B
BrendanD
Guest
Oh I’m sorry, I read that poorly. I thought you meant They are both (Orthodox and SSPX) heretics.
- Status
D
Dauphin
Guest
Not a problem. I probably shouldn’t have taken the bait and gone off topic, anyway
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
Are YOU a priest or a theologian, oh ye of double standards? How are we supposed to take you seriously if this is the kind of stuff you say? As a layman, i have every right, as do you, to defend the faith. Hopefully its the same faith we’re defending.
That you would accuse me of being assuming is just too ironic and funny to waste any time on. Good luck proving that one.
And is that really a condescending attitude i replied with? I don’t think so. But while we’re on the subject, how about you read your own posts… They are filled with condescending remarks about the Church, about the Pope himself, and about your “fellow” Catholics, whose Church you insist you are a full member of. Hello, pot? Its kettle… you’re black!
And don’t be a fool; the SSPX HAS undeniably been a thorn in Rome’s side! Rome has wasted time and effort debating the SSPX and dealing with the issues they bring, which should be spent repairing the damage of Vatican II. Benedict XVI is extending an olive branch to the SSPX, and asking them to fully rejoin the Church, and be not a thorn in its side, but a jewel in its crown. He is asking the SSPX to be a part of his bold mission to save the Church, erase the damages of Vatican II, and reassert Catholic identity (what Father Z amusingly calls the Pope’s “Marshall Plan”). How can you, or the SSPX, as self-proclaimed committed Catholics, refuse to accept that invitation?
S
Spiller
Guest
Both are implicit beliefs of the Orthodox I believe. They just don’t like changing the creed or feel the need to infallibly define what is already known to them.
P
piouswoman
Guest
What a foolish post…Have you any idea why Our Lord suffered and died on the wood of the Most Holy Cross? It wasn’t because in doing so, anyone could be saved in any false religion of their choice. He came to establish HIS Church on earth for the salvation of our souls…and there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church…that is Doctrine.
Cardinal Kasper has said that it is NOT the mission of the Church to convert the Jews…that is FACT. Care to explain? The Church today calls Protestants “our separated brethren” care to explain? The missionary spirit is gone and is replaced with the error of RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. Come on, get real.
D
Dauphin
Guest
I’d love to believe that they can assent to the filioque and the immaculate conception, but I just don’t see any reason to.
If the Orthodox can agree to these two dogmatic definitions, then they should do so. I seriously doubt they can.
Whether they like Catholic doctrine or not, or whether they disagree with the way it was defined or not, they still have to accept it.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
Correct, mostly. Of course, it is sometimes so difficult to make sweeping statements about the Orthodox for the very reason that they do not see the need to ifallibly define as many things as we do, and because they are much less centralized.
But yes, the Orthodox beleieve that the father procedes from the father through the son. That is identical to that the Catholic Church teaches. Thus, no heresy. They do beleive, however, that changing the creed was an unauthorized change, and that the Pope had no authority to add it, thus, the sin is schism, not heresy.
They also do believe that Mary was sinless, and conceived that way. They have a different way of explaining it, and so did earlier Catholic theologians. But it means the exact same thing, with the exact same theological consequences.
To underscore: it is not the Catholics who think the Orthodox are heretics. There is a problem because it is the other way around.
D
Dauphin
Guest
What you’re describing is a powerful and very evil movement within the Church (yes, it includes Cardinal Kasper).
This is not the true position of the Church. (Although, I can’t quite see where the error is in calling protestants “separated brethren”. It’s just a nice way to say “schismatic”)
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
I never said, and NEITHER HAS THE CHURCH, that any or every religion was salvific. How dare you accuse me of beleiving such. I believe very much in Nullus Salvus Extra Ecclesiam, as do you. I am a traditional Catholic, as traditional as you. Except i dare say even more so, since I am in full communion with the Pope, the VIcar of Christ. Just in case you forgot, Catholics traditionally are.
And why would i NEED to explan Cardinal Kasper? I disagree completely with Kasper, and i think hes a fossil who was just given a cushy post to make his exit more comfortable. Furthermore, Kasper is NOT THE CHURCH! He is a single man. His views, in the long run, matter very little. Are you seriously so undeducated that your entire case against the Church of Rome is built upon some naive foibles of a dinosaur of a cardinal? Come on, can’t you do better than that? If you had even bothered to read my post, you’d see that this is what i see as bad ecumenism. But of course, you didn’t serioisly read my post, because you are too busy being the broken record of the SSPX, talking for them before YOU understand.
And, of course, in all your talking, you FORGOT TO ADDRESS THE POINT! Religious liberty exists whether you like it or not. I know exactly why Jesus died! His death was necessary to attone our sins, which were possibly in the first place because God gave us free will. The freedom to believe him or not. Are you denying free will? That would make you no better than the Calvinists. Although, both you and Calvin seem to have little problem with creating splinter groups.
D
Dauphin
Guest
If the Orthodox really do hold the Catholic doctrine, then they’ll release a statement tomorrow saying they accept the infallible definitions of Catholic Councils and Popes.
But they won’t. Why? Because they’re heretics. Because they don’t hold the Catholic doctrine as the Church has defined it. It is not the privilege of the Orthodox to define their own doctrine - that privilege belongs to the Church alone.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Yes, well how is this false charity of calling schismatics “separated brethren” ever going to help them to renounce their false religion and return to the one true Church?
D
DonaNobis_Pacem
Guest
sigh Is it really too much to still hold at least a little hope that there will at least be a charitable end to this? ._.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
False charity? Seems to me like the same false charity as using terms like “not in full communion” or “akward canonical position.”
I’m more interested in helping the Orthodox and Orientals. The Protestants are almost too far gone.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
D
DonaNobis_Pacem
Guest
I don’t agree with the SSPX and how they got themselves into the situation they’re in. But the Body of Christ has already been divided far too much by Protestants; the excommunications on the Orthodox have been lifted, from what I understand, and they’re slowly working towards unity with Rome. Why doesn’t the SSPX want to do the same? If they’ve rejected the offers made by the Holy Father, then there will be another split in Christ’s Body. And I fear that the formal separation of the SSPX from Rome could be more painful than any that had been experienced since Martin Luther.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Please explain to me what you are talking about when you say religious liberty exists…murder exists, does that make it right? In the mean time, you may be interested in reading this:
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/rbity.htm
A
anthony022071
Guest
Those are not matters having to do with doctrines of faith or morals. If you believe that the Church is teaching errors of doctrine of faith or morals,then that is to say that the gates of hell have overcome the Church.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
Wow… equating religious liberty to murder really helps elevate the debate. The existence of religious liberty is not a thing which can be debated. It just is. Oh, and by the way, before you go on another rampage of false assumptions and putting words in my mouth, i’d like to go on the record as affirming that murder is indeed wrong. You know, just in case you run out of rational ideas and try to use that one against me again.
What you’re talking about is religious liberty as a political right which there can be a whole multitude of arguments for or against. Personally, I wouldn’t want to see the political right to religious liberty abolished in my country (the US) because i know it would lead to some crazed baptist theocracy. No thank you.
What I’m refering to is the actual reality that religious liberty, that is, the ability of the individual to choose which religious beliefs he holds, EXISTS. That is a reality completely independant of the issues of religious liberty as a political right. To that end, i don’t disagree much with the article you posted. Keep in mind, though, that the article is just as fallible as the documents it criticizes.
If you dont understand what it means for liberty to exist from my last two posts, i doubt anything i can say to you will make it easier for you to grasp such simple things. But always the optimist, i will trudge along anyways.
Here, i’ll break it down for you, simply.
- God gave people free choice, to believe in him or not; to sin or not; to obey him or not;
OPTIONS:
a) you believe in this (yay, you’re Catholic! Move ahead!)
b) you dont (boo, you’re a calvinist. good riddance) - Since people have the God-given ability to choose to believe in him or not, some people will choose not to believe in him
OPTIONS:
a) you agree (duh, its logical. move ahead)
b) you dont (really? please don’t ever debate again) - People who do not believe in and obey God will come up with crazy things to believe instead
OPTIONS:
a) you agree (do i really need a b?)
b) you dont (I really like how you’ve decorated that hole you’re living in) - Because people were given free will by God, which makes it possible for them to have all these other crazy beliefs, no one could ever force their beliefs on someone else; that would require mind control, or something equally preposterous
OPTIONS:
a) you agree (good)
b) you dont (i ran out of bad jokes) - Since we can’t force any people to truly believe, in the deepest part of their soul, anything they do not want to, due to God’s gift of free will, people are at liberty to find/believe/make up whatever kind of beleifs they want to. Thus, religous liberty exists. It simply exists.
OPTIONS:
a) you agree (If you were paying attention, of course)
b) you dont (how did i possibly lose you with this? go start over…)
If you got some B’s in there, sorry for the horribly nasty comments i left. I sincerely hoped they wouldn’t end up applying to you. But, you know, i didnt want to use any words which might be construed as false charity.
R
RC_Matt
Guest
The world is full of so-called Catholics who don’t live the faith, but their actions are individual actions; taken contrary to that which is taught by the Church. The Church certainly isn’t leading them to hell, they’re getting there by themselves – precisely by ignoring Church teachings. However, if your position is that the Catechism leads people to hell by teaching error, than that’s a different animal altogether. If that is the case, specifically what in the Catechism do you find to be so gravely in error that it is leading us to hell?
E
EddieArent
Guest
I knew it! The bishop is right! NO SIDE ALTARS OF TRADITION IN THE ZOO! May God grant him many years!
- Status