Do Eastern Catholics Believe in Mortal and Venial Sin?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I will not ‘re-examine’ and ‘be open to change’ regarding the tenets of faith, to do would be suicidal and an admission that the church has been wrong over the last 1,900 years.

It is ridiculous to suggest that changing the way papal supremacy is exercised would be a violation of that tenet of faith. Let me give a concrete example to help you understand why:

What if the Catholic Church reconsidered worldwide papal confirmation of episcopal appointments throughout the Latin Church. As Hesychios himself admitted, that practice became a uniform reality only in the nineteenth century anyway.

You and I agree that papal supremacy is an important part of the Catholic faith and has therefore been there from the very beginning, right?

So logic dictates that undoing something like papal confirmation of episcopal appointments would not be a violation of papal supremacy. If it wasn’t for 1800 years, it’s not going to be now.

The same goes for any other way we might rework the pope’s supremacy into a “new thesis” in the words of Pope Benedict. No Catholic here - including me - is suggesting, jmj, that it would be acceptable for the Church to say, “the pope does not have supreme authority over the whole Church and every part of that.” We’re not saying that.

What we are suggesting is that how the pope exercises that authority can accommodate quite a bit of flexibility. Your rhetoric implies that any change in the status quo on this issue is a violation of the teaching itself, and that’s absurd.

take a look here.

saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/something-to-think-about/

I’m the one who posted that link in this thread to begin with. Now that’s irony.

In any case, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be “taking a look” at, Steve. Nothing I have said is compatible with the claim that eastern Catholics ought to be able to dismiss Vatican I, which defined the papal dogmas, as merely a Latin Council. It is not; the East was represented at that council more than the West was represented at councils the Catholic Church today considers ecumenical. I believe that - from a Catholic perspective - it is certainly an ecumenical council.

OC? Which one? No ONE speaks for them collectively.

I wasn’t speaking for all Orthodox… read what I said, Steve. I said “the most honest Orthodox I’ve encountered on this matter are the ones who say…” etc. I’m not speaking for anyone or any group; I’m simply making reference to statements I have personally encountered from individual Orthodox Christians.

Re: Antioch and Alexandria today, you can’t hardly find Christianity in those cities or the countries they are in.

I was talking about the historical example of first millennium Alexandria and Antioch. No offense, but I think you’ve utterly failed to follow what I was saying if you don’t realize that the predominantly Islamic status of those areas today doesn’t have any bearing on the point I was making.

But our UGCC Patriarch HAS been requesting eccles. communion from the Pope - he’s just not in the mood to respond yet . . .

Frankly, I’m surprised. I thought Pope Benedict XVI would have been his own man, traditionalist and disciplinarian that he always has been.

It’s a shame he has buckled under the Vatican ost-politik with respect to the Moscow Patriarchate where the UGCC is concerned.

I am quite sorely disappointed in him. I thought he would be different. It is clear that he is not.

I’m sorry, Alex. I wish I knew why Rome is ignoring the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church on this matter. I have no idea why they seem more concerned with what the Moscow Patriarchate thinks… I agree that you guys deserve far more from the pope than the often ornery Russian Orthodox hierarchy…

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Its german, ‘A mighty fortress is our God’ I just ran it through google translate lol

It’s a quote from Martin Luther . So it might be “off topic”.

 

[TrueLight]

Its german, ‘A mighty fortress is our God’ I just ran it through google translate lol

Oh. I was too lazy to do that, I guess.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m currently reading a book called “A Popular History of the Catholic Church”. It was written in the 40’s. It is really opening my eyes on how the Church developed, both East and West.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

It is ridiculous to suggest that changing the way papal supremacy is exercised would be a violation of that tenet of faith. Let me give a concrete example to help you understand why:

What if the Catholic Church reconsidered worldwide papal confirmation of episcopal appointments throughout the Latin Church. As Hesychios himself admitted, that practice became a uniform reality only in the nineteenth century anyway.

You and I agree that papal supremacy is an important part of the Catholic faith and has therefore been there from the very beginning, right?

So logic dictates that undoing something like papal confirmation of episcopal appointments would not be a violation of papal supremacy. If it wasn’t for 1800 years, it’s not going to be now.

The same goes for any other way we might rework the pope’s supremacy into a “new thesis” in the words of Pope Benedict. No Catholic here - including me - is suggesting, jmj, that it would be acceptable for the Church to say, “the pope does not have supreme authority over the whole Church and every part of that.” We’re not saying that.

What we are suggesting is that how the pope exercises that authority can accommodate quite a bit of flexibility. Your rhetoric implies that any change in the status quo on this issue is a violation of the teaching itself, and that’s absurd.

I’m the one who posted that link in this thread to begin with. Now that’s irony.

In any case, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be “taking a look” at, Steve. Nothing I have said is compatible with the claim that eastern Catholics ought to be able to dismiss Vatican I, which defined the papal dogmas, as merely a Latin Council. It is not; the East was represented at that council more than the West was represented at councils the Catholic Church today considers ecumenical. I believe that - from a Catholic perspective - it is certainly an ecumenical council.

I wasn’t speaking for all Orthodox… read what I said, Steve. I said “the most honest Orthodox I’ve encountered on this matter are the ones who say…” etc. I’m not speaking for anyone or any group; I’m simply making reference to statements I have personally encountered from individual Orthodox Christians.

I was talking about the historical example of first millennium Alexandria and Antioch. No offense, but I think you’ve utterly failed to follow what I was saying if you don’t realize that the predominantly Islamic status of those areas today doesn’t have any bearing on the point I was making.

I’m sorry, Alex. I wish I knew why Rome is ignoring the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church on this matter. I have no idea why they seem more concerned with what the Moscow Patriarchate thinks… I agree that you guys deserve far more from the pope than the often ornery Russian Orthodox hierarchy…

You know, I really like you!

You are very honest and forthright about ecclesial realities.

Which is much more than I can say about Steve and JMJ! (Kidding guys, put your papal lances down . . )

Alex

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Fone Bone,

… any more than our brother Hesychios here should feel threatened by the pope’s supreme authority.

I don’t feel threatened.

As an orthodox Christian I simply don’t believe in it, but I think I understand how it works and what it claims, and I will point that out if I find someone is understating the case.

I sympathize with your position, it would be nice if the church would move in your direction, but it is simply not there.

 

[steve_b]

Dear Steve,

In fact, what the Pope and the Vatican say is one thing - how this is reinterpreted by Episcopal conferences, RC theologs etc. can be quite another.

The CC has a magisterium. The EO don’t. They aren’t one Church so no ONE speaks for them. Authority for them depends on who one considers to be his authority at the moment.
A:

As for Muslims being the majority - have a look at Europe, my friend and also the whole issue of secularization, fallen-away Catholics and the like.

Last time I looked, Europe is not muslim.
A:

The Orthodox may be numerically smaller, but in my (considerable) experience with them, they are the spiritually stronger.

Alex

Think about it. If they were spiritually stronger, you’d be able to show it in the East. Where is EO in the East?

Hagia Sophia the flag ship basilica of Constantinople and the East, fashioned itself the “new Rome” has been a mosque for 400 + years then it was converted to a museum.

Constantinople couldn’t even retain its name. Can you imagine St Peter’s and the Vatican turned into a mosque?

regarding mortal and venial sin, yes it is recognized by Eastern Catholics

 

[ConstantineTG]

The CC has a magisterium. The EO don’t. They aren’t one Church so no ONE speaks for them. Authority for them depends on who one considers to be his authority at the moment.

The authority are the bishops, speaking with one voice.

Last time I looked, Europe is not muslim.

When did you look? 1970? Maybe not today, but at the current pace of propagation of the faith and reproduction of their families, they’ll be over 50% of residents of Europe in less than 20 years.

Think about it. If they were spiritually stronger, you’d be able to show it in the East. Where is EO in the East?

Hagia Sophia the flag ship basilica of Constantinople and the East, fashioned itself the “new Rome” has been a mosque for 400 + years then it was converted to a museum.

Constantinople couldn’t even retain its name. Can you imagine St Peter’s and the Vatican turned into a mosque?

regarding mortal and venial sin, yes it is recognized by Eastern Catholics

I think that is what Alex has been saying. Spiritually stronger doesn’t mean they are political conquerors. Despite communism in Russia, the expanding Muslim empire to their East, and the encroachment of the Latins in their West, the Orthodox have held firm to their faith until today. Politically they have been fighting a losing battle, but they have persevered. Many Roman Catholics never experienced such persecution which is going on until today.

 

[jmj1984]

It is ridiculous to suggest that changing the way papal supremacy is exercised would be a violation of that tenet of faith. Let me give a concrete example to help you understand why:

And pray tell me what is the point of changing the way its exercised when the next tent can just change it back? What you would need is a promise that the Pope would never exercise its powers in such a way, an assurance no Pope can give as they cannot bind their successors bar speaking infallibly. And seeing as such a statement would contradict hundreds of years of tradition its unlikely.

What if the Catholic Church reconsidered worldwide papal confirmation of episcopal appointments throughout the Latin Church. As Hesychios himself admitted, that practice became a uniform reality only in the nineteenth century anyway.

You and I agree that papal supremacy is an important part of the Catholic faith and has therefore been there from the very beginning, right?

So logic dictates that undoing something like papal confirmation of episcopal appointments would not be a violation of papal supremacy. If it wasn’t for 1800 years, it’s not going to be now.

This simply isn’t true, the tradition has been present in the church from the earliest times.

‘**The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail. **’ Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea.

In the early 1st Millenium AD we hear about The Investiture controversy where the Papacy emphasised its right to appoint and depose bishops, the most telling documents from the Papacy are in nomine Domini which asserts that only cardinals have the right to elect the pope and Dictatus Papae which again asserts the same rights the Pope claims today. That includes the sole right to appoint and depose bishops, that he may depose and appoint bishops without a synod etc…

The documents can be read here csun.edu/~hcfll004/dict_pap.html and here osjcuria.org/sga/young/giovannipaolo/innominedomini.pdf

Your assertions are therefore simply false.

The same goes for any other way we might rework the pope’s supremacy into a “new thesis” in the words of Pope Benedict. No Catholic here - including me - is suggesting, jmj, that it would be acceptable for the Church to say, “the pope does not have supreme authority over the whole Church and every part of that.” We’re not saying that.

What we are suggesting is that how the pope exercises that authority can accommodate quite a bit of flexibility. Your rhetoric implies that any change in the status quo on this issue is a violation of the teaching itself, and that’s absurd.

Firstly the way the Pope exercises this authority has always been flexible, secondly as I have explained above there is simply no point of this being changed and thirdly I’m afraid it would. It is part of the ordinary and universal magisterium that the pope has the power to appoint and depose bishops and that any bishops appointed without his consent are de jure schismatics,excepting perhaps special circumstances which canon law allows for.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The CC has a magisterium. The EO don’t. They aren’t one Church so no ONE speaks for them. Authority for them depends on who one considers to be his authority at the moment.

regarding mortal and venial sin, yes it is recognized by Eastern Catholics

agreed and true.

 

[jmj1984]

Many Roman Catholics never experienced such persecution which is going on until today.

I’m guessing the protestant reformation with the resulting persecution throughout europe, the french revolution, the spanish civil war, the atrocities in mexico in the early 20th century, the persecution in japan during the 16th and 17th centuries and the continuing persecution in china all don’t count? And thats just off the top of my head.

 

[steve_b]

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*take a look here. *

saintjamesprayforme.wordpress…o-think-about/

Quote:
Fone Bone:

I’m the one who posted that link in this thread to begin with. Now that’s irony.

Just drawing your attention back to it
F:

In any case, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be “taking a look” at, Steve. Nothing I have said is compatible with the claim that eastern Catholics ought to be able to dismiss Vatican I, which defined the papal dogmas, as merely a Latin Council. It is not; the East was represented at that council more than the West was represented at councils the Catholic Church today considers ecumenical. I believe that - from a Catholic perspective - it is certainly an ecumenical council.

I was refering to your comment

"The leaders of *both *churches who are serious about ecumenism are, in fact, open to reworking their understandings of papal primacy/supremacy “to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences," in the words of Pope Benedict XVI (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988).”

The article you linked to, posits that then Cardinal Ratzinger was misunderstood by the East, and those words of his were taken to mean something then Cardinal Ratainger didn’t mean.
F:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
OC? Which one? No ONE speaks for them collectively.

Quote:
Fone Bone

I wasn’t speaking for all Orthodox… read what I said, Steve. I said “the most honest Orthodox I’ve encountered on this matter are the ones who say…” etc. I’m not speaking for anyone or any group; I’m simply making reference to statements I have personally encountered from individual Orthodox Christians.

I was responding to your following comment

. “most honest Orthodox I’ve encountered admit that neither* the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church* today functions the exact way the first millennium Church did, and that the example left by the first millennium church at Antioch, for instance, really is quite different from the example left by the first millennium church at Alexandria, etc.”

I see now my response wasn’t clear. Allow me to explain

• There is no “Orthodox Church” There are many. So one needs to be clear which one is doing the talking.
• Muslims captured Jerusalem in 638, and the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria were placed under the control of the Caliphates. Points galore could be made about this. But for another thread though
• for ~200 years prior to 638, Antioch and Alexandria were consumed in various heresy. As you probably know, both those sees, while in heresy, conspired with Constantinople to depose Chrysostom ~407. The pope cut off relations with Alexandria and Antioch. As a result of the heresies of Alexandria and Antioch predominently, The council of Chalcedon was called.

ergo, regarding the 1st millenium, and how the Catholic Church is run, the CC still has the pope, and functions in MANY respects the same way. 1st millenium Antioch and Alexandria from ~380 forward, shows me WHY the split from the CC was gonna happen.
F:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Re: Antioch and Alexandria today, you can’t hardly find Christianity in those cities or the countries they are in.

Quote:
Fone Bone

I was talking about the historical example of first millennium Alexandria and Antioch. No offense, but I think you’ve utterly failed to follow what I was saying if you don’t realize that the predominantly Islamic status of those areas today doesn’t have any bearing on the point I was making.

I think it DOES have bearing. But that’s another thread

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The CC has a magisterium. The EO don’t. They aren’t one Church so no ONE speaks for them. Authority for them depends on who one considers to be his authority at the moment.

Last time I looked, Europe is not muslim.

Think about it. If they were spiritually stronger, you’d be able to show it in the East. Where is EO in the East?

Hagia Sophia the flag ship basilica of Constantinople and the East, fashioned itself the “new Rome” has been a mosque for 400 + years then it was converted to a museum.

Constantinople couldn’t even retain its name. Can you imagine St Peter’s and the Vatican turned into a mosque?

regarding mortal and venial sin, yes it is recognized by Eastern Catholics

Steve,

You are being rather ridiculous here on every point in your tedentious interpretations - you are entitled to them, of course.

Orthodoxy has a unified set of teachings contained in the canons and pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils, her own Local Councils etc. Just because Orthodoxy has a Eucharistic model of Particular Church government, and is not a bureaucratic monolith like the Roman Catholic Vatican, does not mean it does not bear canonical unity and the same kind of ecclesial unity that existed in the early Church and the first millennium of Christianity. If a Patriarch breaks a canon, he will be, and has been (Patriarch of Jerusalem some years ago) censured and excommunicated.

Roman Catholicism tends to let heretical/borderline heretical theology profs et alia go on for a long period of time before they get their wrists slapped. As for your Magisterium, last time I looked, there were lots of RC theologs teaching God knows what in schools, as I’ve heard first hand and as others have related and articles have reported.

Europe is not now Muslim and neither is Russia - for you to say there is somehow a greater threat in Russia here than in Europe betrays a tendentious interpretation. Europe is heading towards a spiritual catastrophe where even the European parliament cannot bring itself to acknowledge any positive contribution that Christianity, and the RC Church in particular, have made to European development. European Christianity is in a heap of trouble, especially in nominally Catholic countries. That is just general knowledge and as a traveler to Europe, I can see this sad state of affairs everywhere. Russia and Ukraine are nowhere near that.

Where is the EO in the East? Have a look at Russia, will you? The Orthodox Church their is very strong and is a force to be reckoned with. Sociological studies in Ukraine, for example, show people have almost zero respect for their political leaders, but high respect for their religious leaders. This is amazing given the tremendous amount of communist persecution of the Church and how it is slowly but surely springing back. Catholicism is on the wane, sir, in Europe and in North America on a number of fronts. Baptismal records alone are a bad indication of Church membership. A Latin American citizen baptized a Catholic could today be a communist guerrilla - yet he is still listed as a Catholic . . .

As for Constantinople, yes, it is a victim of tremendous persecution. A persecution that the Holy Roman Catholic Church did nothing to help stop when it could. The Turkish Yoke produced thousands of New Martyrs in Orthodoxy, Martyrs who had their soles beaten until blood spurted from their toes, who were hung under their ribs on iron hooks and who were otherwise tortured and killed for Christ.

Sir, those Martyrs in Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Ottoman Empire ARE the riches of the Orthodox Catholic Church! Not buildings, cities, or even the way their names are pronounced (In fact, “Istanbul” IS Constantinople - in Turkish).

On every point, your measuring stick for spiritual success is a very worldy, materialistic and non-spiritual one.

The Orthodox aren’t perfect and I do have (historical) issues with them.

But let’s be fair sir!

I would sooner attend an Orthodox liturgy than one of your Novus Ordo ones (after my last experience, where I actually felt the need to throw up in response to the disgusting music, I’ve decided to stay away for good - wouldn’t want to saddle the local pastor with a bill for any cleanup of the possible mess I might make.

And if you are so correct about the Orthodox, then why doesn’t “your Rome” share your views? Rome is bending over backwards to be nice to the Moscow Patriarchate or haven’t you been following things?

So even the Holy Roman See officially disagrees with you.

Sorry.

Alex

 

[steve_b]

The authority are the bishops, speaking with one voice.

The point I made is

The EO don’t have a magesterium. They aren’t one Church so no ONE speaks for them. Authority for them depends on who one considers to be his authority at the moment.

Ergo to your point,

the last universal council for the EO, when all the bishops spoke with one voice was when?
C:

I think that is what Alex has been saying. Spiritually stronger doesn’t mean they are political conquerors. Despite communism in Russia, the expanding Muslim empire to their East, and the encroachment of the Latins in their West, the Orthodox have held firm to their faith until today. Politically they have been fighting a losing battle, but they have persevered. Many Roman Catholics never experienced such persecution which is going on until today.

To your points

• If one is spiritually strong they spread the faith far and wide
• that will ultimtely spill over into converting entire countries
• If they remain strong in their faith their faith will be seen.
• Russia, you do know Patriarch Alexii was a KGB agent code name Drozdov? He prevented popes from even visiting Catholics in Russia.
• Putin because he sees the muslim threat, is trying to pay Russian women to have children. However, they won’t take the bribe. They don’t want to bring children up in Russia.

Catholics have

• fought the crusades. Trying to liberate the holy land.
• evangelized the world. It’s why the CC is the size it is. It didn’t happen by accident
• tons of martyrs around the world as a result of evangelizing when/where it wasn’t safe to evangelyze.

No military supporting Catholics or the CC. Just grace, hard work, & perseverence by those strong in their faith.

.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

agreed and true.

Actually, I’m rather surprised you are agreeing with Steve in his tendentious and triumphalist views!

The Orthodox Churches are based on the Particular Church model - as are the EC Churches and your Church with its Patriarch (yes, I’m jealous of you!).

The Ecumenical and Local Councils have defined dogma et alia MUCH better than the later 14 Latiin Councils (if you are a real RC trad, then 13 later Councils). But that is for another thread.

As for the Latin distinction between “mortal and venial sins,” I have not heard that scholastic terminology used in our parishes in years.

Any sin, deliberately done even in minor matters, is to be confessed and repented of as it can poison our relationship with God in Christ.

And I’m very happy we’ve finally smartened up and are now giving back to the Latins the baggage we thought we needed to be truly Catholic.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The point I made is

The EO don’t have a magesterium. They aren’t one Church so no ONE speaks for them. Authority for them depends on who one considers to be his authority at the moment.

Ergo to your point,

the last universal council for the EO, when all the bishops spoke with one voice was when?

To your points

• If one is spiritually strong they spread the faith far and wide
• that will ultimtely spill over into converting entire countries
• If they remain strong in their faith their faith will be seen.
• Russia, you do know Patriarch Alexii was a KGB agent code name Drozdov? He prevented popes from even visiting Catholics in Russia.
• Putin because he sees the muslim threat, is trying to pay Russian women to have children. However, they won’t take the bribe. They don’t want to bring children up in Russia.

Catholics have

• fought the crusades. Trying to liberate the holy land.
• evangelized the world. It’s why the CC is the size it is. It didn’t happen by accident
• tons of martyrs around the world as a result of evangelizing when/where it wasn’t safe to evangelyze.

No military supporting Catholics or the CC. Just grace, hard work, & perseverence by those strong in their faith.

.

Ergo to your points:

Catholics have fought the crusades, not always with the best of intentions. They did not liberate the holy land and then turned on the Templars in France. Crusaders do NOT have a good reputation in any land they set foot in, least of all among the Eastern Christians. In many cases, it would be better to just rename them, “Cross-bearers” as many of them were just that - bandits bent on plunder.

The Roman Catholic Church ‘evangelized’ the world largely through colonial expansion - lots of military there - and the resulting mass conversions that resulted. This is why we have in those former colonies a “Catholic culture” in need of real evangelization - another Latin Catholic triumphalist myth.

The Latin Church has no monopoly on martyrs - thousands of martyrs under the Ottoman and Soviet yokes were produced. So you can stop that bit of historical revisionism right now.

As for Councils, the Orthodox have had numerous Local Councils and have raised numerous canons of these councils to universal status. Orthodoxy is based on the Particular Church model as are the Eastern Catholic Particular Churches - what’s your problem with that now?

And it didn’t have to respond to threats from within as the Latin Church had to do with Protestantism for one.

As for expanding, lots of Western Christians are interested in Orthodoxy today and have joined. Traditionalist Roman Catholics can and do join Eastern Catholic parishes, having had all they can take from their NO Latin Church etc.

I think I’ll stop here and remove myself.

Alex

 

[steve_b]

Steve,

Orthodoxy has a unified set of teachings contained in the canons and pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils, her own Local Councils etc. Just because Orthodoxy has a Eucharistic model of Particular Church government, and is not a bureaucratic monolith like the Roman Catholic Vatican, does not mean it does not bear canonical unity and the same kind of ecclesial unity that existed in the early Church and the first millennium of Christianity. If a Patriarch breaks a canon, he will be, and has been (Patriarch of Jerusalem some years ago) censured and excommunicated.

When was the last pan orthodox council for all the EO?
A:

Roman Catholicism tends to let heretical/borderline heretical theology profs et alia go on for a long period of time before they get their wrists slapped. As for your Magisterium, last time I looked, there were lots of RC theologs teaching God knows what in schools, as I’ve heard first hand and as others have related and articles have reported.

Canon law is very specific
The CCC is very specific
Encyclicals are very specific

The CC treats people like adults.
A:

Europe is heading towards a spiritual catastrophe where even the European parliament cannot bring itself to acknowledge any positive contribution that Christianity, and the RC Church in particular, have made to European development. European Christianity is in a heap of trouble, especially in nominally Catholic countries. That is just general knowledge and as a traveler to Europe, I can see this sad state of affairs everywhere. Russia and Ukraine are nowhere near that.

You’re speaking as though all the churches and cathedrals are closed. I’ve traveled Europe too. I’ve been to the holy land. On the feast of Fatima, I was in Fatima Portugal. 1,000,000 people at the outdoor mass. Ever been to a mass that large?

Been to mass with JPII presiding at St Peter’s. You know how big St Peter’s is right? It was full. Ever been to a papal audience at St Peter’s?

I think you see what you want to see,
A:

Where is the EO in the East? Have a look at Russia, will you? The Orthodox Church their is very strong and is a force to be reckoned with. Sociological studies in Ukraine, for example, show people have almost zero respect for their political leaders, but high respect for their religious leaders. This is amazing given the tremendous amount of communist persecution of the Church and how it is slowly but surely springing back. Catholicism is on the wane, sir, in Europe and in North America on a number of fronts. Baptismal records alone are a bad indication of Church membership. A Latin American citizen baptized a Catholic could today be a communist guerrilla - yet he is still listed as a Catholic . . .

Catholicism is on the rise and you seem to be grumpy today. I think you neeeeeed a hug :console:

btw Alexii the patriarch of Russia was a KGB agent, codename Drozdov. He prevented while he was alive, any pope from even visiting Catholics in Russia. There is no religious freedom in Russia except for the Orthodox.

Q: What do you say about the following?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6849833&postcount=138
A:

As for Constantinople, yes, it is a victim of tremendous persecution. A persecution that the Holy Roman Catholic Church did nothing to help stop when it could. The *Turkish Yoke produced thousands of New Martyrs in Orthodoxy, Martyrs who had their soles beaten until blood spurted from their toes, who were hung under their ribs on iron hooks and who were otherwise tortured and killed for Christ. *

You still peddling that stuff that it’s the Catholic Churches fault for Constantinople’s delemas? crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html I gave you this before. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8042676&postcount=48 I thought for sure you would stop using that argument.
A:

Sir, those Martyrs in Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Ottoman Empire ARE the riches of the Orthodox Catholic Church! Not buildings, cities, or even the way their names are pronounced (In fact, “Istanbul” IS Constantinople - in Turkish).

Alex

On this forum there is no such thing as “Orthodox Catholic Church”

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30
A:

On every point, your measuring stick for spiritual success is a very worldy, materialistic and non-spiritual one.

The topic is mortal and venial sin. I quoted from the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism which clearly identifies mortal and venial sin as something taught.

As for “spiritual success” my posts quote scripture, the CCC, and other church docs. Hardly materialistic, worldly, or non spiritual. However, when the teaching of the Church is ignored, bad things happen, spiritually AND worldly…agreed?
A:

Rome is bending over backwards to be nice to the Moscow Patriarchate or haven’t you been following things?

You haven’t given the evidence for that when I asked for it. I take former presiden Reagan’s approach with people I don’t know. “Trust but verify”.

 

[steve_b]

Actually, I’m rather surprised you are agreeing with Steve in his tendentious and triumphalist views!

As for the Latin distinction between “mortal and venial sins,” I have not heard that scholastic terminology used in our parishes in years.

Alex

It’s in your Catechism Alex

this opens up on P 224 Ukranian Catholic Catechism archive.org/stream/UkrainianCatholicCatechismOurFaith/Our_Faith_Byzantine_Catechism#page/n223/mode/1up/search/mortal+sin scroll to p225

click the (+) in the magnifying glass icon till you can read the text conveniently

 

[ConstantineTG]

When was the last pan orthodox council for all the EO?

What point does that prove? The East hasn’t had the need for a council because there is no wrong teaching or heresy to correct. The West in the mean time have been fertile ground for Reformation, return of Arianism (LDS, SDA, INC) and today’s ever growing Evangelical and Pentecostal movements.

Canon law is very specific
The CCC is very specific
Encyclicals are very specific

The CC treats people like adults.

Sometimes we need to be treated like children.

Honestly, I do appreciate Western legalism in some cases. In others, it confuses people more than it teaches. How many Eastern Catholic threads do we have here were people have concerns on scrupulosity?

You’re speaking as though all the churches and cathedrals are closed. I’ve traveled Europe too. I’ve been to the holy land. On the feast of Fatima, I was in Fatima Portugal. 1,000,000 people at the outdoor mass. Ever been to a mass that large?

This is a weekly occurrence in the Philippines. Surprisingly, from a Catholic Charismatic group

Been to mass with JPII presiding at St Peter’s. You know how big St Peter’s is right? It was full. Ever been to a papal audience at St Peter’s?

The WYD Papal Mass in Manila in 1995 is twice as large as the one in Rome

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s in your Catechism Alex

this opens up on P 224 Ukranian Catholic Catechism archive.org/stream/UkrainianCatholicCatechismOurFaith/Our_Faith_Byzantine_Catechism#page/n223/mode/1up/search/mortal+sin scroll to p225

click the (+) in the magnifying glass icon till you can read the text conveniently

That is not the universal Catechism of the Ukrainian Church. This is… stjosaphateparchy.org/news061.html

Get your hand on a copy and tell me what it says. I honestly don’t know, we don’t get the english version until next year