Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word

[mardukm]

So it is not just one issue of disunity. There are many issues that have come up and the result is to create confusion in the minds of many Catholics.

I can agree that there are Catholics who are confused because of the dissidence of certain Catholic priests. But there is no way no how any sensible person is going to conclude from that that there is disunity in the Catholic Church. As I and others have often stated, Catholic teaching is based on MAGISTERIAL teaching, not the wayward opinions of its members even if they are priests. If you can point to a MAGISTERIAL document that supports what that homosexual priest believed, or that abortion is not a sin, or that contraception is not a sin, or that divorce is not a sin, etc. etc. etc., then your statements will have some merit. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of sensationalist propaganda not worth any salt.

There was a Catholic priest in our area who gave a small talk as to why he had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy a while back. BTW, he has since converted back to Catholicism. One of the reasons he gave for converting to E. Orthodoxy concerned the disunity and dissidence he found in Catholic teachings that he was hearing being preached.

The priest probably realized that his reason for leaving Catholicism in the first place was wrong. Dissidence and differences in opinion cannot equate to lack of unity. He might in fact have realized that there is actually less unity in Eastern Orthodoxy (note I did not say “NO unity”) because there are more differences in opinion about what is or is not sin and about certain doctrinal teachings in the EOC than in the CC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alethiaphile]

True, all true. But you also forgot to quote Vatican I asserting that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold and defend the authority of his brother bishops, an obligation that is also enshrined in our canon laws.:tsktsk:

An authority ENTIRELY SUBORDINATE to his; a clause having to do with upholding the bishops’ authority subject to his, and, therefore, not at all detracting from the Pope’s full jurisdiction. :tsktsk:

Why do EO like to take only little snippets of Catholic teaching for the purposes of criticizing it? Is it because taking into account the FULL breadth of Catholic doctrines will only expose the weakness of the EO arguments?

No, EOs take statements like “full immediate jurisidiction” at their true meaning, rather than trying to cook up ways to eviscerate them of meaning.

The Pope intervenes, and always and ONLY intervenes, in an appellate capacity.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Article IV of the Creed, under the "Second Part of This Article: ‘Dead and Buried’ "

“His Divinity continued always united both to his body in the sepulchre, and to his soul in Limbo.”

source: archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft

Does anybody have the original Latin of this part? It here seems to be used synonymously with Abraham’s Bosom–i.e. The limbo of the Fathers. It would seem the question is not whether this limbo ever existed, but whether it continued to exist after the Resurrection.

Ah – I was looking at section 4, which deals with “He descended into hell”.

The problem is the English translations. Those translations use hell and limbo almost interchangeably to mean the same thing – that place/state where the just went awaiting the Savior. In Hebrew, they called it Sheol, in Greek the word used was Hades (which also carried multiple meanings as the English hell).

By the way, the Latin of the Catechism for limbo in section three is inferos.

 

[Madaglan]

Ah – I was looking at section 4, which deals with “He descended into hell”.

The problem is the English translations. Those translations use hell and limbo almost interchangeably to mean the same thing – that place/state where the just went awaiting the Savior. In Hebrew, they called it Sheol, in Greek the word used was Hades (which also carried multiple meanings as the English hell).

By the way, the Latin of the Catechism for limbo in section three is inferos.

Yes, they seem to be inter-changeable.

I understand Sheoul to be the place where both the just and unjust went–the Bosom of Abraham, AKA the Limbo of the Fathers, being the place of the just.

Thanks for the Latin term for section three!

Concerning Limbo in Catholic spiritual works: I’ve seen it mentioned very little, compared with Purgatory. The only memorable time I came across Limbo was in reading Dante’s Inferno.

 

[Alethiaphile]

True, all true. But you also forgot to quote Vatican I asserting that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold and defend the authority of his brother bishops, an obligation that is also enshrined in our canon laws.

An authority ENTIRELY SUBORDINATE to his; a clause having to do with upholding the bishops’ authority subject to his, and, therefore, not at all detracting from the Pope’s full jurisdiction.

Just to clarify, if Vatican I had said that the Pope himself must respect the ordinary bishop’s authority, that would be relevant.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Baltimore catechism states the following as one definition of limbo: " the state or place where infants who die without baptism enjoy for all eternity a natural happiness."
Pope Pius VI’s Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei denounced the rejection of Limbo as “false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.”
Father Joseph Le Blanc, in his 1947 article “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, summarized two central points taught in this Papal constitution:

“(1) There exists a Children’s Limbo, where the souls of children dying with original sin are detained; (2) the doctrine of Limbo as commonly accepted by the faithful, and taught by the schoolmen, is not a Pelagian fable, but an orthodox teaching.”
See: “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, Father Joseph Le Blanc, C.J.M., American Ecclesiastical Review, September 1947, p. 167.
So, on the one hand we have people who say “no limbo”. On the other hand, we have the official pronouncement of Pope Pius VI, that there is a limbo.
In other words, there is disunity here in Catholic belief on whether or not there is a limbo.
As we have seen, there is also disunity on the question of whether or not the filioque should be recited in the creed, unlike in Orthodoxy where there is a universal stand with no dissent, that the filioques should not be recited in the creed.
To get back to the original question, in one word, the disunity of Catholic beleif on a number of subjects, may be why some Catholics are drawn to Orthodoxy.

Where in the Baltimore Catechism does it give that definition – I cannot locate it.

Pope Pius VI’s bull doesn’t seem to state that the rejection of limbo is wrong as much as denouncing it as Pelagian or something about who introduced it (the Italian is a little hard to translate here). Also, this one is not marked as heretical, as others are.

Again, “limbo of the infants” has never been an official teaching of the Church.

And are you really Catholic? That is what your profile says, but your posts read as if they were from an Orthodox poster – so either you want to leave the Holy Catholic Church, or you’re staying but hate the Church, or you’re Orthodox an your profile is a lie.

Tell me about the great unity in Orthodoxy:

are tollhouses an orthodox teaching?
how can I make the Sign of the Cross without being killed?
Julian, Gregorian, or hybrid calendar?
must I believe in the Assumption (Dormition) of Mary?
is Stalin a Saint?
shall I go on?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

mardukm;4590597:

True, all true. But you also forgot to quote Vatican I asserting that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold and defend the authority of his brother bishops, an obligation that is also enshrined in our canon laws.:tsktsk:

An authority ENTIRELY SUBORDINATE to his; a clause having to do with upholding the bishops’ authority subject to his, and, therefore, not at all detracting from the Pope’s full jurisdiction. :tsktsk:

Why do EO like to take only little snippets of Catholic teaching for the purposes of criticizing it? Is it because taking into account the FULL breadth of Catholic doctrines will only expose the weakness of the EO arguments?

No, EOs take statements like “full immediate jurisidiction” at their true meaning, rather than trying to cook up ways to eviscerate them of meaning.

The Pope intervenes, and always and ONLY intervenes, in an appellate capacity.

I admit I get it now. “full and immediate jurisdiction” means that the Pope can do anything he wants at any time everywhere in the Church regardless of canonical or divine restrictions.

So the fact that every bishop has the same prerogatives in his local jurisdiction means that within his diocese he can do anything he wants at any time regardless of canonical or divine restrictions.

Let me be more concise. I admit I get where you are coming from. But the obvious and logical conclusion of your definition of “full and immediate jurisdiction” is really rather problematic (to say the least).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Yes, they seem to be inter-changeable.

I understand Sheoul to be the place where both the just and unjust went–the Bosom of Abraham, AKA the Limbo of the Fathers, being the place of the just.

Thanks for the Latin term for section three!

Concerning Limbo in Catholic spiritual works: I’ve seen it mentioned very little, compared with Purgatory. The only memorable time I came across Limbo was in reading Dante’s Inferno.

Limbo has been a pious belief, but never official doctrine. Pious beliefs are often held by very many of the faithful, but aren’t required to be believed. Some examples of popular pious beliefs:

Marian apparitions
Saint Joseph was a 90-year old widower/a young vibrant man who was never married before Mary
Patron Saints
etc.

 

[mardukm]

True, all true. But you also forgot to quote Vatican I asserting that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold and defend the authority of his brother bishops, an obligation that is also enshrined in our canon laws.

Vatican I and our canons use such strong words like “uphold” and “reinforce,” and you would rather replace that with mere “respect?”


Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Just to clarify, if Vatican I had said that the Pope himself must respect the ordinary bishop’s authority, that would be relevant.

Pope: Bishop ABC, I think you should really stop ordaining women and teaching that Jesus isn’t God.

Bishop ABC: Thanks for the advice, now buzz off while I go ordain Sister Sally.

Pope: I respect your authority – I think I’ll go back to Rome and play hop-scotch.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The question is not what is wishy washy. The question concerns teaching what is contradictory. For example, there is a Catholic priest (laicised at present) who is a theology professor at a Catholic college and he is teaching in his theology class that his marriage to his homosexual partner is in accord with Catholic teaching. So it is not just one issue of disunity. There are many issues that have come up and the result is to create confusion in the minds of many Catholics. There was a Catholic priest in our area who gave a small talk as to why he had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy a while back. BTW, he has since converted back to Catholicism. One of the reasons he gave for converting to E. Orthodoxy concerned the disunity and dissidence he found in Catholic teachings that he was hearing being preached.

People love to believe a man who goes against what the Church teaches.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. 2 Timothy 4:2-4

With the shear volume of communications coming straight from the Vatican in the past 20-30 years on the topic, anyone who doesn’t know that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely immoral – that person is a moron, plain and simple. They may flock to a preacher who tickles their ears, but they have absolutely no excuse for not knowing that that teaching is not authentic Catholic teaching.

 

[JMJ_coder]

True, all true. But you also forgot to quote Vatican I asserting that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold and defend the authority of his brother bishops, an obligation that is also enshrined in our canon laws.:tsktsk:

An authority ENTIRELY SUBORDINATE to his; a clause having to do with upholding the bishops’ authority subject to his, and, therefore, not at all detracting from the Pope’s full jurisdiction. :tsktsk:

Why do EO like to take only little snippets of Catholic teaching for the purposes of criticizing it? Is it because taking into account the FULL breadth of Catholic doctrines will only expose the weakness of the EO arguments?

No, EOs take statements like “full immediate jurisidiction” at their true meaning, rather than trying to cook up ways to eviscerate them of meaning.

The Pope intervenes, and always and ONLY intervenes, in an appellate capacity.

I think what brother Marduk is expressing is that while the Pope has that authority, he has moral obligations to use that authority wisely and prudently. As I mentioned earlier (on this thread?) – it seems that the Orthodox are afraid of ‘he has this authority, it is only a matter of time until he uses it to destroy us and enslave what’s left of us’. That is not the case.

Marduk’s observations can be shown – in the praxis of the Church for the past one-and-a-half centuries, since the dogmatic defining of papal infallibility at Vatican I, the Pope hasn’t been a tyrant. It’s been business as usual because it is how the Church has always been. The Pope isn’t popping off ex cathedra statements every day, he isn’t dragging Bishops off to gulags. The shear patience of the Vatican is a testament to their pastoralness. Some of us laymen may even wish that the Pope would send out the Swiss Guard after some of these so-called theologians or that he would bop a few Bishops on the head – but he is a loving shepherd who first and foremost wants all to enter into the fullness of the Sacrament of Salvation. Now, the Pope will (and has) act if it is needed, but he is not out to do anyone in or enforce the servitude of all Catholics.

Take a look at how the Pope operates, at his day-to-day praxis, to get a good feel for what the Church really understands in the office of the Pope.

 

[Madaglan]

Pope: Bishop ABC, I think you should really stop ordaining women and teaching that Jesus isn’t God.

Bishop ABC: Thanks for the advice, now buzz off while I go ordain Sister Sally.

Pope: I respect your authority – I think I’ll go back to Rome and play hop-scotch.

Throughout history, how many Orthodox bishops have ordained women to the priesthood?

 

[Madaglan]

I think what brother Marduk is expressing is that while the Pope has that authority, he has moral obligations to use that authority wisely and prudently. As I mentioned earlier (on this thread?) – it seems that the Orthodox are afraid of ‘he has this authority, it is only a matter of time until he uses it to destroy us and enslave what’s left of us’. That is not the case.

It’s not just the Orthodox. One also finds in the writings of a fair number of Eastern Catholic priests a distaste for Roman paternalism.

Marduk’s observations can be shown – in the praxis of the Church for the past one-and-a-half centuries, since the dogmatic defining of papal infallibility at Vatican I, the Pope hasn’t been a tyrant. It’s been business as usual because it is how the Church has always been. The Pope isn’t popping off ex cathedra statements every day, he isn’t dragging Bishops off to gulags.

How could he? The Russians will never let him in!

The shear patience of the Vatican is a testament to their pastoralness. Some of us laymen may even wish that the Pope would send out the Swiss Guard after some of these so-called theologians or that he would bop a few Bishops on the head – but he is a loving shepherd who first and foremost wants all to enter into the fullness of the Sacrament of Salvation. Now, the Pope will (and has) act if it is needed, but he is not out to do anyone in or enforce the servitude of all Catholics.

Take a look at how the Pope operates, at his day-to-day praxis, to get a good feel for what the Church really understands in the office of the Pope.

 

[Madaglan]

Sorry mardukm with my last post (for forgetting to type outside the quotes).

 

[jam070406]

Throughout history, how many Orthodox bishops have ordained women to the priesthood?

And yet, when Rome enforces this tradition it’s seen by Orthodox on here as a supression of freedom.

 

[Hesychios]

Throughout history, how many Orthodox bishops have ordained women to the priesthood?

And yet, when Rome enforces this tradition it’s seen by Orthodox on here as a supression of freedom.

In your response it seems you did not answer the question.

 

[Madaglan]

And yet, when Rome enforces this tradition it’s seen by Orthodox on here as a supression of freedom.

I haven’t seen this.

Perhaps it’s the suppression of the freedom to discuss?

 

[jam070406]

In your response it seems you did not answer the question.

I don’t know. How many?

 

[jam070406]

I haven’t seen this.

Perhaps it’s the suppression of the freedom to discuss?

When an Orthodox Bishop enforces the tradition he is a noble hero.
When a Pope enforces the tratdition he is an evil tyrant.
Is that how it is?
What is meant by the Pope not allowing Catholics to have freedom?