Author Topic: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic  (Read 23003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anthony1986

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 254
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Diocese of Korsun
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #315 on: July 17, 2017, 11:51:13 PM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Well, as I mentioned before if based on transportation or geographical reasons, Roman Catholicism will be the better choice for me. I am in Taiwan this summer. The RC parish just 10 minutes drive for me. If I want to go to Orthodox Church it is 2 hours by train.
Also,during the regular academic year when I am in Madrid, the RC parish is just downstairs of my residence. The Orthodox church require 10 minutes metro.
However, I am not picking faith my convenience reason. I am looking for true apostolic church established by Christ.
I'm sorry we aren't helping, but going over the entire history of all the polemics of the East-West Schism on your thread. Me included. Forgive me  :-[

It is ok. You did nothing wrong. I am searching the truth. I want to see is the Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy are truth church established by Christ.
By reading the posts from both sides it help me to see the truth.
O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and weak, with neither the organization nor the culture of the West, staying afloat as if by a miracle in the face of so many trials, tribulations and struggles; a Church of contrasts, both so traditional and so free, so archaic and so alive, so ritualist and so personally involved, a Church where the priceless pearl of the Gospel is assiduously preserved, sometimes under a layer of dust; a Church which in shadows and silence maintains above all the eternal val

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #316 on: July 18, 2017, 02:50:33 AM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Well, as I mention before before if based on transportation or geographical reasons Roman Catholicism will be the better choice for me. I am in Taiwan this summer. The RC parish just 10 minutes drive for me. If I want to go to Orthodox Church it is 2 hours by train.
Also, in during the regular academic year when I am in Madrid, the RC parish is just downstairs of my residence. The Orthodox church require 10 minutes metro.
However, I am not picking faith my convenience reason. I am looking for true apostolic church established by Christ.
Very well. Really, I was not suggesting to pick faith on a convenience base, but to make a choice which can work for a long time.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #317 on: July 18, 2017, 02:58:14 AM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #318 on: July 18, 2017, 12:34:03 PM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Anthony is Orthodox, so please back off.
Faith: Confused Christian
Jurisdiction: Searching
I didn't write "If you leave the Catholic church, you will go to hell", or similar. I just mentioned a practical aspect to consider. I think he's likely well aware of it, but is this really something unfair, untrue or otherwise inappropriate to say?
If you leave the Catholic faith you go to hell, if you care about these orthodox you should be trying to convince them.
as for saints recognized by Paul VI,there shouldn't be much weight put on them..Paul VI was an antiChrist

Anthony, I hope you see how ridiculous this is. This person is saying that you must return to a church that had an anti-Christ as its pope.

sedevacantists are the most ridiculous group I have ever met. They don't have any reasonable proper logic at all.
Sedevacantists want us to believe papal supremacy and infallibility, but they believe there is no valid Pope since 1958.
It is so ridiculous.

I disagree. Sedevacantism is the only reasonable position you can hold, minus cognitive dissonance which I guess isn't rational anyway, if you believe Rome is the Church, has the faith, cannot contradict itself, cannot endorse a perversion of the order of Mass and is infallible.

Two fallacies don't make a fact.

Of course not, Sedevacantism is a form of cognitive dissonance in it's own right. Papism without a Pope, just as silly a notion as any.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 12:37:42 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #319 on: July 18, 2017, 12:35:15 PM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 12:35:40 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,842
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #320 on: July 18, 2017, 02:19:35 PM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.

Maybe you should read the document more carefully.
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 619
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #321 on: July 18, 2017, 03:04:41 PM »
Quote
Not sure you're quite getting it. The position shared by sedevacantists and Orthodox alike is that if he openly preaches a previously condemned heresy (in sedevacantists' case Modernism, in EO case the Filioque, in OO case Nestorianism -- Mor's "451" date), he is now a pseudo-Pope and so it would be laudable to reject his authority, and separate communion from him in order to rescue the Church from schisms and heresies.
Do sedevacantists have bishops ? Why I have the impression that they don't.

No bishop = no Church = no authority = self authority = anti authority = lawlessness = no sacraments = no salvation.

As for chalcedon it is simply unserious to claim chalcedonians were nestorian.
During the Western Schism, three men claimed to be pope (the true pope in Rome, one in Avignon, one in Pisa) In order to heal the nearly forty-year schism, the Council of Constance determined that with all the cardinals, delegates from each country would participate in the papal election (Pope Martin V was elected). Theologians teach that in doubt of or in absence of cardinals, the Church has the right to choose its Head.

Proof:

A. De Potestate Ecclesiae, Vitoria

— “Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him ... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father.

— “Hence such an election should be carried out by all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”

B. De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Cajetan, OP

— “.. . by exception and by supplementary manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism.”

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 619
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #322 on: July 18, 2017, 03:05:38 PM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Anthony is Orthodox, so please back off.
Faith: Confused Christian
Jurisdiction: Searching
I didn't write "If you leave the Catholic church, you will go to hell", or similar. I just mentioned a practical aspect to consider. I think he's likely well aware of it, but is this really something unfair, untrue or otherwise inappropriate to say?
If you leave the Catholic faith you go to hell, if you care about these orthodox you should be trying to convince them.
as for saints recognized by Paul VI,there shouldn't be much weight put on them..Paul VI was an antiChrist
Convince us of your invisible church. Where would we go for the sacraments?

there’s no invisible Church but we are in a  crisis, that shouldn’t be debatable to any Catholic who is of good will and has done their research.
 It is  debatable where you can get valid sacraments, I believe for now SSPX and CMRI are  valid options although it depends if the priest is too liberal. There are resistance priests (those who have left the sspx because of a pending deal with Rome) . If you don’t have those options near you unfortunately it’s best to stay home. Under no circumstances are you to attend a novus ordo mass.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 619
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #323 on: July 18, 2017, 03:06:24 PM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Anthony is Orthodox, so please back off.
Faith: Confused Christian
Jurisdiction: Searching
I didn't write "If you leave the Catholic church, you will go to hell", or similar. I just mentioned a practical aspect to consider. I think he's likely well aware of it, but is this really something unfair, untrue or otherwise inappropriate to say?
If you leave the Catholic faith you go to hell, if you care about these orthodox you should be trying to convince them.
as for saints recognized by Paul VI,there shouldn't be much weight put on them..Paul VI was an antiChrist

Anthony, I hope you see how ridiculous this is. This person is saying that you must return to a church that had an anti-Christ as its pope.

You seem to be very confused as your name states, why would I tell anyone to return to a Church that has an anti Christ as a pope? I am telling people the Church of today that calls itself Catholic, is not Catholic..it’s anti Catholic filled with freemason homo liberals. There was an infiltration decades before Vatican 2. You can call it the concilliary Church, Vatican 2 sect..whatever you wish but it ain’t the true Catholic Church, I hope this clarifies things for you.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #324 on: July 18, 2017, 03:24:12 PM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Anthony is Orthodox, so please back off.
Faith: Confused Christian
Jurisdiction: Searching
I didn't write "If you leave the Catholic church, you will go to hell", or similar. I just mentioned a practical aspect to consider. I think he's likely well aware of it, but is this really something unfair, untrue or otherwise inappropriate to say?
If you leave the Catholic faith you go to hell, if you care about these orthodox you should be trying to convince them.
as for saints recognized by Paul VI,there shouldn't be much weight put on them..Paul VI was an antiChrist

Anthony, I hope you see how ridiculous this is. This person is saying that you must return to a church that had an anti-Christ as its pope.

You seem to be very confused as your name states, why would I tell anyone to return to a Church that has an anti Christ as a pope? I am telling people the Church of today that calls itself Catholic, is not Catholic..it’s anti Catholic filled with freemason homo liberals. There was an infiltration decades before Vatican 2. You can call it the concilliary Church, Vatican 2 sect..whatever you wish but it ain’t the true Catholic Church, I hope this clarifies things for you.

Anthony, I hope you see how ridiculous this this. This person is saying that you must return to a church that doesn't exist.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline servulus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #325 on: July 18, 2017, 04:00:30 PM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Anthony is Orthodox, so please back off.
Faith: Confused Christian
Jurisdiction: Searching
I didn't write "If you leave the Catholic church, you will go to hell", or similar. I just mentioned a practical aspect to consider. I think he's likely well aware of it, but is this really something unfair, untrue or otherwise inappropriate to say?
If you leave the Catholic faith you go to hell, if you care about these orthodox you should be trying to convince them.
as for saints recognized by Paul VI,there shouldn't be much weight put on them..Paul VI was an antiChrist
Convince us of your invisible church. Where would we go for the sacraments?

there’s no invisible Church but we are in a  crisis, that shouldn’t be debatable to any Catholic who is of good will and has done their research.
 It is  debatable where you can get valid sacraments, I believe for now SSPX and CMRI are  valid options although it depends if the priest is too liberal. There are resistance priests (those who have left the sspx because of a pending deal with Rome) . If you don’t have those options near you unfortunately it’s best to stay home. Under no circumstances are you to attend a novus ordo mass.
I love the people of the SSPX, that is where I came from. I have a lot of respect for Bp. Pivarunas.
Even the SSPX rejects sedevacantism, at my old chapel they'd kick you out if you promoted it. Also, they have some priests that were ordained using the new right. The CMRI has a dark past and although they have Catholic theology, and from your point of view valid sacraments, it was never part of the Catholic Church. Can any catholic get Holy Orders from outside the church, then start up an organization that teaches Catholic theology and dispenses the sacraments, and have this be the visible church?

I'm not good at writing, so I'm sorry if I'm not getting my point across clearly. Going to the SSPX was the only thing that saved my Catholic faith. Their mental gymnastics became too much for me especially with the recent canonizations. I couldn't accept the modern popes either. I realized the church I was a part of no longer existed. The crisis as it is would be the gates of hell prevailing. It seemed either Jesus was wrong in his promise or the Catholic Church was not the church that Jesus made this promise about.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #326 on: July 18, 2017, 04:22:41 PM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.

That is incorrect:
In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

That's why dominus Iesus uses the word "present" rather than subsists in relation to non-catholic churches as susbsist simply means full equivalence. Further dominus Iesus says this is only possible that the church of Christ can be said to present in these communities because they have the sacraments which belong the church.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #327 on: July 18, 2017, 04:33:45 PM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Anthony is Orthodox, so please back off.
Faith: Confused Christian
Jurisdiction: Searching
I didn't write "If you leave the Catholic church, you will go to hell", or similar. I just mentioned a practical aspect to consider. I think he's likely well aware of it, but is this really something unfair, untrue or otherwise inappropriate to say?
If you leave the Catholic faith you go to hell, if you care about these orthodox you should be trying to convince them.
as for saints recognized by Paul VI,there shouldn't be much weight put on them..Paul VI was an antiChrist
Convince us of your invisible church. Where would we go for the sacraments?

there’s no invisible Church but we are in a  crisis, that shouldn’t be debatable to any Catholic who is of good will and has done their research.
 It is  debatable where you can get valid sacraments, I believe for now SSPX and CMRI are  valid options although it depends if the priest is too liberal. There are resistance priests (those who have left the sspx because of a pending deal with Rome) . If you don’t have those options near you unfortunately it’s best to stay home. Under no circumstances are you to attend a novus ordo mass.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peteror not, and upon this rock I will build my churchor maybe some resistance priests; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against itunless, you know, there's a crisis -- that shouldn't be debatable to any disciple who is of good will and has done their research, Peter, sheesh."
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 04:34:15 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,585
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #328 on: July 18, 2017, 07:57:57 PM »
Quote
Not sure you're quite getting it. The position shared by sedevacantists and Orthodox alike is that if he openly preaches a previously condemned heresy (in sedevacantists' case Modernism, in EO case the Filioque, in OO case Nestorianism -- Mor's "451" date), he is now a pseudo-Pope and so it would be laudable to reject his authority, and separate communion from him in order to rescue the Church from schisms and heresies.
Do sedevacantists have bishops ? Why I have the impression that they don't.

No bishop = no Church = no authority = self authority = anti authority = lawlessness = no sacraments = no salvation.

As for chalcedon it is simply unserious to claim chalcedonians were nestorian.
During the Western Schism, three men claimed to be pope (the true pope in Rome, one in Avignon, one in Pisa) In order to heal the nearly forty-year schism, the Council of Constance determined that with all the cardinals, delegates from each country would participate in the papal election (Pope Martin V was elected). Theologians teach that in doubt of or in absence of cardinals, the Church has the right to choose its Head.

Proof:

A. De Potestate Ecclesiae, Vitoria

— “Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him ... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father.

— “Hence such an election should be carried out by all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”

B. De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Cajetan, OP

— “.. . by exception and by supplementary manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism.”
Cajetan is not going to help you out of the corner you have painted yourself:
I can across something else of interest to the issue of the "manus" on supreme pontiff: Cajetan's Authority of Pope and Council Compared.
Quote
If someone insists that, when the apostolic see is vacant, the universal Church still exists, even without the pope as its head, the answer is that the universal Church exists only imperfectly, in such a way that this imperfection is a condition diminishing "the universal Church," just as a beheaded body diminishes an intact body.  The universal [body], after all, includes within itself all its office-holding members, the chief of whom is the head. Accordingly, the Church at such a time is headless and without its supreme part and power. Whoever denies this falls into the error of John Hus, denying the necessity of a head of the Church, which was condemned by Saint Thomas and by Martin V with the Council of Constance." And if someone took the view that the universal Church in this sense [without its head] has power immediately from Christ and is represented by the universal council, he would err intolerably, as is obvious from the texts cited and as will become more apparent further on.

Concerning the second comparison at the other extreme, between the pope set on one side and the whole Church, that is, even including the pope, on the other, it is said that the pope with the rest of the Church does not have greater power of spiritual jurisdiction than he has by himself, because his power
contains in itself the powers of all the rest, as their universal cause
There is no power of jurisdiction in the Church which is not in the pope, as is inductively obvious.

Even the power to elect the pope is in the pope's power. This is obvious both from the case of Peter, who chose his successor, as John III says in c. Si Petrus [C. 8 q. 1 c. 1], and from the fact that the pope ordains the exercise of the power to elect, determining when and how an election should be held, and, what is more important, determining the location of that power, when he established that election belongs to at least two thirds of the cardinals. This is proved from c. Si papa [D. 40 c. 6], where it is said that the whole body of the faithful recognizes that its salvation depends most, after the Lord, on the pope's good condition. Pope Leo says in c. Ita Dominus [D. 19 c. 7], "The Lord wished the sacrament of this gift to belong to the office of all the apostles, so that He placed [it] principally in most blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, that from him, as from a head, He might pour out His gifts, as it were, upon the whole body."  It is absolutely obvious in that passage that all the rest of the Church's body is allocated power by the pope as if by a head.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mC-I3inCYOIC&pg=PA23&dq=%22If+someone+insists+that,+when+the+apostolic+see+is+vacant,+the+universal+Church%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22If%20someone%20insists%20that%2C%20when%20the%20apostolic%20see%20is%20vacant%2C%20the%20universal%20Church%22&f=false

Oh dear, it seems that not even a Council has the power to make a bishop into a supreme pontiff, a real problem for Petrine succession.
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

Offline Anthony1986

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 254
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Diocese of Korsun
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #329 on: July 18, 2017, 09:40:02 PM »
CMRI???
"With the implementation of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, Schuckhardt and his group came to the conclusion that Pope Paul VI was not a valid pope and therefore sought services from priests who shared his theological position. In the early 1970s Schuckhardt received holy orders as a priest and as a bishop from Bishop Daniel Q. Brown, an Old Catholic Church bishop."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_of_Mary_Immaculate_Queen

The priest and bishop that received the Holy Order from the Old Catholic Church, that is the group outside the Roman Catholic Church.
How can you be sedevacantists but received the Holy Order outside the Roman Catholic Church???
O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and weak, with neither the organization nor the culture of the West, staying afloat as if by a miracle in the face of so many trials, tribulations and struggles; a Church of contrasts, both so traditional and so free, so archaic and so alive, so ritualist and so personally involved, a Church where the priceless pearl of the Gospel is assiduously preserved, sometimes under a layer of dust; a Church which in shadows and silence maintains above all the eternal val

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #330 on: July 18, 2017, 10:07:09 PM »
Yes, I know, Catholics must do a lot of mental gymnastics, it is unbelievably self-contradictory, blablabla. Ever been a Catholic? I guess you don't have a clue. But this is not about you and me, but about Anthony who is confused. If he's going back to Taiwan, he should consider which church he can reach each Sunday.

Anthony is Orthodox, so please back off.
Faith: Confused Christian
Jurisdiction: Searching
I didn't write "If you leave the Catholic church, you will go to hell", or similar. I just mentioned a practical aspect to consider. I think he's likely well aware of it, but is this really something unfair, untrue or otherwise inappropriate to say?
If you leave the Catholic faith you go to hell, if you care about these orthodox you should be trying to convince them.
as for saints recognized by Paul VI,there shouldn't be much weight put on them..Paul VI was an antiChrist
Convince us of your invisible church. Where would we go for the sacraments?

there’s no invisible Church but we are in a  crisis, that shouldn’t be debatable to any Catholic who is of good will and has done their research.
 It is  debatable where you can get valid sacraments, I believe for now SSPX and CMRI are  valid options although it depends if the priest is too liberal. There are resistance priests (those who have left the sspx because of a pending deal with Rome) . If you don’t have those options near you unfortunately it’s best to stay home. Under no circumstances are you to attend a novus ordo mass.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peteror not, and upon this rock I will build my churchor maybe some resistance priests; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against itunless, you know, there's a crisis -- that shouldn't be debatable to any disciple who is of good will and has done their research, Peter, sheesh."

I've always enjoyed that verse, properly translated.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #331 on: July 18, 2017, 10:08:08 PM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.

That is incorrect:
In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

That's why dominus Iesus uses the word "present" rather than subsists in relation to non-catholic churches as susbsist simply means full equivalence. Further dominus Iesus says this is only possible that the church of Christ can be said to present in these communities because they have the sacraments which belong the church.

It's entirely correct, otherwise we wouldn't have valid sacraments, and be able to take communion at a Roman Church. Your interpretation is what is incorrect.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,842
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #332 on: July 18, 2017, 10:14:44 PM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.

That is incorrect:
In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

That's why dominus Iesus uses the word "present" rather than subsists in relation to non-catholic churches as susbsist simply means full equivalence. Further dominus Iesus says this is only possible that the church of Christ can be said to present in these communities because they have the sacraments which belong the church.

It's entirely correct, otherwise we wouldn't have valid sacraments, and be able to take communion at a Roman Church. Your interpretation is what is incorrect.

What?
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #333 on: July 18, 2017, 10:31:45 PM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.

That is incorrect:
In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

That's why dominus Iesus uses the word "present" rather than subsists in relation to non-catholic churches as susbsist simply means full equivalence. Further dominus Iesus says this is only possible that the church of Christ can be said to present in these communities because they have the sacraments which belong the church.

It's entirely correct, otherwise we wouldn't have valid sacraments, and be able to take communion at a Roman Church. Your interpretation is what is incorrect.

What?

What is "the Church"? Million dollar question.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,092
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #334 on: July 18, 2017, 10:45:09 PM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.

That is incorrect:
In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

That's why dominus Iesus uses the word "present" rather than subsists in relation to non-catholic churches as susbsist simply means full equivalence. Further dominus Iesus says this is only possible that the church of Christ can be said to present in these communities because they have the sacraments which belong the church.

It's entirely correct, otherwise we wouldn't have valid sacraments, and be able to take communion at a Roman Church. Your interpretation is what is incorrect.

What?

What is "the Church"? Million dollar question.

ozgeorge helped us help ourselves search for the answer to this question, but he only offered $50 so maybe that's why we couldn't figure it out. In any event, if I read your previous post correctly, you seemed to have some idea that allowed you to say that an interpretation was incorrect... so even if you don't know for sure what the Church is, could you at least say what you were thinking when you made the response?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,842
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #335 on: July 18, 2017, 10:46:21 PM »
In any event, if I read your previous post correctly, you seemed to have some idea that allowed you to say that an interpretation was incorrect... so even if you don't know for sure what the Church is, could you at least say what you were thinking when you made the response?

+1
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #336 on: July 18, 2017, 11:00:35 PM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.

That is incorrect:
In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

That's why dominus Iesus uses the word "present" rather than subsists in relation to non-catholic churches as susbsist simply means full equivalence. Further dominus Iesus says this is only possible that the church of Christ can be said to present in these communities because they have the sacraments which belong the church.

It's entirely correct, otherwise we wouldn't have valid sacraments, and be able to take communion at a Roman Church. Your interpretation is what is incorrect.

What?

What is "the Church"? Million dollar question.

ozgeorge helped us help ourselves search for the answer to this question, but he only offered $50 so maybe that's why we couldn't figure it out. In any event, if I read your previous post correctly, you seemed to have some idea that allowed you to say that an interpretation was incorrect... so even if you don't know for sure what the Church is, could you at least say what you were thinking when you made the response?

I know what the Church is, that's why I am asking the question. Knowing what the Church is, is central to understanding what subsisting in it means.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #337 on: July 19, 2017, 02:10:44 AM »
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."
Keep going:


"17. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church."
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #338 on: July 19, 2017, 02:16:39 AM »
It's entirely correct, otherwise we wouldn't have valid sacraments, and be able to take communion at a Roman Church. Your interpretation is what is incorrect.
The Orthodox sacraments are as real as Roman ones, according to the Roman Church, otherwise Roman Catholics wouldn't be allowed, again by the Roman Church, to receive sacraments from the Orthodox Churches.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #339 on: July 19, 2017, 02:29:12 AM »
I rest my case.  8)
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #340 on: July 19, 2017, 02:43:32 AM »
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."
Keep going:


"17. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church."

Keep going:

17.Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #341 on: July 19, 2017, 02:45:19 AM »
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."
Keep going:


"17. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church."

Keep going:

17.Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

Missing the forest for the trees on this one. Do you recall what the original claim was wherein we began this little back and forth?
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #342 on: July 19, 2017, 02:53:46 AM »
Keep going:

17.Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.
Pray, tell, how does this emphasis change the fact that the Church of Christ is real in the Orthodox Churches and that thus its sacraments confer Divine Grace that makes saints out of sinners? 

Or did you just follow up with this non squitur to have the last word?  If so, I forfeit this comment and grant you those last words.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 02:54:11 AM by Sharbel »
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline ConfusedRC

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #343 on: July 19, 2017, 07:35:30 AM »
You seem to be very confused as your name states, why would I tell anyone to return to a Church that has an anti Christ as a pope? I am telling people the Church of today that calls itself Catholic, is not Catholic..it’s anti Catholic filled with freemason homo liberals. There was an infiltration decades before Vatican 2. You can call it the concilliary Church, Vatican 2 sect..whatever you wish but it ain’t the true Catholic Church, I hope this clarifies things for you.

No, I'm not confused. I just don't want to give credence to your sedevacantist theory. During my time as a Roman Catholic, I experienced all of the different sects (except for the Charismatic one...didn't want to have anything to do with that), including the attendance at a sedevacantist parish. However, I quickly realized that out of all of the "explanations" for the depressing state of the RC, the sedevacantist theory was the worst one. How could people claim that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the real Church, and in the same breath, claim that the RC is still the true church but is going through a crisis because they have no pope. If you have no leader, I would say that the gates of hell prevailed! What other sign of victory would one need to admit defeat? Furthermore, the sedevacantist sect is riddled with priests with questionable holy orders.

Don't get me started on sedevacantists!
I am no longer a "confused Roman Catholic" as I joined the Orthodox Church in April 2016.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,842
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #344 on: July 19, 2017, 11:08:22 AM »
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."
Keep going:


"17. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church."

Keep going:

17.Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

Missing the forest for the trees on this one. Do you recall what the original claim was wherein we began this little back and forth?

What was it?
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,842
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #345 on: July 19, 2017, 11:11:14 AM »
Keep going:

17.Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.
Pray, tell, how does this emphasis change the fact that the Church of Christ is real in the Orthodox Churches and that thus its sacraments confer Divine Grace that makes saints out of sinners? 

Or did you just follow up with this non squitur to have the last word?  If so, I forfeit this comment and grant you those last words.

I think reading Dominus Iesus as saying there's nothing at all lacking in the Orthodox Church from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church is an error.  Do they recognise Orthodox sacraments/orders?  Yes.  So what?  For Catholics, there's more to the Church than that. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #346 on: July 20, 2017, 02:37:28 AM »
Ok, thanks for the list. But that's not what I meant. Those saints were recognized by the church.
That's of course fine and not a contradiction to your papal quote. Saints outside the church does not make any sense.
Yet, these who saints were never part of the Roman Church and did not hold the same beliefs, were recognized by PP PVI.  The only reasonable course of action is to concede, like the good pope did, that there are saints outside the Roman Church, even without investigating their cause.  It's not the Roman Church that makes saints, she merely recognizes the fact that people are saints in Heaven.

As a matter of fact, in Dominus Jesus, then Card. Ratzinger admitted that the Church does subsist in the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Subsists in the Catholic Church, yes. It also subsists in the Churches which are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and certain Protestant Churches. That's what the Roman Church teaches, mind you, not what our Church teaches.

That is incorrect:
In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

That's why dominus Iesus uses the word "present" rather than subsists in relation to non-catholic churches as susbsist simply means full equivalence. Further dominus Iesus says this is only possible that the church of Christ can be said to present in these communities because they have the sacraments which belong the church.

It's entirely correct, otherwise we wouldn't have valid sacraments, and be able to take communion at a Roman Church. Your interpretation is what is incorrect.

This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas;
that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.

"Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here.
The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church.
This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended.
With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church".
(Joseph Ratzinger, "L'ecclesiologia della Costituzione Lumen Gentium" in R. Fisichella (ed.), II Concilio Vaticano II: Recezione e attualità alla luce del Giubileo (Cinisello B. 2000), 79.)

In this Document of the Council, the assertion of the subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church is followed by the famous phrase about the presence of many elements of sanctification and truth,
belonging to the Church, outside her visible structure.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, already in 1985, in the face of erroneous interpretations, made the following statement in this regard:
" . . . the Council chose the word subsistit precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single 'subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist,
which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the book "Church: Charism and Power" by Fr. Leonardo Boff, AAS 77 (1985), 758-759.)

More recently, the same Congregation declared: "The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist
also in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen Gentium".
(Declaration Dominus Iesus, n. 6, August 2000, footnote 56.)
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 619
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #347 on: July 20, 2017, 02:35:05 PM »
You seem to be very confused as your name states, why would I tell anyone to return to a Church that has an anti Christ as a pope? I am telling people the Church of today that calls itself Catholic, is not Catholic..it’s anti Catholic filled with freemason homo liberals. There was an infiltration decades before Vatican 2. You can call it the concilliary Church, Vatican 2 sect..whatever you wish but it ain’t the true Catholic Church, I hope this clarifies things for you.

No, I'm not confused. I just don't want to give credence to your sedevacantist theory. During my time as a Roman Catholic, I experienced all of the different sects (except for the Charismatic one...didn't want to have anything to do with that), including the attendance at a sedevacantist parish. However, I quickly realized that out of all of the "explanations" for the depressing state of the RC, the sedevacantist theory was the worst one. How could people claim that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the real Church, and in the same breath, claim that the RC is still the true church but is going through a crisis because they have no pope. If you have no leader, I would say that the gates of hell prevailed! What other sign of victory would one need to admit defeat? Furthermore, the sedevacantist sect is riddled with priests with questionable holy orders.

Don't get me started on sedevacantists!
you are truly confused and should do more research and effort towards your salvation

Indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.  The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church.  It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days.  This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.   
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."2 
Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16! 
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “... we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)...”3 
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4 
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.) 
 
Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell.  Heretics are not members of the Church.  That’s why a heretic could never be a pope.  The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ.  It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics. 


Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”6 
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:  "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."   
There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes.  Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines.  This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #348 on: July 20, 2017, 02:41:40 PM »
You seem to be very confused as your name states, why would I tell anyone to return to a Church that has an anti Christ as a pope? I am telling people the Church of today that calls itself Catholic, is not Catholic..it’s anti Catholic filled with freemason homo liberals. There was an infiltration decades before Vatican 2. You can call it the concilliary Church, Vatican 2 sect..whatever you wish but it ain’t the true Catholic Church, I hope this clarifies things for you.

No, I'm not confused. I just don't want to give credence to your sedevacantist theory. During my time as a Roman Catholic, I experienced all of the different sects (except for the Charismatic one...didn't want to have anything to do with that), including the attendance at a sedevacantist parish. However, I quickly realized that out of all of the "explanations" for the depressing state of the RC, the sedevacantist theory was the worst one. How could people claim that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the real Church, and in the same breath, claim that the RC is still the true church but is going through a crisis because they have no pope. If you have no leader, I would say that the gates of hell prevailed! What other sign of victory would one need to admit defeat? Furthermore, the sedevacantist sect is riddled with priests with questionable holy orders.

Don't get me started on sedevacantists!
you are truly confused and should do more research and effort towards your salvation

Indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.  The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church.  It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days.  This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.   
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."2 
Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16! 
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “... we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)...”3 
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4 
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.) 
 
Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell.  Heretics are not members of the Church.  That’s why a heretic could never be a pope.  The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ.  It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics. 


Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”6 
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:  "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."   
There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes.  Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines.  This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church

You have an apologetics that's "truly confused." The fact you can even articulate it doesn't make it less confused, altho it is an impressive mental feat.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #349 on: July 20, 2017, 02:55:33 PM »
Sedevacantists assume they are the Church, and then work their way to the conclusion that the Church is in eclipse. They don't think to question the fundamental assumption.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #350 on: July 20, 2017, 04:01:35 PM »
Sedevacantists assume they are the Church,
One Holy Catholic and ApostolicSedevacantis Church

Offline ConfusedRC

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #351 on: July 21, 2017, 10:52:36 AM »
You seem to be very confused as your name states, why would I tell anyone to return to a Church that has an anti Christ as a pope? I am telling people the Church of today that calls itself Catholic, is not Catholic..it’s anti Catholic filled with freemason homo liberals. There was an infiltration decades before Vatican 2. You can call it the concilliary Church, Vatican 2 sect..whatever you wish but it ain’t the true Catholic Church, I hope this clarifies things for you.

No, I'm not confused. I just don't want to give credence to your sedevacantist theory. During my time as a Roman Catholic, I experienced all of the different sects (except for the Charismatic one...didn't want to have anything to do with that), including the attendance at a sedevacantist parish. However, I quickly realized that out of all of the "explanations" for the depressing state of the RC, the sedevacantist theory was the worst one. How could people claim that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the real Church, and in the same breath, claim that the RC is still the true church but is going through a crisis because they have no pope. If you have no leader, I would say that the gates of hell prevailed! What other sign of victory would one need to admit defeat? Furthermore, the sedevacantist sect is riddled with priests with questionable holy orders.

Don't get me started on sedevacantists!
you are truly confused and should do more research and effort towards your salvation

I did my research, which is how I found the Orthodox Church.

Quote
Indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.  The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church.  It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days.  This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.   
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."2 
Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16! 
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “... we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)...”3 
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4 
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.) 
 
Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell.  Heretics are not members of the Church.  That’s why a heretic could never be a pope.  The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ.  It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics. 


Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”6 
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:  "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."   
There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes.  Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines.  This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church

When I was attending a sedevacantist parish and doing research on sedevacantism, I remember frequenting another forum, and in that forum, there was a thread that listed "talking points" for sedevacantists to use when debating. Your discussion here is basically one big reference to that thread.

The problem with debating sedevacantists is that you take snippets of what the Church fathers said and neglect the rest of the quotes or documents to which you are referring to. You don't need to be a student with me in my doctoral research class (it's so boring, but I need to get back to studying while my kids are asleep) to know that this is simply bad research. Then, you will provide more snippets (with no context) to counter anything that I say. Thus, the cycle goes on and on and on...
I am no longer a "confused Roman Catholic" as I joined the Orthodox Church in April 2016.

Offline pasadi97

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #352 on: July 24, 2017, 09:33:32 PM »
in around 1600  when catholics and orthodox asked God which one is right God responded Orthodox. For smart christians situation is settled for the one that do not doubt God.


What super beauty and super intelligence do you posses that you know better than God? Because divorce something you know better than God? Hilarious.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 09:41:51 PM by pasadi97 »
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline pasadi97

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #353 on: July 26, 2017, 07:45:16 AM »
Do you know better than a Saint that is in heaven?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnBOBF0NL7s
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #354 on: July 26, 2017, 09:20:05 AM »

The SSPX is a somewhat extremist organization, with undesirable ties to anti-Semitism, and an inconsistent theology.  I would avoid them.

The Orthodox Church is focused on love; we adhere vigorously to our tradition, but we do so in a loving manner, because we love it.




This is why the "there are some radicals, therefore the organization creates radicals" argument doesn't work.
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #355 on: July 26, 2017, 09:30:32 AM »
in around 1600  when catholics and orthodox asked God which one is right God responded Orthodox. For smart christians situation is settled for the one that do not doubt God.


What super beauty and super intelligence do you posses that you know better than God? Because divorce something you know better than God? Hilarious.

When? Where? What event was this?

For me personally, I hesitate, because we have in the Orthodox Church a vision of the Theotokos in which she called the Latins "Godless," and in the Catholic Church we have a vision of the Theotokos in which she desires Russia to be converted to "her Immaculate Heart."
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 09:36:10 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #356 on: July 26, 2017, 09:45:03 AM »
I also wonder how anybody can clearly be SSPX and reject Vatican II - although it is a hard pill to swallow, and even though it was called as a "Pastoral Council," there are clearly dogmatic declarations by the authority of the Pope which, according to Vatican I, are infallible - for those who read such documents.

Now as to whether or not there are contradictions or not in these declarations - and whether or not Pope Paul VI violated Quo Primum in his reform of the liturgy is a matter of debate.

Also, I find the basis on which the SSPX sees itself as canonical ("We are in an emergency situation in the Church due to liturgy and bad teachers, therefore, the authority of the Pope on us is null and void) very skeptical (Was the authority of the Pope null and void during iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire, or even during the period of Arianism? Or even during the period of Pope John XXII in which he was denouncing the Beatific Vision publicly and oppressing those who disagreed with him?)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 09:56:37 AM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline Anthony1986

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 254
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Diocese of Korsun
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #357 on: July 26, 2017, 10:18:59 AM »
I also wonder how anybody can clearly be SSPX and reject Vatican II - although it is a hard pill to swallow, and even though it was called as a "Pastoral Council," there are clearly dogmatic declarations by the authority of the Pope which, according to Vatican I, are infallible - for those who read such documents.

Now as to whether or not there are contradictions or not in these declarations - and whether or not Pope Paul VI violated Quo Primum in his reform of the liturgy is a matter of debate.

Also, I find the basis on which the SSPX sees itself as canonical ("We are in an emergency situation in the Church due to liturgy and bad teachers, therefore, the authority of the Pope on us is null and void) very skeptical (Was the authority of the Pope null and void during iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire, or even during the period of Arianism? Or even during the period of Pope John XXII in which he was denouncing the Beatific Vision publicly and oppressing those who disagreed with him?)

Vatican made very clear the SSPX need to accept Vatican II in order to have the regular canonical status.
Many conservative Catholic priests and lay people said SSPX is still in schism. They are not Catholic and outside the Catholic Church.

But one thing I don't understand is then why the Pope Francis still give SSPX the faculty of concession and witness the marriage?

SSPX priests and supporters think Vatican II is heresy.  But they have many secret talk with Rome all the time.
SSPX criticize post Vatican II Popes all the time. However, according to  Pastor aeternus no Catholics can judge the Pope. So how can SSPX priests and supporters point out that the Popes teach heresy?

There are some SSPX priests and supporters eventually become sedevacantists.

According to Roman Catholic Church outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. So the SSPX priests and supporters are outside the Catholic Church so they will all go to hell?
So that is mean, we all have to accept Vatican II even the Novus Ordo Mass, otherwise we will all end up in hell?
As long as Pope is not speaking in ex cathedra he can teach heresy, and no one can speak up against heresy? If someone point out the mistakes of Pope, that person is in schism and will go to hell for that? 
There are so many confusions in Roman Catholic Church now.
O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and weak, with neither the organization nor the culture of the West, staying afloat as if by a miracle in the face of so many trials, tribulations and struggles; a Church of contrasts, both so traditional and so free, so archaic and so alive, so ritualist and so personally involved, a Church where the priceless pearl of the Gospel is assiduously preserved, sometimes under a layer of dust; a Church which in shadows and silence maintains above all the eternal val

Offline Anthony1986

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 254
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Diocese of Korsun
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #358 on: July 26, 2017, 10:26:45 AM »
According to Rome, being the supporter of SSPX or member of Eastern Orthodox Church are all outside the Catholic Church and will end up in hell.
So that is mean I have to accept all the teaching of Vatican II, and Novos Ordo Mass otherwise I will end up in hell.





 
O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and weak, with neither the organization nor the culture of the West, staying afloat as if by a miracle in the face of so many trials, tribulations and struggles; a Church of contrasts, both so traditional and so free, so archaic and so alive, so ritualist and so personally involved, a Church where the priceless pearl of the Gospel is assiduously preserved, sometimes under a layer of dust; a Church which in shadows and silence maintains above all the eternal val

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where should I go now? Eastern Orthodoxy or SSPX Latin Catholic
« Reply #359 on: July 26, 2017, 10:29:51 AM »
According to Rome, being the supporter of SSPX or member of Eastern Orthodox Church are all outside the Catholic Church and will end up in hell.
So that is mean I have to accept all the teaching of Vatican II, and Novos Ordo Mass otherwise I will end up in hell.

That's not what Rome teaches. That's what Sedes teach. Rome teaches you can be a non-Christian and be saved, under certain conditions. Pope Francis said even atheists can be saved.

Vatican II changed the historical teaching on salvation, and non-Christian religions.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 10:32:07 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.