Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Rewriting of history?

Yes rewriting history; When was ever the Catholic Church labeled “Orthodox?” The Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ, Not the Orthodox Church which gives an identity later on to segregate authority from (Peter) the Pope.

The ‘sifting’ has been going on a long time, since probably the Donation of Constantine, or perhaps the Psudo-Isadorean decretals.

Satan has wished to sift the body of Christ since Jesus began building his Church upon Peter. Orthodox protest pose no new threats than that which the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has already overcome, and Orthodox protests will not be the last.

Food for thought? Jesus promised to Peter that the gates of hell will come against him (Peter) and his Church, and promises that they will never prevail. Tell me does Rome (the Pope) come against Orthodoxy or does Orthodoxy come against the successors of Peter in the Popes?

Which comes from hell, and which is protected by God? Does God need help in defeating his enemies?

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Is the Poem of the Man-God of God?

Is the Shroud of Turin of God?

Hello Madaglan, I feel qualified to respond here, because I have a special devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Every apparition, miracle, vision is ever scrutinized in the Catholic Church. To raise one side of the argument and negate the proof, does not do justice to the process of coming to the Truth. There had better been doubts, arguments pro or con to every apparition and miracle since the resurrection, that the Church has qualified and discredited.

What is beautiful is the result; The Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is from heaven. The Church, man, science has been given the chance even with the latest technology to discredit the Apparition of Our lady, the world remains stumped. The Faith is authenticated.

It is common sense to hear both arguments before arriving to a conclusion.
Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the Orthodox would say that some of the Catholic Marian apparitions discuss things that are uniquely Catholic and favor the papacy and sound different from approved Orthodox apparitions so they find them dubious.

Hello Madaglan, I feel qualified to respond here, because I have a special devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Every apparition, miracle, vision is ever scrutinized in the Catholic Church. To raise one side of the argument and negate the proof, does not do justice to the process of coming to the Truth. There had better been doubts, arguments pro or con to every apparition and miracle since the resurrection, that the Church has qualified and discredited.

What is beautiful is the result; The Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is from heaven. The Church, man, science has been given the chance even with the latest technology to discredit the Apparition of Our lady, the world remains stumped. The Faith is authenticated.

It is common sense to hear both arguments before arriving to a conclusion.
Peace be with you

 

[Madaglan]

Hello Madaglan, I feel qualified to respond here, because I have a special devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Every apparition, miracle, vision is ever scrutinized in the Catholic Church. To raise one side of the argument and negate the proof, does not do justice to the process of coming to the Truth. There had better been doubts, arguments pro or con to every apparition and miracle since the resurrection, that the Church has qualified and discredited.

What is beautiful is the result; The Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is from heaven. The Church, man, science has been given the chance even with the latest technology to discredit the Apparition of Our lady, the world remains stumped. The Faith is authenticated.

It is common sense to hear both arguments before arriving to a conclusion.
Peace be with you

And I thought it only appropriate to offer the other side of the argument. I myself was not coming to a conclusion regarding Our Lady of Guadalupe, simply putting the devotion into perspective.

 

[Nine_Two]

For correction, there is no need to apply a worldly view to a biblical view of the Kingdom of God. Forcing a worldly government mindset to the things of God, will help you miss the mark every time. I think your Orthodox adopted western protestant scriptural interpretations to protest the authority of Christ placed upon Peter and his successors in the Popes. Maybe you should stick to the Orthodox interpretations of scriptures instead of adopting new ones of today?

Peace be with you.

Am I correct that English is not your first language?
I don’t mean this as an insult, but worldview means something completely different than worldly view.

If English is your first language then you are putting words in my mouth.

 

[prodromos]

• Did he go by anyother name than Paul de Ballester-Convallier?

Not that I am aware of.

• If he was a prior Franciscan, and had a prior life before Orthodoxy I can’t find anything about him. All the info is on Orthodox sites as an Orthodox.

I’m not sure why would you expect to find anything on the web? From what I can determine he was a Franciscan monk until the end of the 1940’s or early 1950’s. Would you expect a Franciscan monastery to publish details of any of their brotherhood, let alone one who left their flock?

• Also I can’t find any sources, to substantiate what he said in the article sections you quote… Can you provide specific references?

You have as much information as I have. Do you doubt his testimony?

 

[prodromos]

Where in this article do we have the primary sources (to provide context), moreover, citing a secondary source, i.e., the monk’s testimony, does nothing to validate his statements?

Apparently you believe he made it all up?

 

[Mickey]

What makes you orthodox is your culture and language.

Huh? My ancestry is Italian/German. My language is English.

What makes you never orthodox is your new protest against the Church Jesus Built upon Peter.

Wha? I do not protest Christ’s Church. I am a part of Christ’s Holy Church.

Jesus Christ indeed built His Church on St Peter…and
St John…and St James…and St Andrew…and St Paul…etc.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

 

[josie_L]

Apparently you believe he made it all up?

I need to understand in what context this was being said so I need the primary sources.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Heads-up, Italian AND German, you must be one stubborn son of a gun! Throw in some Scottish and you’ll take no prisoners!

Huh? My ancestry is Italian/German. My language is English.
Wha? I do not protest Christ’s Church. I am a part of Christ’s Holy Church.

Jesus Christ indeed built His Church on St Peter…and
St John…and St James…and St Andrew…and St Paul…etc.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

 

[Mickey]

Heads-up, Italian AND German, you must be one stubborn son of a gun! Throw in some Scottish and you’ll take no prisoners!

I neglected to mention the tidbit of Irish on my maternal grandmother’s side. Now you know why I am such a pain.

Actually, it is not a good combo to have when you are trying to squash the passion of pride and ego.

 

[josie_L]

Jesus Christ indeed built His Church on St Peter…and
St John…and St James…and St Andrew…and St Paul…etc.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

No one denies that the apostles are part of the foundation but only one was chosen by Jesus to be “Rock”, i.e., Peter (and his successors) are to confirm/strengthen the brethren and feed/tend the entire flock (as well as be key bearer).

St. Ambrose

 

[josie_L]

I think the Orthodox would say that some of the Catholic Marian apparitions discuss things that are uniquely Catholic and favor the papacy and sound different from approved Orthodox apparitions so they find them dubious.

But there was nothing said by “Our Lady of Guadelupe” that even touched upon the doctrines of the CC, that is why I chose to ask the Orthodox posters whether or not they believed in this particular apparition (especially since many pagan Aztecs converted and a vicious civilization as such was destroyed)?

God bless.

Josie

 

[Mickey]

No one denies that the apostles are part of the foundation but only one was chosen by Jesus to be “Rock”, i.e., Peter (and his successors) are to confirm/strengthen the brethren and feed/tend the entire flock (as well as be key bearer).

Christ is the Rock and Cornerstone dear Josie. The apostles and prophets are the foundation–together. Revelations talks about twelve thrones–not one throne for St Peter and eleven others.

And don’t bother cutting and pasting all your quotes because as you know, we can do that until the cows come home. Your quotes do not prove what you are trying prove. You are constantly reading the odd 19th century doctrine of supreme infallibility onto the Church Fathers–retroactively–and it just isn’t there. That strange doctrine would have been completely foreign to the fathers.

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Rev. 21:14
“….and the wall of the city with its twelve foundations, upon which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb…”

Mark 10:42-45
But Jesus calling them, saith to them: You know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles, lord it over them: and their princes have power over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever will be greater, shall be your minister. And whosoever will be first among you, shall be the servant of all. For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

 

[dzheremi]

But there was nothing said by “Our Lady of Guadelupe” that even touched upon the doctrines of the CC, that is why I chose to ask the Orthodox posters whether or not they believed in this particular apparition (especially since many pagan Aztecs converted and a vicious civilization as such was destroyed)?

God bless.

Josie

This may be true, Josie (I haven’t read of any CC-specific doctrine that Our Lady of Guadalupe mentioned, anyway), but it is important to remember that the apparitions that would mention such doctrine approvingly are just those that would be rejected out of hand by the Orthodox. As others have sought to clarify for me in this thread, there is more to the rejection or acceptance of any apparition than that. I am not entirely sure what criteria are used by the Orthodox other than what has been mentioned here, but even absent that knowledge I would guess that the general context in which an apparition is said to appear must be another deciding factor. The fact that the apparitions approved by the Catholic Church appear to be fundamentally different in various ways to the Orthodox than those honored in their own Church should also be taken as reason enough alone to reject them. Put another way: I have personally always been against “Charismatic” Christianity of the type practiced in Protestant churches and somewhat normalized within certain specific contexts within the Catholic Church (for reasons I will never understand!). Given this general outlook, I am not at all likely to accept the “Catholic” versions of this behavior, regardless of its actual content, because I reject it as a mode of transmission of faith. Period. It is an imperfect analogy to say the least, but basically if an otherwise not unacceptable message is seen as part of a generally unreliable, questionable, or heterodox tradition, it is best to at least keep it at arms length because it forms part of a tradition that you must reject no matter how benign any particular part of it may seem.

 

[steve_b]

Not that I am aware of.
I’m not sure why would you expect to find anything on the web? From what I can determine he was a Franciscan monk until the end of the 1940’s or early 1950’s.

The stuff he said should be available from more than one source namely himself.

Look at the conversation we’ve been having so far. Quotes aren’t being thrown around without proper documentation… true?
p:

Would you expect a Franciscan monastery to publish details of any of their brotherhood, let alone one who left their flock?

Ever hear of Bart Brewer, David Benjamin, etc ex Catholic priests?

This isn’t the East. Information flows freely in the West.
p:

.
You have as much information as I have. Do you doubt his testimony?

I don’t know him from Adam. I can’t find anything about him. No offense, I like evidence based statements.

 

[josie_L]

Christ is the Rock and Cornerstone dear Josie. The apostles and prophets are the foundation–together. Revelations talks about twelve thrones–not one throne for St Peter and eleven others.

And don’t bother cutting and pasting all your quotes because as you know, we can do that until the cows come home. Your quotes do not prove what you are trying prove. You are constantly reading the odd 19th century doctrine of supreme infallibility onto the Church Fathers–retroactively–and it just isn’t there. That strange doctrine would have been completely foreign to the fathers.

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Rev. 21:14
“….and the wall of the city with its twelve foundations, upon which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb…”

Mark 10:42-45
But Jesus calling them, saith to them: You know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles, lord it over them: and their princes have power over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever will be greater, shall be your minister. And whosoever will be first among you, shall be the servant of all. For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

My point is Christ (the Rock) changed Simon into Peter aka the “rock” (no one else was deemed “rock” in the Bible except Abraham) so your attempt at sweeping away this glaring fact is not going to stop others from seeing this. Moreover, I never mentioned supreme infallibility, my intent was to show you that Peter is the rock upon which Christ’s Church would be built. I would like you to read this as well (from Pope St. Leo the Great):

“The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ.” (Leo, Sermons 3: 2-3 [442 A.D.]) in Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, 2nd series, vol. 12, (Peabody, MA: Hendrikson, 1994), 117.

p.s. It’s not for nothing that Christ specifically prayed for Peter and subsequently asked him to confirm and strengthen the brethren, i.e., as rock, his faith would be constant and his office immovable.

 

[steve_b]

Christ is the Rock and Cornerstone dear Josie. The apostles and prophets are the foundation–together. Revelations talks about twelve thrones–not one throne for St Peter and eleven others.

And don’t bother cutting and pasting all your quotes because as you know, we can do that until the cows come home. Your quotes do not prove what you are trying prove. You are constantly reading the odd 19th century doctrine of supreme infallibility onto the Church Fathers–retroactively–and it just isn’t there. That strange doctrine would have been completely foreign to the fathers.

That’s not nice to say
m:

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

And the Rock renames Simon to Rock [Mt 16:18]
m:

Rev. 21:14
“….and the wall of the city with its twelve foundations, upon which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb…”

And Simon the Rock, would confirm and strengthen THEM [Lk 22:32].and Feed and rule over Our Lord’s sheep [Jn 21:16,] all of them.
m:

Mark 10:42-45
But Jesus calling them, saith to them: You know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles, lord it over them: and their princes have power over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever will be greater, shall be your minister. And whosoever will be first among you, shall be the servant of all***.*** For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

2 people are being spoken of here by Jesus. Peter and… Jesus also

Notice Jesus doesn’t say one of the apostles won’t be greater. He confirms it.

As far as minister and servant of all, look up the term “servant of the servants of God”. (Servus Servorum Dei)

it’s a title for whom?

 

[josie_L]

This may be true, Josie (I haven’t read of any CC-specific doctrine that Our Lady of Guadalupe mentioned, anyway), but it is important to remember that the apparitions that would mention such doctrine approvingly are just those that would be rejected out of hand by the Orthodox. As others have sought to clarify for me in this thread, there is more to the rejection or acceptance of any apparition than that. I am not entirely sure what criteria are used by the Orthodox other than what has been mentioned here, but even absent that knowledge I would guess that the general context in which an apparition is said to appear must be another deciding factor. The fact that the apparitions approved by the Catholic Church appear to be fundamentally different in various ways to the Orthodox than those honored in their own Church should also be taken as reason enough alone to reject them. Put another way: I have personally always been against “Charismatic” Christianity of the type practiced in Protestant churches and somewhat normalized within certain specific contexts within the Catholic Church (for reasons I will never understand!). Given this general outlook, I am not at all likely to accept the “Catholic” versions of this behavior, regardless of its actual content, because I reject it as a mode of transmission of faith. Period. It is an imperfect analogy to say the least, but basically if an otherwise not unacceptable message is seen as part of a generally unreliable, questionable, or heterodox tradition, it is best to at least keep it at arms length because it forms part of a tradition that you must reject no matter how benign any particular part of it may seem.

So does this mean that you do not believe in any apparitions due to the fact that it is not a “mode of transmission of faith” you accept?

 

[dzheremi]

No, that means I am speculating that this would be a valid reason to reject the apparitions even if they don’t explicitly endorse RC dogma.

To make a different analogy that might be less objectionable to you, there may be a great deal of not terribly off-base Protestant theology out there. I have no idea, honestly. But even those things that might not be found to be directly in opposition to Catholicism cannot, by virtue of their inoffensiveness to core Catholic dogma, be viewed in the same light as writings actually emanating from within the Catholic Church, can they? I would suspect not, as they just don’t have the necessary pedigree to be looked at in the same light. This is how I am interpreting the responses of various Orthodox Christians in this thread that the apparitions of the Virgin of Guadalupe are of a fundamentally different character than those known and believed by the Orthodox.

And as I have stated elsewhere in this thread, I think trying to get to the bottom of the “truth” regarding this or any other apparition is a futile exercise. The apparitions in Mexico brought many to a sincere faith in Christ, and Our Lady is most definitely a unifying symbol of the country, and I see these are intrinsically good things.