the Church expands into areas that have not had Orthodoxy as a viable option for their people for centuries (due to the overwhelming influence of the Catholic or Protestant churches), the basis for this criticism becomes less and less true. There are places in the world today, solidly western places like Bolivia and Guatemala, where newly-planted Orthodox churches of various jurisdictions are made up basically entirely of converts, as well as churches set up in Europe (at least in my communion; I'm not sure that the EO have really gotten around to this) like the British Orthodox Church and the French Coptic Church that exist entirely for the purpose of giving the native Britons and French places in which to be Orthodox and European -- that is to say, to recover their lost Orthodox Christian heritage that has been obscured by the dominant RC narrative.

Quote
(2) A perception of moral laxity with respect to divorce and contraception. Such a perception is not fair, obviously, but given Rome's unyielding stance on these issues, it is an issue. Never mind the sophistry of the annulment process...

What seems like moral laxity from the outside is experienced as pastoral wisdom from the inside, in not issuing a "one-size-fits-all" edict against non-abortificent forms of contraception (abortion is forbidden). The Orthodox Church on a worldwide level is, much like the Roman Catholic Church, a church of many, many poor people in societies that do not have the infrastructure to handle unrestrained population booms. Besides, with the strict fasting schedule kept by many Orthodox, this becomes less of an issue as periods of sexual abstinence are observed.

Quote
(3) Orthodoxy = the loss of Latin.


Absolutely not, my friend! Though you're right it is not the liturgical language of any Orthodox church. The Orthodoxy is in the faith, not the language.

Quote
It must be remembered that the construction of the "traditional Catholic" identity includes Latin over and against the banal vernaculars most Catholics got in the late 60s/early 70s. It is a marker of identity.

Well, I can't speak for those who like to pretend they are denizens of the Roman empire, but I haven't stopped praying and chanting in Spanish on occasion (sadly not in church, since the demographics of my particular parish wouldn't make it appropriate; others' would, though)

I don't really have anything to say about the other reasons you mentioned, since I experienced them myself too in converting from RC to Coptic Orthodox. I mean, it's easy for me to say "Well, don't be afraid of that, because it's not true!", but until you believe it yourself...

Regarding the Hail Mary that forms an integral part of the Rosary (and, incidentally, the only part I ever really felt comfortable praying as a Catholic...hmmm), my priest has said that there is nothing really wrong with it, just that it's not a part of our tradition so I should focus on learning and practicing the traditional prayers of our church (i.e., the Coptic Orthodox Church, for which the Thanksgiving Prayer, the Trisagion, and others are traditional). He never said don't pray it. If I remember correctly, there is even an Eastern Orthodox version of it (I used to know it in Russian, but have forgotten over the years).

But stuff like the Sacred Heart, yeah, that's definitely out. As I recall, none less a foundational figure than St. Basil tells us not to worship parts of the body considered separately, and so we don't. Roman Catholics should listen less to their medieval and later mystics and such and more to the early fathers if they want to understand why they'd have to give some things up, but that said it is again not an abandonment of their cultures and traditions, but a rediscovery.

(Curiously and sadly, you are likely to find the standard RC/Latin image of the "Sacred Heart" in many OO churches and homes, but that is for social and cultural reasons and out of ignorance more than any level of knowledge or acceptance of what that image depicts. I tried explaining it to people at my church over our post-liturgy meal once and they were shocked and thoroughly confused. "Abouna, is this true?! It sounds crazy." Oh, my poor congregation. They just thought "Ah, here is a nice picture of Jesus! We love Jesus!" <Jaws music> Little did they know... </Jaws music>)

Our holy Roman Fathers, St. Arsenius, St. Maximus and St. Domatius, and all who followed their way into the desert and El Baramous Monastery, pray for us.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 01:05:13 AM by dzheremi » Logged

Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2014, 03:45:20 AM »

I think a major block to Traditional Catholics becoming Orthodox is the papacy.  Traditional Catholics may be closer to Orthodox in terms of liturgy and positions on social issues, but the belief that the pope is the infallible Vicar of Christ strikes me as a big stumbling block.  Note that I am talking about mainstream Traditional Catholics, not sedevacantists.

And once the papacy falls, then they do look East.

That happened with me. I have a book, The Church Teaches, which contains the documents in translations from all the Catholic Councils including the Council of Trent and Vatican I, so I started studying Vatican I documents. This text was my college text when I was studying at a Catholic university, but we only studied selected councils and documents, not the entire book. It was a survey course and we had at least three textbooks.

When I read the complete documents of Vatican I, my eyes were opened. Suddenly I saw why several Catholic bishops refused to verify the documents of Vatican I, and left the Roman Catholic Church.

I have met at least seven other Catholics in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church, whether in the Eastern Churches or in the Latin Church, who also read the complete documents of Vatican I, seriously questioned their faith, and then headed East to Holy Orthodoxy. Six of these Catholics were Traditional Catholics, members of the SSPX. I think that says a lot.



Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2014, 10:17:28 AM »

Wherever this thread belongs, I agree with you. I don't know why more "traditional Catholics" don't find their way to Orthodoxy, especially instead of the ridiculous sedevacantist hypothesis...

Or maybe more of them do: what do I know? Anyway, I'm glad I didn't stop my search for tradition with Trent.

Here is a discussion of traditional Catholics which addresses that exact same thing which you may or may not find interesting: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=7358.0
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2014, 10:59:55 AM »

Wherever this thread belongs, I agree with you. I don't know why more "traditional Catholics" don't find their way to Orthodoxy, especially instead of the ridiculous sedevacantist hypothesis...

Or maybe more of them do: what do I know? Anyway, I'm glad I didn't stop my search for tradition with Trent.

Here is a discussion of traditional Catholics which addresses that exact same thing which you may or may not find interesting: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=7358.0

That is an interesting discussion. Thank you for sharing.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2014, 11:05:08 AM »

I think a major block to Traditional Catholics becoming Orthodox is the papacy.  Traditional Catholics may be closer to Orthodox in terms of liturgy and positions on social issues, but the belief that the pope is the infallible Vicar of Christ strikes me as a big stumbling block.  Note that I am talking about mainstream Traditional Catholics, not sedevacantists.

And once the papacy falls, then they do look East.

That happened with me. I have a book, The Church Teaches, which contains the documents in translations from all the Catholic Councils including the Council of Trent and Vatican I, so I started studying Vatican I documents. This text was my college text when I was studying at a Catholic university, but we only studied selected councils and documents, not the entire book. It was a survey course and we had at least three textbooks.

When I read the complete documents of Vatican I, my eyes were opened. Suddenly I saw why several Catholic bishops refused to verify the documents of Vatican I, and left the Roman Catholic Church.
Would you recommend that an inquirer into the RCC read the complete documents of Vatican I?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2014, 12:40:23 PM »

Wherever this thread belongs, I agree with you. I don't know why more "traditional Catholics" don't find their way to Orthodoxy, especially instead of the ridiculous sedevacantist hypothesis...

Or maybe more of them do: what do I know? Anyway, I'm glad I didn't stop my search for tradition with Trent.

Here is a discussion of traditional Catholics which addresses that exact same thing which you may or may not find interesting: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=7358.0

That is an interesting discussion. Thank you for sharing.

You are welcome. 
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2014, 04:26:53 PM »

I think a major block to Traditional Catholics becoming Orthodox is the papacy.  Traditional Catholics may be closer to Orthodox in terms of liturgy and positions on social issues, but the belief that the pope is the infallible Vicar of Christ strikes me as a big stumbling block.  Note that I am talking about mainstream Traditional Catholics, not sedevacantists.

And once the papacy falls, then they do look East.

That happened with me. I have a book, The Church Teaches, which contains the documents in translations from all the Catholic Councils including the Council of Trent and Vatican I, so I started studying Vatican I documents. This text was my college text when I was studying at a Catholic university, but we only studied selected councils and documents, not the entire book. It was a survey course and we had at least three textbooks.

When I read the complete documents of Vatican I, my eyes were opened. Suddenly I saw why several Catholic bishops refused to verify the documents of Vatican I, and left the Roman Catholic Church.
Would you recommend that an inquirer into the RCC read the complete documents of Vatican I?

I would recommend that a sincere inquirer or catechumen in the RCC read the complete documents of Vatican I before their reception into the Roman Catholic Church.

I have corresponded or talked with quite a few ex-Catholics now Orthodox Christians who had no idea of what Vatican I really taught. They accepted in blind faith what their RCIA instructor or priest had said about Papal infallibility and papal supremacy. However, once they read these documents of Vatican I (1870), they were stunned like I was. The only reason why they went Orthodox was because their RCIA instructor had told them that Orthodox sacraments were valid, and that the only difference between Catholics and Orthodox was the Pope. Once the Papacy was put in question, Orthodoxy became their only viable option.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #25 on: September 01, 2014, 05:31:11 PM »

I think a major block to Traditional Catholics becoming Orthodox is the papacy.  Traditional Catholics may be closer to Orthodox in terms of liturgy and positions on social issues, but the belief that the pope is the infallible Vicar of Christ strikes me as a big stumbling block.  Note that I am talking about mainstream Traditional Catholics, not sedevacantists.

And once the papacy falls, then they do look East.

That happened with me. I have a book, The Church Teaches, which contains the documents in translations from all the Catholic Councils including the Council of Trent and Vatican I, so I started studying Vatican I documents. This text was my college text when I was studying at a Catholic university, but we only studied selected councils and documents, not the entire book. It was a survey course and we had at least three textbooks.

When I read the complete documents of Vatican I, my eyes were opened. Suddenly I saw why several Catholic bishops refused to verify the documents of Vatican I, and left the Roman Catholic Church.
Would you recommend that an inquirer into the RCC read the complete documents of Vatican I?

I would recommend that a sincere inquirer or catechumen in the RCC read the complete documents of Vatican I before their reception into the Roman Catholic Church.

If they are going to do that, they should also read Gasser's Relatio on Papal Infallibility so that they have an accurate picture of what the Council Fathers actually voted on. 
http://smile.amazon.com/Gift-Infallibility-Official-Relatio-Vincent/dp/1586171747/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409607049&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=gasslers+relatio
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #26 on: September 01, 2014, 05:54:11 PM »

No, I cannot recommend modern writers. Instead, those in the catechumenate should read The Papacy as it was written around the time of Vatican I.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 05:58:50 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2014, 05:57:05 PM »

Quote
XX: The Notes of a true Catholic
(an excerpt from St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory 5thC)

This being the case, he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who
loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the
Catholic Faith above everything, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius,
above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all
of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe
that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from
ancient time
.

Reference: page 1 http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 05:57:38 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2014, 06:11:48 PM »

No, I cannot recommend modern writers. Instead, those in the catechumenate should read The Papacy as it was written around the time of Vatican I.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf

Gasser was not a modern writer.  He was the Bishop who wrote the official Relatio during the First Vatican Council explaining exactly what was meant by the idea of Papal Infallibility so that other bishops knew exactly what they were voting for or against. 
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2014, 06:24:55 PM »

When I looked at the publisher and the publishing date of 2002, I lost confidence.

Ignatius Press most likely would not publish anything contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, including Papal Infallibility. I question it.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 06:25:46 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2014, 06:33:20 PM »

When I looked at the publisher and the publishing date of 2002, I lost confidence.

Ignatius Press most likely would not publish anything contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, including Papal Infallibility. I question it.

You said earlier that you encourage people looking into the Catholic Church to read all of Vatican I.  As for the rest, of course Ignatius would not publish anything contrary to Papal Infallibility, particularly when the book in question is an English translation of the official understanding of the Catholic Church on that exact document.  Question all you like, but Gasser's Relatio was the exact document used to explain the meaning of Papal Infallibility to the Bishops who then voted for it.  If you are serious about having people read Vatican I, then you should have no problem with encouraging them to read this.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2014, 07:15:50 PM »

When I looked at the publisher and the publishing date of 2002, I lost confidence.

Ignatius Press most likely would not publish anything contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, including Papal Infallibility. I question it.

You said earlier that you encourage people looking into the Catholic Church to read all of Vatican I.  As for the rest, of course Ignatius would not publish anything contrary to Papal Infallibility, particularly when the book in question is an English translation of the official understanding of the Catholic Church on that exact document.  Question all you like, but Gasser's Relatio was the exact document used to explain the meaning of Papal Infallibility to the Bishops who then voted for it.  If you are serious about having people read Vatican I, then you should have no problem with encouraging them to read this.
Isn't it curious that in order to understand Vatican I, one must read yet another document, Gasser's Relatio? Why not just make Vatican I state what Gasser states?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2014, 07:19:20 PM »

Yeah, that is pretty weird, but pretty much how it is in the RCC. There's the document, then the explanation of the document, then everyone's arguments regarding both. It's unnecessarily confusing at best.
Logged

Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #33 on: September 01, 2014, 07:19:56 PM »

Lawyerism.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #34 on: September 01, 2014, 07:31:16 PM »

When I looked at the publisher and the publishing date of 2002, I lost confidence.

Ignatius Press most likely would not publish anything contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, including Papal Infallibility. I question it.

You said earlier that you encourage people looking into the Catholic Church to read all of Vatican I.  As for the rest, of course Ignatius would not publish anything contrary to Papal Infallibility, particularly when the book in question is an English translation of the official understanding of the Catholic Church on that exact document.  Question all you like, but Gasser's Relatio was the exact document used to explain the meaning of Papal Infallibility to the Bishops who then voted for it.  If you are serious about having people read Vatican I, then you should have no problem with encouraging them to read this.
Isn't it curious that in order to understand Vatican I, one must read yet another document, Gasser's Relatio? Why not just make Vatican I state what Gasser states?

Not to me since council documents cite other writings all the time, but I see where you are coming from.  I would argue that it is difficult to truly understand any council without having a solid foundation in the works they cite throughout.  In this particular case, my understanding is that when the topic was originally discussed, many of the bishops had questions, and as a result, asked for clarification.  In response, Bishop Gasser was tasked with writing the Relatio to clarify what Papal Infallibility meant, what its limitations were, etc.  As I noted above, council documents often cite other writings and on the issue of Papal Infallibility, Vatican I cites Gasser's Relatio.  

In this case, since Papal Infallibility and the proper understanding of it seem to be the crux of the issue, and the documents of Vatican I are supposedly being used to show Catholics the 'errors' of the Catholic Church, it makes sense that digging deeper into this particular issue by reading the actual Relatio text would be appropriate.  

Frankly, I wish all Catholics would actually read it.  The false understanding of Papal Infallibility has led to all sorts of problems in the Catholic Church, with the majority of the conservative wing of the Church being under the impression that pretty much anything the Pope says or does is authoritative.  In addition, if Catholics would read all of Vatican I, they would see things like this:


Quote
First Vatican Council, Session Three, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason:

 13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.


First Vatican Council, Session Three, Canons:

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.


... and if all Catholics understood this, I would be much happier.  
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 07:35:20 PM by jwinch2 » Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #35 on: September 01, 2014, 07:36:58 PM »

Lawyerism.

I have seen more lawyerism on this forum than I ever have among Catholics.  Have you checked any of the arguments on Canons taking place here recently?  The arguing back and forth between people of differing jurisdictions, which regularly happens here, over what some Canon means or how it applies is one of the things which continually turns me off on Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 07:42:55 PM by jwinch2 » Logged
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #36 on: September 01, 2014, 07:40:43 PM »

My comment wasn't on Catholic posters to this board.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #37 on: September 01, 2014, 07:42:21 PM »

My comment wasn't on Catholic posters to this board.

Then I appear to have misunderstood you. My apologies.  I welcome clarification of your actual intent.
Logged
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #38 on: September 01, 2014, 08:00:15 PM »

My comment wasn't on Catholic posters to this board.

Then I appear to have misunderstood you. My apologies.  I welcome clarification of your actual intent.

It was an observation upon the post directly above. Sometimes I try to get away without hitting the Quote button, hoping to make the page a little less cluttered.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #39 on: September 01, 2014, 10:36:20 PM »

Lawyerism.

Bingo.

Although in Roman Catholicism, those who write the canons and interpret them are called canon lawyers.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #40 on: September 01, 2014, 10:39:07 PM »


Not to me since council documents cite other writings all the time, but I see where you are coming from.  I would argue that it is difficult to truly understand any council without having a solid foundation in the works they cite throughout.  In this particular case, my understanding is that when the topic was originally discussed, many of the bishops had questions, and as a result, asked for clarification.  In response, Bishop Gasser was tasked with writing the Relatio to clarify what Papal Infallibility meant, what its limitations were, etc.  As I noted above, council documents often cite other writings and on the issue of Papal Infallibility, Vatican I cites Gasser's Relatio.  

In this case, since Papal Infallibility and the proper understanding of it seem to be the crux of the issue, and the documents of Vatican I are supposedly being used to show Catholics the 'errors' of the Catholic Church, it makes sense that digging deeper into this particular issue by reading the actual Relatio text would be appropriate.  

Frankly, I wish all Catholics would actually read it.  The false understanding of Papal Infallibility has led to all sorts of problems in the Catholic Church, with the majority of the conservative wing of the Church being under the impression that pretty much anything the Pope says or does is authoritative.  In addition, if Catholics would read all of Vatican I, they would see things like this:


Quote
First Vatican Council, Session Three, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason:

 13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.


First Vatican Council, Session Three, Canons:

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.


... and if all Catholics understood this, I would be much happier.  

Bolding is my emphasis.

The Opus Dei has stressed blind obedience and the belief that everything the pope says must be accepted in obedience.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #41 on: September 01, 2014, 10:55:23 PM »


Not to me since council documents cite other writings all the time, but I see where you are coming from.  I would argue that it is difficult to truly understand any council without having a solid foundation in the works they cite throughout.  In this particular case, my understanding is that when the topic was originally discussed, many of the bishops had questions, and as a result, asked for clarification.  In response, Bishop Gasser was tasked with writing the Relatio to clarify what Papal Infallibility meant, what its limitations were, etc.  As I noted above, council documents often cite other writings and on the issue of Papal Infallibility, Vatican I cites Gasser's Relatio.  

In this case, since Papal Infallibility and the proper understanding of it seem to be the crux of the issue, and the documents of Vatican I are supposedly being used to show Catholics the 'errors' of the Catholic Church, it makes sense that digging deeper into this particular issue by reading the actual Relatio text would be appropriate.  

Frankly, I wish all Catholics would actually read it.  The false understanding of Papal Infallibility has led to all sorts of problems in the Catholic Church, with the majority of the conservative wing of the Church being under the impression that pretty much anything the Pope says or does is authoritative. In addition, if Catholics would read all of Vatican I, they would see things like this:


Quote
First Vatican Council, Session Three, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason:

 13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.


First Vatican Council, Session Three, Canons:

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.


... and if all Catholics understood this, I would be much happier.  

Bolding is my emphasis.

The Opus Dei has stressed blind obedience and the belief that everything the pope says must be accepted in obedience.

There is a big difference between following the orders of your superiors and believing that the Pope creates binding doctrine every time he opens his mouth. 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 10:56:36 PM by jwinch2 » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #42 on: September 01, 2014, 11:17:58 PM »


The Opus Dei has stressed blind obedience and the belief that everything the pope says must be accepted in obedience.

There is a big difference between following the orders of your superiors and believing that the Pope creates binding doctrine every time he opens his mouth.  

When I was attending a Catholic university, it was stressed by our priest professor that we were to give religious assent to all the Papal encyclicals, Documents of the Council of Trent, Vatican I,  and Vatican II, and believe whatever has been declared as infallibly by the Pope.

This is the rub. There seems to be a disagreement on what has or what has not been declared to be infallible.
Some Catholic theologians say that the Encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI on Birth Control is an infallible statement, others say that it is not.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 11:20:18 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #43 on: September 01, 2014, 11:24:10 PM »

In Holy Orthodoxy, we believe that the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils are infallible.

However, in Roman Catholicism, these very canons have been revised and set forth as the Code of Canon Law in 1917, with two revisions in the later part of the 20th century. The Code of Canon Law of 1917 was instituted because of Vatican I so that the canons could be in conformity with Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy. How can something that is considered to be infallible be REVISED, not once, but three times by the Vatican?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,916



« Reply #44 on: September 01, 2014, 11:42:06 PM »

In Holy Orthodoxy, we believe that the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils are infallible.

That's the rub. Show me the theological Greek equivalent to 'infallible', and the proclamations of said councils claiming such.

Infallibility = Western Captivity!

Send your infallibility back to your Pope and Protestants!



Polemic adjective removed  -PtA

Pursuant to our rule regarding clergy titles (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=rules), you are hereby receiving this warning of 30 days for a pejorative directed at the Pope of Rome. If you feel this action is wrong, please appeal it to me via private message.

- PeterTheAleut

Quote
Regarding Clergy Titles

1. Any clergy of the mainline (i.e. non vagante) OO, EO New- and Old-Calendarist Churches shall be called by their proper title or salutation, a respectable abbreviation of such, or an acceptable academic-style reference.  Extreme abbreviations are only appropriate for institutions or large groups (i.e. MP for "Moscow Patriarchate" not "Patriarch of Moscow").  All such references should be made with respect following proper decorum (i.e. no inclusion of pejoratives or other personal attacks).

E.g. When referring to the current Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, "Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens," "Archbishop Ieronymos," "His Beatitude Ieronymos of Athens," "His Beatitude Ieronymos," and "the Archbishop of Athens," etc., would all be appropriate; "Ieronymos (Liapis) of Athens," or “Ieronymos of Athens” are acceptable academic-style references; just "Ieronymos," or some sort of nickname ("Jeronimo") would not be appropriate.

2. Any man formerly a clergyman of one of the groups named in #1 who has been removed from clerical status without the dispute of or transfer to the other 2 groups shall not be referred to as an active clergyman, but either by their lay name, or as a former clergyman.  Again, such references should be made without pejoratives or personal attacks.

E.g. If a man named Paul Smith was defrocked from the priesthood (for abusing children, preaching heresy, etc.), you can call him "Mr. Paul Smith," "former priest Paul Smith," or even "disgraced former priest Paul Smith," but not, "Paul Smith the rapist" or "the heretic Paul Smith," etc.

3. Any person who is a clergyman of a group not listed in #1 can either be referred to by their official clerical title, a corresponding title appropriate with their position, or an appropriate academic-style reference; however, this must be done without pejorative, maintaining a minimal state of decorum.

E.g. The current Roman (Latin) Catholic Pope of Rome can be referred to as “Pope Francis I of Rome,” “Pope Francis,” “the Pope of Rome,” etc.; “Francis (Bergoglio) of Rome” or “Francis of Rome” are acceptable academic-style references.  It would not be appropriate to call him Cardinal Bergoglio (since that is no longer his title in the RCC), the Heretic, Francis, or any other pejorative, diminutive, or other form of insult.

4.  Defrocked clergy who go to other jurisdictions/groups should be treated with usual courtesies; those who do not go to other groups shall be treated as laymen/monks.

As for vagantes, we can use the most basic definition: groups with only 2-3 bishops.
(red text emphasis mine)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 11:37:56 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.17 seconds with 72 queries.