Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[ron77nyc]

Then they shouldn’t have any problem uniting with the Catholic Church. It might take some time to dispel the polemic myths and heal old wounds, but the teaching on papal infallibility and primacy properly understood as the V1 and V2 Fathers intended should pose no obstacle to unity.

Blessings

The teaching on papal infallibility and primacy properly understood as the V1 and V2 Fathers intended is one thing. Actually doing it is another. While John Paul II did a lot of good for unity and the Church in general, I don’t think he was aware of the environment that he was asking other churches to be part of. The culture of secrecy was at its peak when he was telling everyone to come on in, the water is fine. It took outside intervention to get rid of that bad habit and it didn’t leave willingly.

 

[John_oxios]

The Eastern Orthodox may have a better management model. If I were them I** wouldn’t unite with a system that gives all the power to one man**. It’s been proven to be the reason for corruption. Unite any group of people under one man an you’ll have the same problem; you’ll have a superficial type of unity but ultimately you’ll get corruption if the leader doesn’t have to answer to anyone.

My highlight above in your comment, is your glaring misunderstanding of the Bible, The Church and Christ. God’s way has always been Patriarchal. Heads of Families, heads of Community, heads of faith, heads of authority, before Israel asked for a king, God reigned over all, Saul was made anointed prince, not king.

Let’s go to the Bible, specifically the O.T. for a biblica; precedence for One man over the commnunity;

Remember Jesus is God,

Num 27:15 Moses said to the LORD,

Num 27:16 "Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,

Num 27:17 who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD may not be as sheep which have no shepherd."

Num 27:18 And the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him;

Num 27:19 cause him to stand before Elea’zar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight.

Num 27:20 You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey.

Num 27:21 And he shall stand before Elea’zar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the LORD; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in,** both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation."**

Num 27:22 And Moses did as the LORD commanded him; he took Joshua and caused him to stand before Elea’zar the priest and the whole congregation,

Num 27:23 and he laid his hands upon him, and commissioned him as the LORD directed through Moses

typology says Moses is a type of Jesus Christ, Well, God does exactly in the N.T. what he has done in the O.T.

Appointed One man over all the congregation (His people)…And has made provision for that office to be filled in its vacancy… i.e. Moses’ death.

Exd 18:25 Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

Exd 18:26 And they judged the people at all times; **hard cases they brought to Moses, **but any small matter they decided themselves.

Well what does Jesus as God do in the N.T.? let’s compare with Matthew,

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Keys are the sign of authority, given to the head steward, in service to, until the master returns. I.e a prime minister, continues as long as the Kingdom of Christ IS. Christ our King, as the office of Pope (/head Shepherd) is prime minister.

One man over the Congregation, John confirms it:

John 21: 15, 16, 17, Jesus said to Simon Peter,

    "Feed my lambs."

     "Feed my lambs."

     "Tend my sheep."

One Man, a Head Shepherd, over all shepherds. Just as in the Old, Mosaic Law,

and in Jesus New Covenant of Grace.

Acts 1:20 " …and ‘His office let another take.’

Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us–one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

Act 1:24 And** they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen**

and the office of the Pope/ head shepherd, is still today filled the very same way it was done in Moses day, In the times of the Apostles… prayer, guidance and the laying on of hands.

God left someone in the Charge of His Church as head… men break away because they do not accept that authority.

and by the way the Pope doesn’t make decisions by himself, he has an army of theologians, and godly men helping him. They all do there homework, unlike some lesser ‘practitioners’ profess to do.

God bless,
John

 

[ron77nyc]

My highlight above in your comment, is your glaring misunderstanding of the Bible, The Church and Christ. God’s way has always been Patriarchal. Heads of Families, heads of Community, heads of faith, heads of authority, before Israel asked for a king, God reigned over all, Saul was made anointed prince, not king.

The apostles, especially Peter would never fit into the church today. They would feel out of place. Peter never had anyone bow down to him or kiss his ring. He probably didn’t own a ring.

One head would be the ideal situation but so far it hasn’t gone well. The Roman Catholic Church lives with a balancing act that the Eastern Orthodox don’t have. Their fate will be tremendously affected by union with Rome.

This article is in favor of having a pope but it downplays the abuses to the office.
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/OXFORD.HTM
THE CLAIMS OF THE PRIMACY AND THE COSTLY CALL TO UNITY
Archbishop John R. Quinn
“The real, effective power of jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Church is one thing. But the centralization of power is another. The first is of divine law. The second is the result of human circumstances. The first has produced many good things. The second is an anomaly.”

"Pope Eugene III had been a monk under St. Bernard at Clairvaux. In the course of the lengthy letter he wrote to Eugene on his election, Bernard admonishes him, “You have been more the successor of Constantine than the successor of Peter.” (40)
This admonition of St. Bernard was directed at the pomp and adornment of papal public appearances, While the Vatican Council has brought a greater simplicity to the modern papacy, and John Paul II has introduced further simplifications, Bernard’s comment readily brings to mind the tension between the political model and the ecclesial model at work in the Church. The fundamental concern of the political model is order and therefore control. The fundamental concern of the ecclesial model is communion and therefore discernment in faith of the diversity of the gifts and works of the Spirit. The claims of discernment and the claims of order must always coexist for one cannot be embraced and the other rejected. They must always exist in tension. But it is always wrong when the claims of discernment are all but eliminated in favor of the claims of order thereby making control and the political model the supreme good."

 

[John_oxios]

The teaching on papal infallibility and primacy properly understood as the V1 and V2 Fathers intended is one thing. Actually doing it is another.** While John Paul II did a lot of good for unity and the Church in general, I don’t think he was aware of the environment that he was asking other churches to be part of. ** The culture of secrecy was at its peak when he was telling everyone to come on in, the water is fine. It took outside intervention to get rid of that bad habit and it didn’t leave willingly.

Hi Ron,
Culture of secrecy? See you referring to the Church?

And you don’t think? the Pope was aware? C’mon? maybe you aought to have written Him a letter?

Where is the faith in that? That’s an example of no faith at all!

and on Pope Honorius, actually he may have been guilty of not acting to squash a budding heresy, not in being fallible in matters of Faith and morals.

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

You seem to be listening to the wrong people… get your facts from the Church, not gossipers… ask the Church why? instead of listening to those who would pull you away.

God Bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I thought limbo was a valid theory since it was taught in the Baltimore catechism.

Hi Sid,
Back to this for a second,
So you thought wrong, outside of my Mom speaking about it, it didn’t matter, but like I said, a deacon not only taught me different, he showed me in a RCC book on the Church. enough said.

But as far as teaching children, is it wrong? Are we to alienate children, make them upset, or hurt them by teaching them that their infant brother or sister has been sent to hell by God? Why anger a child when he is just learning? Everybody has a rift with God, in their lives… why create a chasm between God and child, by teaching them about a hard and Merciless Creator?

I’m sorry you think you were mislead… maybe Fr. Francis Sullivan can help you resolve your personal problem.

God bless,
john

 

[John_oxios]

No one was ever told it was a theological hypothesis until now. It was mandatory.
mandate: an authoritative command or instruction.

May I say again; no one got the message until now. I attended Catholic school for 12 years and never heard such a thing. I don’t care what they do with limbo. I never believed in it anyway but if I said that 40 years ago I would be anti-Catholic.

Hi Ron77,
No they just called it a common belief, which you thought to be made in ex-cathedra?

So, instead of finding the fault in you, you blame the Church for misleading you?

God bless,
John

 

[ron77nyc]

Hi Ron,
Culture of secrecy? See you referring to the Church?

And you don’t think? the Pope was aware? C’mon? maybe you aought to have written Him a letter?

Where is the faith in that? That’s an example of no faith at all!

I was cutting him some slack on that one. If you’re saying he did know about it - that’s worse!

 

[John_oxios]

T

The Vatican II Catechism deviated from this traditional teaching by saying God is not bound by His own sacraments. This means there is a possibility for unbaptized children and adults to go to heaven…

My point in all this is to say that the Catholic Church unintentionally does teach error.

Where does exactly does the CCC state God is not bound by His own Sacraments?

God bless, John

 

[ron77nyc]

Hi Ron77,
No they just called it a common belief, which you thought to be made in ex-cathedra?

So, instead of finding the fault in you, you blame the Church for misleading you?

God bless,
John

I never said it was ex-cathedra. I said it was mandatory.

 

[John_oxios]

I was cutting him some slack on that one. If you’re saying he did know about it - that’s worse!

Cutting the Pope slack by calling the church a secrecy of culture?
enlighten me? please!

I’m running through these posts to get back to where you questioned ecumenicism by the fact that anyone outside the Church is not saved, as stated in the council of Trent.
Was replying but had to go and lost it.

But essentially, the men who broke way from the Church as Protestant reformers are not forgiven by the Church…however Vatican II that we cannot charge the Children of the protestants faiths as we had the original Protestants… Through no fault of their own they are born into these religions outside the Catholic Faith, an are seeking to know God. And that;s a good thing!!!

CCC
Wounds to unity

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism- do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

So, is it right or is it wrong not to hold the sins of the fathers to their offspring?

Still after Vatican II, when engaging in conversation, a protestant will blurt out, Why ought i accept what your saying when by your Church me and my whole family are damned to hell?"

There’s not much room for dialogue after that, however, we can now, teach them the Church does not hold that against what they had no choice of. Once they feel they’re not condemned for being Born outside the RCC, we can teach them the truth about the RCC. it works for me!

The Apostle Paul, learned never to walk into a community and start a dialogue by stating, “Your doing this all wrong!” He took their ways and incorporated then In Christ Jesus, its what the Church is doing today to unite us all, we take what they have and show them so much more.

God bless,
John

 

[ron77nyc]

Where does exactly does the CCC state God is not bound by His own Sacraments?

God bless, John

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but **he himself is not bound by his sacraments. **

 

[ron77nyc]

Cutting the Pope slack by calling the church a secrecy of culture?
enlighten me? please!

John

Well if he didn’t know about it and invited people in then he was innocent. If he did know about it and was encouraging more people to be at risk then he was reckless. You said he knew about it.

 

[John_oxios]

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but **he himself is not bound by his sacraments. **

Hi Ron77,

Roman Catholics are not proof text people, you recite what you need to prove your bias. There CCC#s 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261 which go into deeper depth as too why God is not bound to his own Sacraments, [A] He is above all God, the Final Judge…

We can condemn ourselves:
1Jo 3:20 "whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

and God knows our hearts!

1Jo 3:21 Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God;

How about a nonbeliever who gets baptized? Yes he has God’s indelible Mark on Him but if he dies before he repents or never has contrition for his sins, is God obligated to place this heathen in heaven?

How about the parable where the guy knocks on the door, and says Jesus we dined with you, and know you; and Jesus answers I know you not?

the guy thought he was doing all the right stuff, but he was far from Christ?
He doesn’t get in by his own admission but by God’s admission!

How about a person on his way to Church to be baptized or a person in the process of the RCIA? Do these people lose any chance of Salvation because they didn’t make it to the Church? Even though their INTENT was honest. truthful and in obedience?

Here in the catechism God is not subject to the Sacraments, but His Divine Providence and Mercy abounds:

1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.

1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.

1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Your right 1281- 1284 are terrible breaches of God and His commands!

Remember Jesus said,

Luk 9:49 "John answered, “Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us.”

Luk 9:50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

Jesus also said of Children:

Luk 9:47 But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side,
48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

Children born into Catholic Homes receive their Children in the Name of Christ.

Not everyone in the RCC is aware that they can baptize a Child, in fact when they do if they go down to the Rectory, the Church is obligated to honor said Baptism and put it on the record. Now that would be something to get angry about?
Not really the literature is their and readily available for all those who choose to Study Church teachings, instead of sitting in front of a T.V.
basically since 1995, you are without excuse to say, why wasn’t I told? Why wasn’t I taught, why did you keep this from me? It’s in the catechism, most probably next to the Catholic Bible most Homes do not even open up!

Why have a 2nd Judgement? heaven would become a pass or fail, sanctification is a process to salvation… and although we make all the right moves… God knows our hearts, the how and why we acted… some men do it for their Own Glory and receive their blessing here, others do it for God’s glory and receive their blessings in heaven… Paul writes of the different crowns we will receive totaling five.
How many we where is up to God’s providence and mercy.

stop looking at all the negatives you can find and begin to see the beauty, the genius of Roman Catholicism. Stop concentrating on what you can’t believe and work on what you do believe!! Start small, finish BIG.

there is certainly nothing to cry foul about!

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I never said it was ex-cathedra. I said it was mandatory.

Hi Ron77,
Dogma is mandatory, so are you saying you believed ‘Limbo’ to be a Dogma of the Church?

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=3

Doctrine, Dogma, Infallible Statement

Question on 12/5/2008:
"I am still confused over the difference between a doctrine, a dogma and an infallible statement.

It seems that there is the mistaken belief by many that ONLY an infallible statement need be followed be a Catholic. And even then, there’s often confusion over what’s an infallible statement from the Magisterium.

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 3/10/2009:
These are terms that are easily confusing.

**Doctrine. ** The word doctrine comes, by way of the Latin doctrina, from the Greek word doxa, meaning belief. The doctrine(s) of the Church, therefore, are those teachings which must be believed by the faithful. These include 1) dogmas, teachings which the Church has solemnly defined as formally revealed by God, and, 2) other teachings definitively proposed by the Church because they are connected to solemnly defined teachings. The first (dogmas) can be called doctrines of divine faith, the second doctrines of catholic faith. Together they are said to be “of divine and catholic faith.” Both kinds of doctrine require the assent of faith. Both are infallibly taught by the Church. Dogmas require it because they are formally revealed by God. Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church require it, because the infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and morals is itself divinely revealed. A side note, doctrine shares the same root as orthodox, meaning correct belief. Those who hold the Church’s doctrines faithfully are thus orthodox.

Dogma. Dogmas, therefore, are those doctrines solemnly proposed by the Church as formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a General Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person), or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (killing an innocent human being is gravely immoral).

Definitively Proposed.

Doctrines that are definitively proposed are no less certain, even though they are not proposed as formally revealed by God. They are connected to dogmas, however, by either historical or** logical connection**. An example of logical necessity would be the reservation of priesthood to men in the witness of Scripture and Tradition. The Church has not yet taught that it was formally revealed by God, but such dogmatization is possible. Papal infallibility was similarly infallibly taught by the Church before it was proposed as formally revealed by God. An example of historical necessity would be the election of a Pope or the celebration of a General Council. While a portion of the Church could elect an antipope, or hold a false council, the Church as a whole could not err in this way without compromising Christ’s revealed promise to be with the Church until the end of time.

Infallible. As noted above, all that the Church teaches as being of “divine and catholic faith” is taught infallibly. Infallibility is not limnited, therefore, to extraordinary acts of proposing dogmas, whether by popes or councils. Those looking to believe only such “infallible” statements deceive themselves. In both the category of divinely revealed and definitively proposed doctrines there are many which are taught only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. This means that the Church has “always and everywhere” taught it as true, and, therefore, that the contrary position has never been taught. Perhaps, the most debated example is contraception. **At no time in history has the Church taught that contraception is morally licit. ** Whenever in the Fathers, Doctors or the Magisterium it has been discussed it has always been as an evil. There is no formal declaration, no extraordinary act, but it is certainly infallibly taught from the beginning of the Church, to Paul VI, to today.

Authoritative. Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope’s writings and addresses that is not “of divine and catholic faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.

I would have to especially agree with the statement that" it shows respect due the Pope that his office is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him"

God bless,
john

 

[ron77nyc]

Hi Ron77,
Dogma is mandatory, so are you saying you believed ‘Limbo’ to be a Dogma of the Church?

Not important right now. Just a word. They told everyone the unbaptized cannot enter heaven and now they say there is a possibility. If they claim to have the fullness of truth they should have known that before Vatican II.

I would have to especially agree with the statement that" it shows respect due the Pope that his office is more likely to be right than those who disagree with
him"

I agree with the changes made by V2. Does that mean I disrespect every pope before?

 

[ron77nyc]

Hi Ron77,

Roman Catholics are not proof text people, you recite what you need to prove your bias. There CCC#s 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261 which go into deeper depth as too why God is not bound to his own Sacraments, [A] He is above all God, the Final Judge…

You only asked me where does it say that in the catechism so I only showed you the paragraph. I like to keep my answers short. It’s a forum rule. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
CONDUCT RULES

1. Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).

Also a rule:
DISCUSSION FORUMS

1. Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

I thought we ended this limbo discussion yesterday.

 

[John_oxios]

Well if he didn’t know about it and invited people in then he was innocent. If he did know about it and was encouraging more people to be at risk then he was reckless. You said he knew about it.

Hi Ron,
What?

Wreckless about what? LIMBO? The Catechism? It was Pope JoHn Paul who chose Cardinal Ratzinger to oversee the development of the CCC of Vatican II,

Christ prayed that we be one Church,
Be at risk? to what? Learning about the RCC instead of complaining what they falsely know about the Catholic Church?

the Pope being wreckless? what are you trying to say when you say I said “he knew about it”

How about some cognitive reference to what you are trying to say? liek a fro instance, example with some actual thought behind it, instead of all this gibberish.

Your blaming the pope for your lack of knowledge and understanding? Your blaming the Pope for your unbelief?
People don’t come into the Church because the Pope talked them into it, People come into the Church because they are driven by God’s word and the Holy Spirit compels them to…that’s why they call it a calling… Christ calls they hear and and come to follow Him.

From Bishop Fulton Sheen, wrote it down from an audio tape. ten yrs ago, all scripture ref. I entered) ]

          " Heaven Itself had a battle,  in which Michael the Archangel flashed his spear against rebels who fought, not for justice but for evil.  Freedom has within itself the frightening power of turning an angel into a devil.

War seems to go on even in creation, as Genesis pictures the gradual emergence of light over darkness and creation over chaos. Written across the universe is the Law, “No one shall be crowned unless he has struggled.” God came to this Earth to reaffirm the importance of Struggle, “I came not to bring peace but the sword” (Matt 10:34).

There are two kinds of swords,  one that swings outward, and the other,  which is thrust inward .

One is to harm the neighbor, it is the kind of sword the Master bade to put back in the scabbard* (Jhn 18:10,11) *. The other kind of sword is the one that cuts out egotism, selfishness and greed. The first sword, which nations hold, creates wars against others; the other sword, the spiritual sword (Eph 6:17) is a sign against ourselves. The less men wage war against evil in their own breasts , the more they will wage war against their neighbors and nations. The more they battle against their own sins, the less need there is to do battle with the enemy without. The less we shed our own blood figuratively, the more we shed our neighbors physically. Self righteousness in persons and civil strife go hand in hand. He who does not find the enemy within, will find the enemy without.
Every man has a civil war going on inside his own breast, if he does not bring this civil war, which is a struggle between higher and lower self to a victory, he will invariably extend strife to the outside. He who does not crucify his own concupiscences and his libidos will nail others to the Cross.

   He who does not take up his own cross will lay it in contemptible self-righteousness  on the back of his neighbor!

We often wonder why there is little peace inside our hearts; the real answer is that there is no peace on the inside because we deny that there is an enemy within to be conquered. He is never at war with himself, who has never thought of goodness and holiness of God; self interest is his law, self- love his inspiration, self- satisfaction his end and self god.

But look at the same man after he begins under inspiration of grace, to wield the sword the master brought. Thanks to the peace within, his stiff unbending self becomes supple and kind; unlovely expressions are wiped from his features. The Truth has laid hold of him, has entered into him has won his approbation, becomes his intense desire."

“Oppression is to exalt oneself, at the expense of another” (Author?)

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

You only asked me where does it say that in the catechism so I only showed you the paragraph. I like to keep my answers short. It’s a forum rule. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
CONDUCT RULES

1. Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).

Also a rule:
DISCUSSION FORUMS

1. Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

I thought we ended this limbo discussion yesterday.

hi Ron77,

 Short without explanation is tooo shor

As far as the rule goes 6000 characters or less, to complete a post. Protestants love the short quips and then cut and run before you can explain their misinterpretation of a teaching or prooftext,

Limbo Hey, just something I that came to my head! I’m always thinking on my feet.

As far as another topic, I was/ am trying to focus on what RCC and E.O. teachings, have in common, i.e Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, how the Church’s accept the same beliefs and define them differently.

As Pope John Paul said, Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One, 1995), ‘**We share more than divides us.’ **

God bless,
John

 

[ron77nyc]

Hi Ron,
What?

Wreckless about what? LIMBO? The Catechism? It was Pope JoHn Paul who chose Cardinal Ratzinger to oversee the development of the CCC of Vatican II,

That was another subject: Obstacles to Unity-----not limbo. Here it is from the beginning.

Then they shouldn’t have any problem uniting with the Catholic Church. It might take some time to dispel the polemic myths and heal old wounds, but the teaching on papal infallibility and primacy properly understood as the V1 and V2 Fathers intended should pose no obstacle to unity.
Blessings

The teaching on papal infallibility and primacy properly understood as the V1 and V2 Fathers intended is one thing. Actually doing it is another. While John Paul II did a lot of good for unity and the Church in general, I don’t think he was aware of the environment that he was asking other churches to be part of. The culture of secrecy was at its peak when he was telling everyone to come on in, the water is fine. It took outside intervention to get rid of that bad habit and it didn’t leave willingly.

Hi Ron,
Culture of secrecy? See you referring to the Church?

And you don’t think? the Pope was aware? C’mon? maybe you aought to have written Him a letter?

Well if he didn’t know about it and invited people in then he was innocent. If he did know about it and was encouraging more people to be at risk then he was reckless. You said he knew about it.

 

[josephdaniel29]

As far as another topic, I was/ am trying to focus on what RCC and E.O. teachings, have in common, i.e Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, how the Church’s accept the same beliefs and define them differently.

But we don’t share those teachings in common. My friend you should not speak of those things you do not know.

In Christ
Joe