What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[ComeHome2Rome]

It’s also a good move if you want the continued respect of insiders.

 

[InnocentFortune]

It’s also a good move if you want the continued respect of insiders.

True. I understand that. I would be lying if I said I didn’t want to can some of our own bishops. Just thought Jonah held more esteem in Orthodoxy, that’s all.

 

[Nine_Two]

True. I understand that. I would be lying if I said I didn’t want to can some of our own bishops. Just thought Jonah held more esteem in Orthodoxy, that’s all.

He does, and I still hold respect for him. He is a deeply spiritual man, who is by all appearances very sincere, however he made a big, boneheaded decision that shows he isn’t fit for such a position. Even without this specific incident he was showing he wasn’t cut out for leadership in the OCA - but as he said, he never asked for, nor desired to be made Metropolitan.

I continue to remember him in my prayers. He needs it.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

While there was no hope of reunion while the Catholic Church had its pre-VII attitude, there also isn’t any hope of reunion until the Catholic Church can bring order to the anarchy that has resulted.

Which part of the anarchy fall out of VII the Latin extremist Catholics (more Pope than the Pope) or the Cafeteria Catholics do you consider more of a hinderence to reunion & why?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Which part of the anarchy fall out of VII the Latin extremist Catholics (more Pope than the Pope) or the Cafeteria Catholics do you consider more of a hinderence to reunion & why?

I’m not Orthodox (for now) but I would say the Traditionalists are more of a hindrance than cafeteria Catholics. There are cafeteria Orthodox so its not like it is something they haven’t seen before. But the Traditionalists often tend to be “Latin Supremacists” who believe its the Latin Rite (and by extension, the Tridentine Mass) or nothing. As Nine_Two has pointed out, the Pre-V2 attitude is a hindrance to unity. And who has more of that pre-V2 attitude today than the Traditionalists?

 

[Hesychios]

Which part of the anarchy fall out of VII the Latin extremist Catholics (more Pope than the Pope) or the Cafeteria Catholics do you consider more of a hinderence to reunion & why?

Really, we can’t answer that question, and it probably shouldn’t be asked in that way.

That’s like this girl from a little country hamlet who had an ardent suitor.

Ultimately she rejected the fellow and Papa wanted to know why.

“Which did you dislike about him more, the bad teeth or the bad breath?” he asked.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What petitions are spoken about in church? I’ve only seen information recently on Obamacare handed out. Which would have been old news for anyone following the news and Christianity. And for those not keeping up with these areas they should be informed.

The Bishops of the US I have only seen speak in essence over time on the sick, needy, homeless, hungry, abortion etc. This started with Jesus and has occured since the start of the Church after Jesus. Religious Freedom is the current topic today.

I have never seen anyone asked to sign anything. I have heard that the State Reps etc are listed on the pamphlets, so on and so forth.

No use conversing about V-II by the established conversation we already concluded those who are the elect of their See’s are in fact making decisions. By the same token no one in Russia wants to be told how to run their See, then the same medicine applies both ways.

Mediatrix another conversation which must be thought about. The Holy Spirit is the source which was speciifically stated by Pope Benedict in 2010. Mediate/Intercede is known with Mary since we knew about Mary. This was discussed at the V-II Council but of course why would we mention that.

"V-II Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), sums it up:

… in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.

This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…"

Well here you can read the entire context “since it came up” last page.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Ffaith%2Fteachings%2Fmarya4.htm&ei=y5QKUKCMNcfb0QGezJzRAw&usg=AFQjCNE03bC7TJBh7G6VriJvjuh2Jl9VwQ&sig2=bYMkgPZiCKCelEOTT_B7MA

I see no issue here, as Fr Most stated its usually Protestants confused on this issue? Apparently more clarity is needed and thus should be forthcoming when Rome deems fit.

Seems to me Scott Hahn and EWTN are pushing for this a bit.

There are issues which one may see as wonderful in one Apostilic Church and not so much in the others, two way street for certain. Same as with Adoration, while many could care less about this, many are avid followers in the CC. I like to attend church early in the morning on weekdays. That doesn’t mean you should like that or have to or concede what I do is right for you.

I’m more interested in the Spiritual/Mystical aspect. I find much consolation, insight and direction in the CC.

To speak daily about Doctrine when one actually believes the churchs will never be in communion, would lead me to believe the only point then is to promote ones own position. So then this isn’t “Latin Supremacists” it is “EO Supremacists” and in many situations “both”.

To hint there is error in the church is another act of deception, if one has an issue or point to make then they should clearly and respectfully speak their mind about it. Again this is a two way street.

Otherwise its about the same as me saying I have a long list of grips about the EO which is “why” I attend the CC. Nevertheless, I attend the CC because I am all consumed by the Spirit.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t know in what sense you mean this.

Father John Hardon wrote this (I assume he paraphrases, as there is no reference)

While I don’t dislike the article in its entirety, there are times he writes things that seem questionable. For instance:

“No, infallibility is not only something negative. It is eminently positive. It implies that the one or ones who are infallible not only do not hold what is false. It also says that they hold or declare the truth.”

Who are we to believe when sometimes Catholic materials say the precise opposite? For instance, in one of Karl Keating’s books he asks his reader to imagine that the pope could pronounce infallibly on matters of geometry as well as faith or morals (obviously this is just a hypothetical). And now you set before him a geometry test, whose answers are intended to be public and binding. What is the lowest possible grade he could receive on the test?

Keating’s answer is zero, an F: he may in fact leave the test blank because he didn’t study.

Anyway, I’m not really sure what he means by all that “normative” stuff, Hesychios. If he’s simply referring to the point he makes elsewhere that the pope doesn’t need other bishops to agree with him to teach something infallibly, whereas other bishops need his approval to do so, that’s true but irrelevant, for this reason: the bishops require papal confirmation for infallible teachings (as in a conciliar context) not because the pope is somehow separate from them, but because he is part of them, part of the “body of Bishops,” as their head: and the body must not act without the head.

Of course, the reverse must be in some sense true as well. I stand by our position that the ideal in Catholic ecclesiology regarding papal authority on all matters is for Apostolic Canon 34 to apply to the entire College of Bishops, with the pope functioning as our head bishop.

To get more specific, however, look at this from the article:

“He can make a decision, and proclaim a doctrine without either prior dependence on their consensus or subsequent approval from the hierarchy.”

True, but to imply that he gets to act unilaterally on his own beliefs and on his own preferences, is false. He is not bound by the opinion of living, contemporary bishops (“the small and arrogant oligarchy of the living,” as Chesterton said?) but he certainly is bound by the teachings of orthodox bishops throughout the ages - by the deposit of faith and the prior testimony of the Church in teaching and handing on the orthodox faith (“the democracy of the dead,” to continue adapting Chesterton’s analogy).

So the fact that the pope is not bound by the opinion of living contemporary bishops in no way implies that he gets to act independently of the Church, of the hierarchy, or of the needs of the faithful. He does not.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I’m not Orthodox (for now) but I would say the Traditionalists are more of a hindrance than cafeteria Catholics. There are cafeteria Orthodox so its not like it is something they haven’t seen before. But the Traditionalists often tend to be “Latin Supremacists” who believe its the Latin Rite (and by extension, the Tridentine Mass) or nothing. As Nine_Two has pointed out, the Pre-V2 attitude is a hindrance to unity. And who has more of that pre-V2 attitude today than the Traditionalists?

Okay, I get it.

I think overall the worst danger to our Church is the cafeteria Catholics, but you say Orthodox have that problem too?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Who are we to believe when sometimes Catholic materials say the precise opposite? For instance, in one of Karl Keating’s books he asks his reader to imagine that the pope could pronounce infallibly on matters of geometry as well as faith or morals (obviously this is just a hypothetical). And now you set before him a geometry test, whose answers are intended to be public and binding. What is the lowest possible grade he could receive on the test?

Keating’s answer is zero, an F: he may in fact leave the test blank because he didn’t study.

No, I thought that with the Keys of the Kindgom & ability to Bind/Loose in heaven and earth that IF he were to have that in matters of geometry then he would only and always get an A because anything he answered, even if wrong, would immediately become the new right answer on both heaven and earth.

The pope has the power to override so to speak the existing truth and God has promised that anything re: faith and morals the pope has the declared will be the accepted as truth in both heaven and earth.

Like that’s why the “filioque” is now the truth even though it was previous rejected by our Church and by prior popes, because it is now bounded as truth in heaven and earth , God accepts any change made even to Himself. Just another way God has humbled Himself for us undeserving human beings. as if coming to us in the Eucharist weren’t enough humility.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

No, I thought that with the Keys of the Kindgom & ability to Bind/Loose in heaven and earth that IF he were to have that in matters of geometry then he would only and always get an A because anything he answered, even if wrong, would immediately become the new right answer on both heaven and earth.

The pope has the power to override so to speak the existing truth and God has promised that anything re: faith and morals the pope has the declared will be the accepted as truth in both heaven and earth.

Truth is Truth, and it cannot be altered just because the Pope says so. According to Catholic teaching, the job of the Pope is to proclaim, defend, confirm, and clarify the Truth. Nothing more, nothing less. To say he can “override so to speak the existing truth” is not only a distortion, it just isn’t what the teachings say.

ComeHome2Rome:

Like that’s why the “filioque” is now the truth even though it was previous rejected by our Church and by prior popes, because it is now bounded as truth in heaven and earth , God accepts any change made even to Himself. Just another way God has humbled Himself for us undeserving human beings.

Putting aside the debate about whether or not the filioque is true, would it not be more accurate to say that it has now been taught explicitly, whereas before it was an implicit teaching within the deposit of faith?

Finally, the phrase “God accepts any changes made even to Himself” is not merely problematic, but simply unacceptable. God cannot change- He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Dear friend, I understand the point you were trying to make. However, your phrasing was rather vague, and at some points were proving the opposite of what you were trying to get across. You might want to more carefully word things; heaven knows, I’ve been guilty of it enough myself. Talking theology is such a pain sometimes

 

[TrueLight]

I’m not Orthodox (for now) but I would say the Traditionalists are more of a hindrance than cafeteria Catholics. There are cafeteria Orthodox so its not like it is something they haven’t seen before. But the Traditionalists often tend to be “Latin Supremacists” who believe its the Latin Rite (and by extension, the Tridentine Mass) or nothing. As Nine_Two has pointed out, the Pre-V2 attitude is a hindrance to unity. And who has more of that pre-V2 attitude today than the Traditionalists?

And I thought I could stay away from Traditionalist bashing if I just stayed out of the “Traditional Catholic” forum.

We all tiptoe around one another on here (save for one person who is very blunt). Catholics are really careful not to be offensive to the Orthodox and Orthodox try to be honest without being extremely offensive to the Catholics in the spirit of ecumenical talk.

Traditionalists deserve the same respect. We are not some fringe element of Catholicism that needs to be wiped out.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Hostile? That’s disappointing to hear.

I am a convert to Catholic Christianity from a combination of Buddhism and various new age ideas and philosophies, so my depth of Christian experience only goes back in a meaningful way to about 2004, and I was confirmed in 2006. The depth of my Catholic Christian conversion experience, and the result of my studies since that time have led me to believe that I am in fact a lay member of the Church which was set in motion by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, through the apostles, with an element of primacy being bestowed among apostles upon Simon Barjona, called Peter.

I am aware, that while we Christians had many locations founded by the apostles during the first century. These locations would have been different diocese’ in modern parlance. Peter, charged with Jesus to “feed his lambs” settled, and was eventually martyred in Rome. The point is, we were ONE holy Catholic, and apostolic Church. This was accepted for nearly 1,000 years. There was then a schism between east and west, which was deeply saddening to the Church. I only have history to look at of course. And the traditions, teachings and values of my Church as to the causes, and I haven’t studied them well enough to feel anything but sorrow. There is certainly nothing which could be described as animosity, hatred or hostility. I doubt there would be, even if I had been a cradle Catholic. It is a tragedy, from what I can tell that we are divided from the East. And in fact, we aren’t entirely. There are those of Eastern history and descent who are of the Catholic Church, and recognizing the Chair of St. Peter. That is, we have Eastern Catholicism. I think the differences there, are largely Liturgical, and observance of a slightly different calendar, but we are still of one Church.

In my short run as a Catholic, I have not run into any type of hostility on the part of any other Catholic regarding the Orthodox. The most common question I’ve heard from fellow Catholics is why aren’t we back together yet? What is so different between us. I think most Catholics, (if they think about it much at all), don’t fully understand the divisions, (I know I don’t), nor why our Bishops haven’t worked this out over the past 1,000 years. It just seems we’re robbing each other of something beautiful. Liturgies which we can’t share. Creeds we can’t seem to reconcile because of a single concept, which is so subtle that most folks I know, including myself don’t understand it fully. These are causes of a sadness, more than a hostility. Certainly we layity of both of the great Churches are like children who were once caught up in a divorce. We love both our parents, and just wish they’d work it all out, and get back together, so that some of us don’t have to live with dad all the time, and others don’t have to live with mom all the time. In this divorce, there weren’t even visitation rights! It’s unfair to the children. Us. The mystical body of Christ.

I have nothing but love, and respect for my Eastern brothers and sisters in Christ, and would hope that at the level of of the layman, that the members of the Eastern Church have nothing but love and respect for us as well.

Anyway…that’s the perspective of this one Roman Catholic convert.

May God bless and keep you,

Steven

 

[Nine_Two]

And I thought I could stay away from Traditionalist bashing if I just stayed out of the “Traditional Catholic” forum.

We all tiptoe around one another (save for one person who is very blunt). Traditionalists deserve the same respect. We are not some fringe element of Catholicism that needs to be wiped out.

There seems to be two types of traditionalists, and this forum has many of both. On the one hand you have traditionalists who favour the Tridentine Mass, think many of the liberalizations of Vatican II were bad, but at the end of the day accept the way the leadership of the Church is going, and are more open.

Then you have the more-Catholic-than-the-pope traditionalists, who want to pretend VII never happened and are extremely negative toward anything they don’t know, or understand (including Eastern Catholics)

Only one of those groups, both described as “traditionalist” is a problem when it comes to relations between us.

 

[jam070406]

I’m not Orthodox (for now) but I would say the Traditionalists are more of a hindrance than cafeteria Catholics. There are cafeteria Orthodox so its not like it is something they haven’t seen before. But the Traditionalists often tend to be “Latin Supremacists” who believe its the Latin Rite (and by extension, the Tridentine Mass) or nothing. As Nine_Two has pointed out, the Pre-V2 attitude is a hindrance to unity. And who has more of that pre-V2 attitude today than the Traditionalists?

I’m reading a book where an Orthodox theologian says the Liturgical changes in the RCC have driven the RCC even further away from Orthodoxy and union.

 

[jam070406]

There seems to be two types of traditionalists, and this forum has many of both. On the one hand you have traditionalists who favour the Tridentine Mass, think many of the liberalizations of Vatican II were bad, but at the end of the day accept the way the leadership of the Church is going, and are more open.

Then you have the more-Catholic-than-the-pope traditionalists, who want to pretend VII never happened and are extremely negative toward anything they don’t know, or understand (including Eastern Catholics)

Only one of those groups, both described as “traditionalist” is a problem when it comes to relations between us.

There are extreme Traditionalists in Orthodoxy too. Those that say Catholics are heretics bound for damnation.

 

[Hesychios]

Of course, the reverse must be in some sense true as well. I stand by our position that the ideal in Catholic ecclesiology regarding papal authority on all matters is for Apostolic Canon 34 to apply to the entire College of Bishops, with the pope functioning as our head bishop.

Actually the RC has never agreed that Apostolic Canon 34 applies to it in the case of the Papacy that I am aware of (while Orthodox have always assumed that it did, but not in the way proposed at Ravenna).

Secondly, it does not apply to infallibility. It applies to jurisdiction, actual authority over the discipline and practices of some key responsibilities of the bishops. Infallibility as such and jurisdiction according to the RC are two separate charisms.

Further, Apostolic Canon 34 has been suggested as a model for a future Papacy in discussions with Orthodox, but this is far from any sort of current definition. It actually has not been accepted by anyone, but has been suggested in discussion as a possible way forward in a future Papacy which might be more acceptable to both parties.

Finally, it should be recognizable to most people who read them that the Apostolic Canons taken as a set (the context of Apostolic Canon 34) are actually contrary to universal jurisdiction. These specifically assign duties to Metropolitans and the other bishops of local synods powers that are claimed to be exclusive to the papacy in the modern RC. If the AC 34 was used as a model for a formal definition it could not be done without acknowledging the Apostolic Canons themselves.

None of this addresses the declaration of dogma by one individual (something unthinkable in the early church) at all.

 

[dzheremi]

IF he were to have that in matters of geometry then he would only and always get an A because anything he answered, even if wrong, would immediately become the new right answer on both heaven and earth.

So…wrong becomes right because the Pope says so?

The pope has the power to override so to speak the existing truth

But the truth does not change, so what is there to override? Nicaea is as true today as it was in 325; Constantinople is as true today as it was in 381; Ephesus is as true today as it was in 431. The only way it seems possible to have anything other than “the existing truth” is if you either change the past or plan on changing the future, neither of which the Pope can do. The past is a matter of record (i.e., Rome approved of those councils), and the future is a matter of God’s providence, and our fidelity is to the eternal truth of the Word of God.

Like that’s why the “filioque” is now the truth even though it was previous rejected by our Church and by prior popes, because it is now bounded as truth in heaven and earth ,

But isn’t this circular logic? If something is bound in heaven and on earth on account of the Pope’s acceptance or promulgation of it, then how can you say that the things that the Pope has accepted are true because they are thus bound? That’s basically saying that it doesn’t matter what previous Popes believed, because the ones who believed in the things that previous Popes did not are now right by virtue of being Popes. What about the ones who disbelieved what you now believe? Where was there infallibility? Where was their power to bound and lose? And if they didn’t have it (since their decisions were subsequently overturned, thereby making them NOT bounded…even just here on earth!), why are you so confident that subsequent Popes do? This is an untenable, and frankly a bit unnerving, position to hold.

God accepts any change made even to Himself.

I’m pretty sure that even the Roman Popes would disagree with this, at least in principle. If God accepts any change made to Himself because of His humility, then why did He apparently not accept the Monothelitism of Honorius? The anti-Christ theology of Arius? The bizarre reimaginings of Eutyches? It doesn’t seem like God accepts any of that. No person or people (including Popes) can change God.

 

[TrueLight]

There are extreme Traditionalists in Orthodoxy too. Those that say Catholics are heretics bound for damnation.

Is it an extreme position that Catholics are heretical?

 

[ConstantineTG]

And I thought I could stay away from Traditionalist bashing if I just stayed out of the “Traditional Catholic” forum.

We all tiptoe around one another on here (save for one person who is very blunt). Catholics are really careful not to be offensive to the Orthodox and Orthodox try to be honest without being extremely offensive to the Catholics in the spirit of ecumenical talk.

Traditionalists deserve the same respect. We are not some fringe element of Catholicism that needs to be wiped out.

Does giving an honest account always equate to bashing? I am sorry if your feelings are hurt by my comments, but I am being honest here. I mean, how many times did traditionalists come to the EC forum to tell Eastern Catholics how to be Catholics (ie, be more Latin than “Eastern”)? I am not trying to be offensive here, just honest.