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

[josie_L]

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.

If getting to the bottom of the truth regarding this or any other apparation is a futile exercise then why did you bother making the comments you did:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

I’ve never understood the many Marian apparitions, either, and have really struggled with some of the other things mentioned in that article as well, such as devotions to particular body parts of Jesus or Mary (sorry, this just seems crazy and weird to me; why exactly is it okay to vivisect our Savior or the Holy Mother just because some lady in France had a vision back in the 1700s or whatever?).

The one exception that I can think of off-hand would be the apparitions of Mary at Zeitun, Egypt.** I think it should be treated differently (and viewed in a more positive light) because it did not say anything. It did not come to confirm particular contentious points of Catholic dogma, or to preach impending doom, or anything like that.**

Anyone can claim to have a vision. Isn’t there some place in the Bible where we are told to test the spirits? Last time I checked, Catholic Bibles have 1 John 4:1.

It seemed liked you were saying that you could in fact distinguish between real and/or fake apparitions. Moreover, your last comment “Last time I checked, Catholic Bibles have 1 John 4:1,” (which in my opinion was said in a condescending manner) pretty much states that we can distinguish spirits (so it is not in fact a futile exercise):

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.”

Since Guadelupe led to pagans proclaiming the divinity (and humanity) of Jesus, I could not understand your ambivalence in giving me an answer.

 

[dzheremi]

If getting to the bottom of the truth regarding this or any other apparation is a futile exercise then why did you bother making the comments you did:

Because you pressed me several times on whether or not I personally believe a particular apparition is from God or not. I stated then and I state now that this is not what matters. That’s what I meant when I wrote that: for me personally, such questions are better left to people who believe in whatever apparition is under scrutiny. I have no stake in confirming or denying them, as they do not factor into my worship.

It seemed liked you were saying that you could in fact distinguish between real and/or fake apparitions.

Where do you get that from anything you quoted? I was only writing why I view the apparitions of the Mother of God at Zeitun differently than others, and why I think they should be viewed differently. I was not meaning to confer upon myself any kind of power to distinguish between real or fake apparitions. For all I know, the apparitions at Zeitun could be real or fake, same as the Virgin of Guadalupe. I think that both have inspired true faith in Christ is much more important than the sort of debate we are engaging in here. I’m sorry I got into it.

Moreover, your last comment “Last time I checked, Catholic Bibles have 1 John 4:1,” (which in my opinion was said in a condescending manner) pretty much states that we can distinguish spirits (so it is not in fact a futile exercise):

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.”

I see this more as a responsibility, myself, but okay, either way it does mean that it must be possible to do that. And if you would please read without assuming that I am here to trash Catholicism you would see that I said, essentially, that this is something Catholics can do. This is something that all Christians can do and ought to do. Remember earlier in the thread when I said how uncomfortable it makes me that Vatican experts are certifying the “miracles” by scientific means? Why would I have included that bit if I didn’t think people had this ability? It is because I don’t see anything about running scientific tests or inquiries in the above verse. I think it goes about things the wrong way. That is, alas, another issue. Main point: Of course it is possible (necessary, required, advantageous, however you want to put it)!

Since Guadelupe led to pagans proclaiming the divinity (and humanity) of Jesus, I could not understand your ambivalence in giving me an answer.

Because who cares whether or not I am devoted to the Virgin of Guadalupe? Plenty of other latino Catholics in my area are. They are fine, upstanding Christians (or at least the ones I know are). I don’t tell them to stop believing in the apparitions or anything like that. There’s no need to. So I understand your point in bringing it up (I think), but it is looking at this whole issue from a viewpoint I’m afraid I don’t share. Nothing is gained if you get me to say that they could be or are from God, just as nothing is gained if I say they aren’t. I just don’t know. Actually, this is the most discussion I’ve ever been involved in on them or any other Catholic apparition. They just don’t come up all that much in my everyday life.

 

[onacloudyday]

depend on what apparition of the Theotokos. real apparition of the Theotokos only happen to adult holy man or woman who have accomplish great spiritual feat and reached state of dispassion or illumination. very rare. when happen usually in desert or on Theotokos own holy mountain.

guadalupe images sold at bookstore my orthodox church

catholic marian apparitions must be diabolical when happen to little children who were not praying all the time in the heart had never overcome their passions yet and who too young not experienced to have discernment of what is holy and what is not holy. little children easily tricked. catholic apparition also teach against the church tradition of the Theotokos when teach she conceive with no sin that make her equal god, that teaching not of God because Theotokos suffered and died because of sin if she not conceive with sin then she not suffer or died even Jesus suffer and died because sin.

So am I right when I say most Orthodox think that the Marian apparitions are either diabolical or a hoax altogether?

 

[prodromos]

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?

Most of the quotes being ‘thrown around’ are widely available on the Internet and in public libraries, yet they represent only a fraction of the patristic corpus, much of which has not yet been translated into English.

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

Until you mentioned them now, no, I had never heard of them. I note however, that most of the information about them is not from Catholic sources so I don’t really understand your reason for bringing them up.

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

I have met a few Orthodox priests who were former Catholics and know of several others. They do not concern themselves with their former Church but rather focus on working out their salvation with fear and trembling while ministering to their respective flocks. The one exception who stands out is Abbe Guettee, though I believe it is fair to accept that his polemic response was due in large part to the attacks he received from his former communion. Bart Brewer, on the other hand appears to have been a rabid anti-Catholic.

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

Sorry to disappoint you

 

[Hesychios]

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?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, because I am not certain of the full context in which this question is based.

But personally I reject any and all apparitions that might claim to be a mode of transmission of faith. Apparitions should not be introducing anything new, and everything else we can get from the traditional respected source. The mode of transmission of the faith is the church, more especially the liturgical prayers and the scriptures.

 

[Hesychios]

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

Since Our Lady of Guadelupe in Mexico (not referring to the one in Spain here) is not an Orthodox apparition, one wonders why any Orthodox would pay any attention to it. I would not assume that most Orthodox would know anything of what was said or happened there, or care.

Personally I used to believe in it, but I am not so sure anymore and it has no impression on me. I am quite sure some OCA Orthodox in Mexico believe in it.

 

[dzheremi]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, because I am not certain of the full context in which this question is based.

But personally I reject any and all apparitions that might claim to be a mode of transmission of faith. Apparitions should not be introducing anything new, and everything else we can get from the traditional respected source. The mode of transmission of the faith is the church, more especially the liturgical prayers and the scriptures.

I would tend to agree with that, Michael. Though that was not the specific point I was making in the post that Josie was asking about, I have made that point elsewhere in the thread, and I still do not see how it could ever be otherwise. Could someone who does believe in these apparitions explain to me why it is okay to establish new devotions and whatnot on the word of alleged apparitions? Such things do not strike me as being particularly explainable by calling on the permissibility of “expanding upon our understanding of the deposit of faith” or similar (which is usually the response I have received when I have asked how new dogma is codified in the Catholic Church).

 

[Hesychios]

Gabriel of 12;6442924:

What makes you orthodox is your culture and language.

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

I hear ya brother! There is nothing about my background that implies a special affinity for being Orthodox.

I am Polish through my father, born in Chicago.

My mom’s ‘American’ side comes from France and apparently the island of Hispaniola both through New Orleans; Ireland; Scotland through the Carolina colonies, England and Wales, first settled on Barbados, then relocated to the colony of Virginia (the Scottish, English and Welsh families made their way to frontier Mississippi eventually, with Revolutionary War land grants).

My grandmothers’ grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee, they lived under the same roof in Mississippi.

Now I live in China and my first language is English.

I converted at fifty years old from a life practicing Roman Catholicism. Sometimes I think I was Orthodox all my life, but did not realize it. I have met other converts (like my Godmother, a convert from Methodism) who say the very same thing.

The appeal of Holy Orthodoxy transcends language and culture.

 

[steve_b]

I note however, that most of the information about them is not from Catholic sources so I don’t really understand your reason for bringing them up.

Anybody can write a hit piece. The point was, Information is known about them from other sources beyond themselves, and the source for their provocative points can be found.
p:

I have met a few Orthodox priests who were former Catholics and know of several others. They do not concern themselves with their former Church but rather focus on working out their salvation with fear and trembling while ministering to their respective flocks.

If I bring up ex Orthodox priests who are now Catholics, how does that advance the conversation.

 

[Hesychios]

No, Irenaues did not side with the quatrodecimans of Asia (it was a heresy). He was in fact in theological accordance with Victor (he disagreed with his wanting to ex-communicate the church of Asia).

I didn’t post on this before, for lack of time.

But it seems like you have a contradiction here.

First, Quartodecimans were not (as far as I know) ever considered heretics, at least not by the church at large. It was a calendar issue, or in Latin terms a question of discipline, not theology. If in fact it was a heresy, not only Polycarp, but John the Beloved Disciple would be implicated as heretics, and possibly even Saint Paul (who founded the Asian churches) as well.

If bishop Victor of Rome actually thought that the Asian dioceses were heretics, I would say in retrospect his judgmental abilities look very poor.

If you have better information on that I would appreciate a reference.

Second, Iraneaus as well as many others did oppose bishop Victor when he wanted to excommunicate the church of Asia. In fact it is clear that Victor backed down. So whatever Ireneaus meant about agreeing with the church of the city of Rome, it did not mean Universal Jurisdiction as understood since 1870AD 3-2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world] and cannot be suggested as a support to that claim.

 

[prodromos]

Anybody can write a hit piece. The point was, Information is known about them from other sources beyond themselves, and the source for their provocative points can be found.

Actually from what I have read about your two examples thus far, most of the information available about them seems to have come from them and the source of their provocative points are widely available.

If I bring up ex Orthodox priests who are now Catholics, how does that advance the conversation.

You made the following negative remark:

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

My response was to explain why there is likely to be little information available when a Catholic monk or clergy converts to Orthodoxy. This was in contrast to the examples you gave of Catholics who had become Protestant and Muslim respectively, so I fail to see why you have a problem with that.
While we’re at it, perhaps you could explain how your above remark advances the conversation, since you have assumed the role of judge and critic

John

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;6443779]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.

]

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The world is full of sceptics. Could it be that the Heavenly revelations could be correct that never conflict with God’s Word? Leaving sceptics hard pressed to prove otherwise. I wonder if an Orthodox apparition has ever survived the scrutiny from the Catholic Church, to give its validity?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Here are the corrections;
Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12
For correction, there is no need to apply a (Secular) worldly view to a biblical view of the Kingdom of God. Forcing a (Secular understanding) 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.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

This scripture is teaching the greatest mystery in the universe, that God makes both Jew and Greek one in Christ Jesus. The foundation is not being built here, the foundation is recalled here to display what it has become, One body, One faith, One baptism in One Lord Jesus Christ. No one recalls the rebar, sand, mud, when referencing the foundation in speech. Jesus Christ places the elements in place when he begins to build his Church first upon Peter, and then upon all the other apostles. This scripture does not reference the building of the foundation, but the building blocks upon which the foundation is built, Jesus being the “Chief corner stone” Peter being the Rock element from which Jesus begins his building, never apart from Peter.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=onacloudyday;6450110]depend on what apparition of the Theotokos. real apparition of the Theotokos only happen to adult holy man or woman who have accomplish great spiritual feat and reached state of dispassion or illumination. very rare. when happen usually in desert or on Theotokos own holy mountain.

guadalupe images sold at bookstore my orthodox church

catholic marian apparitions must be diabolical when happen to little children who were not praying all the time in the heart had never overcome their passions yet and who too young not experienced to have discernment of what is holy and what is not holy. little children easily tricked. catholic apparition also teach against the church tradition of the Theotokos when teach she conceive with no sin that make her equal god, that teaching not of God because Theotokos suffered and died because of sin if she not conceive with sin then she not suffer or died even Jesus suffer and died because sin.

Okkayy… Let us mention that Approved Apparitions are not forced upon the faithful as a teaching from the Church. The Church labels approved Apparitions, miracles, as worthy of belief.
God works in mysterious ways. To place a limit on how God works is really leaning off a high cliff. If God found the greatest faith in all of Israel from a Pagan Centurion, I don’t think God is limited to just a few pius individuals.

Matthew 8:5
4 When he entered Capernaum, 5 a centurion approached him and appealed to him,
6
saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully.”
7
He said to him, “I will come and cure him.”
8
The centurion said in reply, 6 “Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.
9
For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10
**When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel 7 have I found such faith. **
11
I say to you, 8 many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven,

 

[wynd]

Then you are not a born bred Orthodox, you are a convert into a Language and Culture that is not your own. Orthodox will not accept your Language or culture into her Liturgy. Orthodox not in full communion with Peter protest the Popes authority, not the Church.

What I love about my Catholic faith apart from your Orthodoxy is that she has given (PERMISSION) to the nations and peoples to hear the Gospel in ones own native tongue so as to worship God in Spirit and Truth in one voice of Faith world wide. Rome is still Orthodox in Language and Culture, but Iam not forced to live as the Romans do, as Orthodoxy forces you to leave your culture and language into a foreign language and culture that is not your own. In the West, we may pray at times in greek, Latin, yet it is always with understanding and faith, the liturgy is forever Orthodox in content this has never changed. On this permission alone Protestants should flock back to the Catholic Faith, being language was a topic of discussion during the reformation. This permission can be revoked if abuse is found in her liturgy. Which is being researched today by the Vatican especially in the U.S.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you actually believe what you’re writing here, or are you just trolling?

 

[CWBetts]

Wrong. Try again.
Since St Peter would have been appalled at the idea of a supreme infallible Pope of Rome based on his apostolic ministry----you already have.

Interesting. Are you seriously telling us that you KNOW what St. Peter FELT? Especially when you look at Matthew 16, John 21, Exodus 4, and Isaiah 22.

 

[dzheremi]

Could we all drop this “you can’t REALLY be Orthodox and speak English/some other not Greek-Russian-Arabic language” nonsense? It’s embarrassing. I was raised Presbyterian, but I grew up speaking English and Spanish, not Scottish Gaelic or whatever! There are Orthodox Christians in plenty of not traditionally “Orthodox” areas, like Mexico, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, etc.

While their founders are generally immigrants, a large and increasing number of their parishioners are not. In other words, they’re not all that different than most Catholic Churches, just newer in the “new world” than most Catholic Churches are.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Could we all drop this “you can’t REALLY be Orthodox and speak English/some other not Greek-Russian-Arabic language” nonsense? It’s embarrassing. I was raised Presbyterian, but I grew up speaking English and Spanish, not Scottish Gaelic or whatever! There are Orthodox Christians in plenty of not traditionally “Orthodox” areas, like Mexico

, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, etc.

While their founders are generally immigrants, a large and increasing number of their parishioners are not. In other words, they’re not all that different than most Catholic Churches, just newer in the “new world” than most Catholic Churches are.

We are speaking Liturgy appart from the outside cultures. If you attend an Orthodox Church, does your liturgy practice in the original Language and culture from its origin? Or does Orothodoxy make a false claim to being Orthodox by celebrating her Liturgy in a foreign tongue such as English, Spanish, German, Italian, Polish etc. Help us out here?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=wynd;6452666]Where do you get this stuff? Do you actually believe what you’re writing here, or are you just trolling?

I find the personal lived out faith witnessed here more interesting than facts and figures, although we are never in short supply of these. I write from experience, do you have more to add to my experience? That I can learn from? Please feel free to correct me if I missed something?