Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word

[bobzills]

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

Are not people believing someone who goes against the teaching of the Church on limbo?

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

It is going to depend on which version of the Baltimore catechism you are using. It is in several different versions. For example, in the new St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, official revised edition number 2, 1969-1962, Catholic Book publishing company, you will see on page 248, the following: “limbo: the place of rest where the souls of all the just remained until heaven was reopened after the death of Christ; the place where unbaptized infants go.” My understanding is that the teachings contained in the Baltimore catechism are part of the ordinary Magisterium of 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.

Well, then what about the Baltimore catechism. And is not the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei of Pope Pius VI, part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. And according to Father Joseph Le Blanc, in his 1947 article “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?, p. 167, this papal document Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei denounced the rejection of limbo and taught:
“(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.”

 

[bobzills]

how can I make the Sign of the Cross without being killed?:

Your question is basically irrelevant to the the topic of the thread as to why a Catholic may convert to E. Orthodoxy? But anyway, I have seen people make the sign of the cross in the traditional E. Orthodox fashion, and I have seen people make the sign of the cross in the later Latin fashion, and in neither case, did I see anyone get killed.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Hi Ghosty,

I see a continuity in the Dogmatic, Moral and Mystical Theology in the Orthodox Church which I honestly don’t see present in the modern American Catholic Church.

The modern American Catholic Church only represents 6% of the whole Catholic Church. You need to get out more.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Brother Ghosty is the last person to make this statement towards. He’s never hinted that Orthodoxy is “stagnant” in all the years I’ve known him.

Personally, I’ve also never charged the EOC with stagnancy. What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy in its claims that its doctrines have not developed (when in fact they have) while faulting the Catholic Church for espousing belief in development of doctrine.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

Would you please elaborate, at least for my edification?

God Bless You,

Volodka

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Madaglan:
Please explain to me why the Last Roman Emperor, Blessed Constantine XI was martyred while in Communion with Rome?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

The other three Patriarchs met in Jerusalem, wrote against the Council of Florence, and even called upon conciliar action.

Please explain to me why the Last Roman Emperor, Blessed Constantine XI, was martyred while in Communion with Rome?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

But you do not deny that there is disunity in Catholic belief? At least on the various points that I have mentioned, I don’t see any agreement among all Catholics. The question of what is and what is not a mortal sin is a very serious one, is it not. And you do admit that there are some Catholics who say that it was a mortal sin to vote for the Democrat Obama, whereas there is a Catholic priest, Father Greeley, who has said that it would be a mortal sin to vote for a Republican? And there are Catholic clergy who say that it would not be a sin to vote either way, if you do so in good conscience. In the Orthodox Church, it is my understanding, that there is not really a mortal sin, but it is a consideration of your whole life which is important, so could that be a point which draws a Catholic to Orthodoxy? And a Catholic may be drawn to Orthodoxy, because he may be confused by the conflicting teachings that he sees in Catholicism.
What about the teaching of Pope Pius VI on limbo? Should
Catholics disregard that teaching or not? What about the book of Father LeBlanc?

Bob,

I have heard that Fr. Ludwig Ott wrote a book on Catholic Dogmas that you might want to check out. That is, if you are really serious about learning the Faith and are not just looking to pick a fight.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Your question is basically irrelevant to the the topic of the thread as to why a Catholic may convert to E. Orthodoxy? But anyway, I have seen people make the sign of the cross in the traditional E. Orthodox fashion, and I have seen people make the sign of the cross in the later Latin fashion, and in neither case, did I see anyone get killed.

since when is it the “traditional EO fashion”?

Its simply the traditional Eastern fashion.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

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

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

NONE! It ain’t possible!

I need to institute Volodymyr’s Law, it is like Godwin’s Law except that the probability of a non-Catholic bringing up the Crusades, the “pedophile” scandal, and wymynpriests approaches 1 as the internet discussion adds more and more posts.

Godwin’s Law:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Your question is basically irrelevant to the the topic of the thread as to why a Catholic may convert to E. Orthodoxy? But anyway, I have seen people make the sign of the cross in the traditional E. Orthodox fashion, and I have seen people make the sign of the cross in the later Latin fashion, and in neither case, did I see anyone get killed.

He’s referring to the Old Believers in Russia who refused to make the Sign of the Cross the new way that almost all of the EO and Byzantine ECs do it today.

 

[Addai]

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

NONE! It ain’t possible!

I need to institute Volodymyr’s Law, it is like Godwin’s Law except that the probability of a non-Catholic bringing up the Crusades, the “pedophile” scandal, and wymynpriests approaches 1 as the internet discussion adds more and more posts.

Godwin’s Law:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Congrads about Godwin’s law that is one of my favorite internet references. Very handy when dealing with strawmen, hasty generalizations etc.

 

[mardukm]

Brother Marduk,

Would you please elaborate, at least for my edification?

God Bless You,

Volodka

Dear brother Volodomyr988,

I think you are referring to my comment about developments. From my Oriental perspective, the EOC has had several developments, some more pervasive than others.

1. The notion that filioque is condemnable. The Oriental Orthodox complaint is restricted for the most part to the addition of the phrase to the Creed. We don’t delve into the theological specifics as the EO have done, making elaborate arguments based on Essence and Energies and a whole slough of rhetoric based on Essence that really should not be argued about as it is a Mystery.
2. The proliferation of reasons to justify divorce and remarriage that was unknown in the Church of the first millenium (e.g., mental illness, capital crimes against the state, long-term imprisonment, etc.)
3. An ecclesiology which permits the laity to judge the teaching of its bishops and depose them.
4. An ecclesiology that divests head bishops of their proper jurisdiction.
5. A mindset that denies even the existence of the head bishop.
6. Practice of ascetic prayer has developed with a set of rules and postures. In my own Coptic Tradition, you will hear criticisms (some more strongly than others) that the Easterns have moved away from the simplicity of prayer evident in the early Fathers.
7. Disappearance of appreciation for Natural Law.
8. Disappearance or mollification of the doctrine of Atonement.
9. Development of the distinction of Essence & Energies to a degree that has caused some Orientals to charge that the Easterns have introduced another Person into the Trinity.
10. The idea that the principle of economy can be used to account for the grace that is lacking in an invalid baptism, divesting holy ministers of the divine and canonical obligation to baptize those who are in need of holy baptism.
11. The idea that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation can somehow replace the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism.

These are just a few that I could think of off the top of my head. I won’t judge whether or not these developments are legitimate. All I will say is that these developments exist. EO apologists should admit them (it might be a fruitless endeavor to hope that EO polemicists admit them and stop criticizing the CC for espousing the principle of development of doctrine).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Your question is basically irrelevant to the the topic of the thread as to why a Catholic may convert to E. Orthodoxy? But anyway, I have seen people make the sign of the cross in the traditional E. Orthodox fashion, and I have seen people make the sign of the cross in the later Latin fashion, and in neither case, did I see anyone get killed.

You claimed a disunity in the Catholic Church as a reason (primary?) that Catholics convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, because they allegedly are so unified.

How you make the Sign of the Cross is looked upon in Eastern Orthodoxy as such an important doctrine that if you do it wrong you may die. Especially in the traditional Slavic lands – like the Old Believers who fought with the Nikonians – two fingers or three. According to the Council of the Hundred Chapters:

If anyone should fail to give his blessing with two fingers, as Christ did, or should fail to make the sign of the cross with two fingers, may he be accursed. (Chapter 31)

 

[JMJ_coder]

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

It was an example of why the Pope must respect the authority of the Bishops as though the Pope has no real authority and only an ethereal ‘primacy of honor’ is not how the Church can operate.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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?

Perhaps because the Eastern Orthodox have determined that whatever Rome teaches and does is heretical by the mere fact that it is Rome teaching and doing.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Are not people believing someone who goes against the teaching of the Church on limbo?

No, because ‘limbo of the infants’ has never, ever, ever been part of the official teaching of the Church.

It is going to depend on which version of the Baltimore catechism you are using. It is in several different versions. For example, in the new St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, official revised edition number 2, 1969-1962, Catholic Book publishing company, you will see on page 248, the following: “limbo: the place of rest where the souls of all the just remained until heaven was reopened after the death of Christ; the place where unbaptized infants go.” My understanding is that the teachings contained in the Baltimore catechism are part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

What question number?

The Baltimore Catechism was a particular catechism that must be read according to the time and place that it was written - for American children between late 1800s through Vatican II.

Also, you must read the whole context – in my version it states that limbo, if it does exist, … that is the crux – if it does exist – that means that it might not exist.

Well, then what about the Baltimore catechism. And is not the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei of Pope Pius VI, part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. And according to Father Joseph Le Blanc, in his 1947 article “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?, p. 167, this papal document Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei denounced the rejection of limbo and taught:
“(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.”

Please note that in Auctorem Fidei that rejection of limbo (I’m still working on the secondary part of the translation) is not classified as heretical – which other propositions are, such as the Pope is merely the ministerial head of the Church.

 

[jam070406]

Perhaps because the Eastern Orthodox have determined that whatever Rome teaches and does is heretical by the mere fact that it is Rome teaching and doing.

Ever notice how ex-Catholics that leave for Eastern Orthodoxy display a Papal paranoia? I think it says alot about why they are truly drawn to Orthodoxy. This thread has digressed from the notion of Orthodoxy being more sublime to issues of the Pope. The true colors come out.

One Orthodox poster often (falsely) equates the Catholic Church to Protestantism. Yet Orthodox (at least ex-Catholic) and Protestants share a more central, common issue… disdain for the Papacy.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Ever notice how ex-Catholics that leave for Eastern Orthodoxy display a Papal paranoia? I think it says alot about why they are truly drawn to Orthodoxy. This thread has digressed from the notion of Orthodoxy being more sublime to issues of the Pope. The true colors come out.

One Orthodox poster often (falsely) equates the Catholic Church to Protestantism. Yet Orthodox (at least ex-Catholic) and Protestants share a more central, common issue… disdain for the Papacy.

Yes it does seem that the overwhelming majority of threads dealing with Orthodoxy and Catholicism eventually come around to a debate on the Papacy.

 

[samcarter14]

Ever notice how ex-Catholics that leave for Eastern Orthodoxy display a Papal paranoia? I think it says alot about why they are truly drawn to Orthodoxy. This thread has digressed from the notion of Orthodoxy being more sublime to issues of the Pope. The true colors come out.

One Orthodox poster often (falsely) equates the Catholic Church to Protestantism. Yet Orthodox (at least ex-Catholic) and Protestants share a more central, common issue… disdain for the Papacy.

As a Catholic who left for Orthodoxy (and is now returning), I can testify that the majority of other ex-Catholics I met were not going towards something they found in Orthodoxy–they were running away from something they didn’t like in Catholicism, whether that was the current state of the Catholic Church in America, the OF Mass, whatever.

 

[bpbasilphx]

As a Catholic who left for Orthodoxy (and is now returning), I can testify that the majority of other ex-Catholics I met were not going towards something they found in Orthodoxy–they were running away from something they didn’t like in Catholicism, whether that was the current state of the Catholic Church in America, the OF Mass, whatever.

**Too many Orthodox priests and faithful have noticed that fundamentalist or other conservative Protestants frequently convert to Orthodoxy not as being the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but as being the last bastion of cultural conservatism.

They frequently bring with them a fundamentalist mind-set, and often veer off into extremely conservative Orthodox parties.**