J
Jragzz123
Guest
I think that the orthodox trace their lineage to the apostles as well same as Catholicism.
Could Our Lady of Fatima been talking about Russia returning to orthodoxy?
- Status
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
Agreed. Few things are as useless as a prophecy where you can’t tell if it’s been fulfilled or not, what it would take to fulfill it, and most importantly when it’s so vague and susceptible to interpretation that it could mean a great many things.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I think the Chieti document is a pretty good start. I’m not saying that communion between us and the Church of Rome will happen soon, but there is continued dialogue between the two Churches.
Icons of course. However, before the iconoclasm the East did have a tradition of statues. Afterwards, the Byzantine Church no longer had the wealth or the skill set needed for great monumental sculpture, but artisans continued to work in miniature, both statues and bas reliefs, often in ivory.
ZP
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Many of the “Western theological expressions” came out of the Eastern Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
T
twf
Guest
As a Catholic, I’ve always found the apologetics claim “we have an unbroken line of popes” very odd. Apostolic succession is an unbroken line, and of course the Pope is a bishop ordained in that unbroken line, like all bishops. Of course, I accept papal primacy and the unique authority of the Pope of Rome, but I’m not sure what we mean by “unbroken line”. There’s always a gap between popes. They don’t appoint or ordain their successors. During some periods of Church history, such as during the Great Western Schism, we had three claimants to the papal throne.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Both Churches agree that the Father as the originating cause of the Spirit, you’re right as it is a language issue (as I believe St Maximus the Confessor has noted) and should have probably left that one out. However, I’m not so sure about “Purgatory”? The West dogmatically defines this but as far as I have ever read and understood, Purgatory is a theologica secunda expression of purification of the soul after death, which the East has not defined, and, remains happy with the theologica prima.
ZP
ZP
J
JSRG
Guest
I don’t see Unam Sanctam as a problem, given that Catholics can’t seem to agree on whether that part of it meets the criteria for being ex cathedra or not, so I can’t say that Orthodox not agreeing with it is a problem. The actual obstacle is Vatican I, where there’s no such question of whether it’s dogma or not.ziapueblo:
With success thus far? I think you are being too optimistic like most Catholics here. I don’t see any movement on the doctrines of papal infallibility and universal papal supremacy over the whole church. How many Orthodox do you know are there who subscribe to the Unam Sanctam teaching that every living human must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved?
Eastern Catholic churches use icons rather than statues, have different fasting regulations, and have a different liturgy (I have no idea what “profane musical instruments” is supposed to mean). Given that they are in communion, one can hardly say it’s a problem if the Orthodox do those things. Birth control is a potential issue, though.
Last edited:
If I had to guess, I would say that “the conversion of Russia” entails the return of the mass of Russians to Orthodoxy, and the Russian Orthodox Church coming into some kind of communion with Rome, even if that “communion” makes the barest demands possible of the ROC. I know no one has suggested this, but I wouldn’t foresee any mass conversion of Russians to Latin Rite Roman Catholicism. Here and there, perhaps, but Latin Catholicism just isn’t part of their culture and never has been.
B
Buks
Guest
A new believer in her Son, even if not Catholic, could still be an answer to prayers. There are enough cafeteria Catholics such that in the big picture, conversion of a great many from atheism to non-Catholic Christianity, especially Orthodox, would seem to be a very minor problem.
B
Buks
Guest
Some Byzantine Catholic rites started as the conversion of Orthodox to Catholic, right? So there is a precedent. Moving further east would be a big challenge, though.
I’m not clear what you are getting at here. What does the existence of “cafeteria Catholics” have to do with people converting from atheism to Orthodoxy? Those are two entirely unrelated issues.
I mean no blasphemy or disrespect in so saying, but while I fully accept Fatima — the message itself, not all of the “theology” that has morphed into being as a result of people trying to interpret Fatima — it feels sometimes like the Greek oracle of Delphi, vague prophecies that can be interpreted any number of ways. The “conversion of Russia” is a case in point — does “conversion” mean turning away from atheism towards some kind of Christian faith, or a mass revival of Russian Orthodoxy, or coming into union with the Holy Father, or what? Any of those things could be called “conversion”. The original 1917 prophecies were given to poor shepherd children — I heard once that Jacinta thought “Russia” was the name of a little girl. She didn’t even know what “Russia” was. Those 1917 prophecies were actually pretty terse. And then the children were shown hell. They thought almost everyone was going to hell. What else are children going to think when they see a massive number of damned souls? And aside from the prophecy that “the Holy Father will have much to suffer”, Our Lady did not really say all that much about Catholicism. Did the 1917 message use the word “Catholic” one single time?
Don’t get me wrong. I say the rosary. I wear the brown scapular continuously, even when sleeping. (I do take it off to shower or swim — some people do not.) I offer my daily duty. I have made the five First Saturdays. Fatima is a huge part of my faith. But I simply do not find that the Fatima message, taken all by itself, is all that precise. I could be wrong. And keep in mind that nobody has to believe in Fatima, nor that any particular aspect of the message is true or false.
P
phil19034
Guest
I think Our Lady was referring to a return to Christ & the Sacraments. Not necessarily returning to communion with Rome.
D
dochawk
Guest
I wouldn’t use “rather” in that context, any more than, for example, “Eastern Catholic Churches use an iconostasis rather than statutes.”
Sure, each has them, but they aren’t similar in the reasons they’re there or their use.
Some churches started by the conversion of individuals (e.g., Russian Catholic), while others, such as the Ukrainians, came about as the Orthodox Church in question entered communion.
I incline towards this view myself.
Keep in mind that the Russians have always been devoted to the Theotokos (Bogoroditsa) — she is their Mother too — and that they have the true faith, true sacraments, and they are utterly sincere in their belief that they are adhering to the One True Church. They find submission to the Holy Father as repellent as we find not being subject to the Holy Father. Are they all that different from sincerely convinced sedevacantists? I hope with all my heart that Our Blessed Lord takes them as they are, not as they should be, and unless their patriarch would have a change of heart and bring his church into communion with Rome, they may stay the way they are until the parousia.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
That is quite a nice point. After all, sedevacantists have valid sacraments too.
We pray and hope for salvation of everyone… but I am a bit skeptical about their Patriarch having a change of heart… most anti-Catholic homilies I heard from Orthodox side are from him …something I actually respect him for, as he stands for true doctrine and Saints (Mark of Ephesus being prime example) of his Orthodox Church, even though I view him as being misled.
The way you describe the ROC patriarch reminds me a bit of the way I view Bob Jones University. I can’t even begin to agree with them on many things, but one thing you can say for them, they stick to what they believe in, and they do not compromise. They did change their rule on interracial dating — and I am not suggesting that they were “right” or admirable for forbidding it — probably because they looked to the Bible, as they do in all things, but that’s about it. They are what they are, and you can either like it, or you can not like it. They actually provide an excellent education, within the bounds of fundamentalist Biblical orthodoxy. My attorney is a BJU alumnus (has become a bit more liberal in the years hence) and their Sacred Art Museum is outstanding.HomeschoolDad:
We pray and hope for salvation of everyone… but I am a bit skeptical about their Patriarch having a change of heart… most anti-Catholic homilies I heard from Orthodox side are from him …something I actually respect him for, as he stands for true doctrine and Saints (Mark of Ephesus being prime example) of his Orthodox Church, even though I view him as being misled.
P
poche
Guest
That was Sister Lucy’s interpretation of it.
- Status