How does the Catholic Church see Orthodox positions?

[Serge]

Again, Fátima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone. One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

In fact there is a tiny, spontaneous revival of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church in Russia that feels frozen out exactly because the Roman authorities don't want to offend the Orthodox.

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

Of course apparitions outside of Orthodoxy have no official standing, positive or negative, in that church. (So you're not going to see their churches named after them, etc.)

Devotion to hearts isn't part of the Orthodox tradition - it's very 17th-century French - but 1) it's a metaphor, 2) as we can't separate Christ's humanity from his divinity àla Nestorianism proper, it seems valid and 3) IMO 'you worship a heart' is a Protestant jibe down there with 'you worship a piece a bread', 'you worship paintings' or 'you worship saints'.

As Rome in theory respects the integrity of the Eastern rites, they're not supposed to have those heart devotions. The reason you see Eastern Catholics doing them is they disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves.

 

[montalban]

Again, Fátima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone.

I don't know who you think has been saying otherwise. However when the Pope prays to the 'virgin' you can be assured that a large number of people will also do this. He did so May 13, 1982; when Pope John Paul II made his pilgrimage of thanksgiving to Fatima and made a public Act of Entrustment-Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Cova da Iria at Fatima. Maybe it's something all Catholics should ignore? Even if he declares it a directive from heaven?!?

Such as

"My child and My children, remember now, I have asked you to contact Pope John Paul II, and tell him he must rescind the treaty, the pact [Vatican-Moscow agreement] made with Russia; for only in that way shall you have a true peace." - Jesus, June 6, 1987

http://www.tldm.org/Directives/d07.htm

What is dangerous is that it is a 'suspect' revelation (given the reasons stated earlier)

One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

One can... A truism! What is being interpreted (again I direct you to the sites I've cited earlier) is that regardless of the fall of Communism Russia must still be 'dedicated' to the Sacred Heart of the Virgin; so in effect Catholics are seeking to dedicate Orthodox Russia to a suspect visitation.

The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

LOL! The Roman Church has always assured the Orthodox Church it wants accord. Whilst at the same time it does prosleytise to Russians and Orthodox everywhere. It is duplicitous of the RCC.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

You're kidding. Wow, if you want to completley ignore the post I stated earlier where-in it shows that Russia is not yet CATHOLIC, that's fine.

Here's another site http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/b007ht.htm which deals with the fact Russia is not yet CATHOLIC. Although it does restate the 'offical' ban on conversions.

Nikolai Trofimchuk must be rolling in his grave.

See also

http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/UzzellRussia.php

In fact there is a tiny, spontaneous revival of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church in Russia that feels frozen out exactly because the Roman authorities don't want to offend the Orthodox.

So what is this Catholic Church doing there? It itself is a result of Catholic 'missionary' work.

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

See the traditioncation site I've cited above in this post

Of course apparitions outside of Orthodoxy have no official standing, positive or negative, in that church. (So you're not going to see their churches named after them, etc.)

That's not true; as far as I know that Church acknowledges as genuine only those revelations given to it. My understanding of Orthodoxy being 'the Way' negates any attempts at reletivism you might desire with regards apparations.

Devotion to hearts isn't part of the Orthodox tradition - it's very 17th-century French - but 1) it's a metaphor, 2) as we can't separate Christ's humanity from his divinity àla Nestorianism proper, it seems valid and 3) IMO 'you worship a heart' is a Protestant jibe down there with 'you worship a piece a bread', 'you worship paintings' or 'you worship saints'.

As Rome in theory respects the integrity of the Eastern rites, they're not supposed to have those heart devotions. The reason you see Eastern Catholics doing them is they disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves.

Thanks for the fine apology. The 'sacred heart' cult continues. There are schools in the west named after it, etc. I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make because it's very much Catholic, eastern and western.



Look up "NewAdvent" under "s" and you'll see

Sacred Heart, Brothers of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Devotion to the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Missionary Sisters of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Missionaries of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Society of the -- Founded in Belgium
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Society of the -- Founded in France
Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Congregation of the

 

[montalban]

Just for the record, I accept it is not 'dogma'...
The Church takes Marian (and other) apparitions quite seriously, and only after great care and study deems a particular apparition as "worthy of belief." There are only a few apparitions of Mary that have been given this status. No Catholic is "bound" to believe in these Marian apparitions, but he is quite safe in doing so and most assuredly should believe, accepting those approved apparitions with the faith of a child!
http://www.fisheaters.com/apparitions.html

Shortly after Veronica finished reading the articles in the daily newspaper pertaining to the "demise" of communism in the Soviet Union, and the subsequent birth of the new Commonwealth of Independent States, Our Lady appeared in what Veronica perceived as a message expressed in desperation:
"Do not be deceived. Their father is the father of all liars: satan. Their master plan is in motion. Pray for the light. Minds are clouded. I repeat: it is a ruse. Wake up America or you will suffer much." - Our Lady, December 18, 1991
http://www.tldm.org/directives/d10.htm

The message also requires living the faith. Pope Pius XII, who knew the Fatima message well and was devoted to it, called Fatima the "reaffirmation of the Gospels." He said: "The time for doubting Fatima is past. Now is the time for action."

The Fatima message, properly interpreted, places Jesus in the holy Eucharist as central to our religious practices. Fatima is essentially eucharistic reparation, offered primarily through the sacrifice of the Mass, for the glory of God and the conversion of sinners. But "eucharistic reparation" includes other forms of devotion to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, namely, visits to the Blessed Sacrament and all forms of eucharistic adoration, such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Holy Hours, Night Vigils, etc.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0088.html

A great site giving regular updates on the conversion of Russia is at
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cr/toccr.asp

Which states as one of her predictions...
the emergence of Russia as a world power which would "spread its errors (including Communism) throughout the world ... raising up wars and persecutions against the Church";
http://www.fatima.org/whyfatima.htm
So 'communism' is but one of Russia's errors; Orthodoxy the other?

"... the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima in St. Petersburg which was financed by the Fatima Family Apostolate represents the beginning of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Russia. With that eventual triumph will come conversion."
http://www.fatimafamily.org/ruconv.html

 

[Serge]

Shortly after Veronica finished reading the articles in the daily newspaper pertaining to the "demise" of communism in the Soviet Union...

Veronica as in the late Veronica Lueken? If so, know that the Bayside apparition/devotion was rejected by the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago.

 

[montalban]

Veronica as in the late Veronica Leuken? If so, know that the Bayside apparition/devotion was rejected by the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago.

Firstly, I don't think that any of these visions is from Mary. But the 'source' of them has one thing on mind; the attack on Orthodox Russia.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post re Fatima and the attack on Russia

I should have, however noted that her apiritions are not recognised. Thanks for pointing that out.
A number of sites I will now cite to refer to that, viz http://www.catholicreason.com/shtml/bayside.shtml
and http://www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false08.htm
This last site has a good list of reasons why Veronica's messages are suspect. Interestingly one of these revolves around the as yet un-dogmatic 'Mediatrix' role of Mary - which some Catholics are pushing forward

 

[Serge]

'Mediatrix' role of Mary

The theotokion in the Orthodox prayers after Communion:

O protectress of Christian that cannot be put to shame, O unfailing mediatrix before the creator, do not despise the prayerful voices of sinners, but in thy goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to thee: Inspire us to prayer, and hasten to hear our supplication. O Mother of God, intercede always in behalf of those who honour thee.

 

[Timos]

I've been at work all day, and I haven't read all the responses but, Montalban:

The Catholic church is free to interpret the Virgin Mary's words as it pleases. Does that mean just because the Catholic church says it and just because this apparition occured in a Catholic country, then the words of the Theotokos are to be interpreted in a Catholic way?

Not necessarily. The websites you quoted were Catholic sources so of course they will say that virgin Mary mean that Russia should become Catholic. In our point of view, perhaps the Panagia was really referring to the fall of communism being replaced by freedom of (Orthodox and truly "catholic") worship?

As for the sacred heart, it may not be as popular in the East, but neither is devotion to the "Protection of the Mother of God" or the Veil of the Theotokos in the West. I would think that the Virgin Mary has chosen different ways in which to show herself to the West versus the East, in the manner in which each society woudl understand and accept her message. Please do not refute me by saying that "then in that case, people in India have had apparitions of the BVM because she is one of the many forms of Vishnu." Thats complete bs.

Also in Orthodoxy, Virgin Mary is often likened to the " mystical lamp stand" "the fiery throne" "the fiery bush" such a metaphor such as "sacred heart."

 

[montalban]

The theotokion in the Orthodox prayers after Communion:

O protectress of Christian that cannot be put to shame, O unfailing mediatrix before the creator, do not despise the prayerful voices of sinners, but in thy goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to thee: Inspire us to prayer, and hasten to hear our supplication. O Mother of God, intercede always in behalf of those who honour thee.

Several things to say...
I am interested in open debate. To this I find you snipping away in attempts to point score by selectively addressing only those things you think you can win out on.

Thus you resort to truisms, and half-truths.

Let's spell this out.

Veronica Lueken claims that Mary is a mediatrix more akin to a co-redemptress/redemptrix. The anti-Veronica Lueken site I cited states that this is 'distorted'. I agree, it is. You seem confused as to whether it is or not, because you quote the Orthodox stance on her being a 'mediator' which I would imagine the Catholic Church has no problem with. However my point that groups of Catholics are pushing for a 'co-redemptrix' stance on Mary remains untrue, so you citing the Orthodox calling on Mary to mediate is at best an attempt at distraction, for Catholics 'in general' and Orthodox agree that she mediates. Unless you want to turn around now and defend Veronica Lueken's interpretation; you seem confused at what it is you're trying to attack.

If however you can show that the Orthodox stance is as equally 'distorted' then please post something.

Second you again are intent on ignoring the large body of my posts and thus you seem only wishing to point score when you think you can make a mark.

I can't compel you to engage in honest debate, but ignoring the large volume of works from Catholics determined to attack Orthodox Russia is not very good.

Such is your wish to provide apologies for the Catholic Church you now cite Orthodox stances in agreement with Catholics on the nature of Mary that are somehow meant to refute someone such as Veronica Lueken, whom you seem to disagree with.

 

[montalban]

I've been at work all day, and I haven't read all the responses but, Montalban:

The Catholic church is free to interpret the Virgin Mary's words as it pleases. Does that mean just because the Catholic church says it and just because this apparition occured in a Catholic country, then the words of the Theotokos are to be interpreted in a Catholic way?

Of course Catholics are free to interpret the appearence of this spectre (because it's not Mary) anyway they want. And I'm free to point out that
i) in the Orthodox context, the visitations are suspect
a)RCC has to invent a new category to explain why she visited kids "gratiae gratis datae" )
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx
b) they gave false predictions (such as when the war would end)
and
ii) they should serve as a wake-up call to Orthodox who believe Catholics simply want to 'restore' the Catholic Church in Russia.

Not necessarily. The websites you quoted were Catholic sources so of course they will say that virgin Mary mean that Russia should become Catholic. In our point of view, perhaps the Panagia was really referring to the fall of communism being replaced by freedom of (Orthodox and truly "catholic") worship?

You seem to have partly understood those web-sites. Yes, they seek Russia to become Catholic. What you've missed is that this is a continual mission DESPITE the fall of Communism. The 'defence of the Church against godless Communism' was an excuse that they can't continue to use. It's like taking the cause bellum away, and one side still wants to fight.

As for the sacred heart, it may not be as popular in the East, but neither is devotion to the "Protection of the Mother of God" or the Veil of the Theotokos in the West. I would think that the Virgin Mary has chosen different ways in which to show herself to the West versus the East, in the manner in which each society woudl understand and accept her message. Please do not refute me by saying that "then in that case, people in India have had apparitions of the BVM because she is one of the many forms of Vishnu." Thats complete bs.

You've correctly argued against yourself, by showing the exact type of relativist argument that can be used vis a vie the Hindus. Let's expand this and say Jesus decided to 'appear' anyway He wished to the Hopi Indians, the Australian Aborigines and the Ainu of Japan.

You either believe that the Orthodox Church ios the Church or not. If you think Jesus established one church and then undermined his own words by popping up all over the world in different manifestations (and He'd be more likely to, than Mary), then that's up to you.
As to what Orthodox believe...
Speaking for the "fanatics," certainly no traditionalist Orthodox believer has ever disputed the fact that the Roman Catholic Church professes to be Christian. We simply believe that it has an errant Trinitarian doctrine, an un-Orthodox Christology (e.g., the theology of the "Sacred Heart"), an incorrect Mariology, and a faulty ecclesiology. We believe that it is separated from our Church, has lost Grace, and is outside the sphere of Orthodoxy, the only place where "Sister Churches" can possibly exist. Since Roman Catholics are without the Grace of Orthodoxy, not only their baptisms, but all of their sacraments are invalid within the Orthodox Church. It is for this reason, and not for "pastoral considerations," that the Great Church has consistently received Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy by Baptism. Political ecumenism, not the correction of its errors by Rome, and this divisive lie alone, accounts for any change in the current practices of the Å’cumenical Patriarchate.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/maximos_reply.aspx

And saying it's not 'popular' in the east is an unders-statement.

Also in Orthodoxy, Virgin Mary is often likened to the " mystical lamp stand" "the fiery throne" "the fiery bush" such a metaphor such as "sacred heart."

Maybe you need to brush up on what a Metaphor is.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor)

If I say "Mary is like a mystical lamp stand" that is a figure of speech. If I say that prayers should be committed to Mary's big toe, then that's a command to dedicate prayers to a part of Mary; not what Mary represents - and if you can find Orthodox praying to a 'mystical lamp stand' let me know some citations.

I hope you don't want to argue that the "Body and Blood of Christ" in the Eucharist is a metaphor.

 

[Timos]

I'm going to bed now cuz its late but as for the metaphor, ur right I do need to brush up on it. I meant a "type" of BV Mary.

In the Akathist Hymn, it refers a lot in the first couple of stanzas (after "To the theotokos, when the melody changes to "most Holy Th. save us!) to the mystical lamp stand. It's not a prayer TO the lamp stand. The Hymn as you prolly know is a hymn TO the Panagia and refers to representation from the OT etc.

I'll have to get back at the other points later but you do raise some very good ones @ that.

 

[Arystarcus]

I can't compel you to engage in honest debate, but ignoring the large volume of works from Catholics determined to attack Orthodox Russia is not very good.

I checked some of the links which you had posted as having represented Catholic thought on "attacking" Orthodox Russia were either from fringe "traditionalist" Catholic sites (which dislike the Catholic Church as much as you seem to), or from sites of some far out, unapproved apparitions - neither of which would represent the official stance of the Catholic Church, or even the majority of Catholics.

I wondered how this would have happened as you said:

I'm ex-Catholic as a number here seem to be.

So, were you unaware of these facts before you posted the links?

In your time in the Catholic Church, had you ever heard from your priest to convert "them schismatic Orthodox" and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

Personally, I doubt it.

Seeing as how the majority of your posts have been aimed against the Catholic church I can't help but wonder if perhaps you are just harboring some negativity and "convert baggage" - meaning once one has converted they must prove the truth of their newly found faith by criticizing their previous affiliations.

Let me take a quote from a post of BrotherAidan, which is from earlier in the thread and substitute "Carl Carlton" with your user name, "montalban" and "protestant" with "Catholic".

BTW, I heard Clark Carlton montalban speak last year; he's been a convert along time and still seems bitter toward his protestant catholic upbringing. Kind of sad - would have thought he would have found some healing by this point.

 

[BrotherAidan]

Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.

Montalban
thank you for your edifying and enlightening response

 

[montalban]

I checked some of the links which you had posted as having represented Catholic thought on "attacking" Orthodox Russia were either from fringe "traditionalist" Catholic sites (which dislike the Catholic Church as much as you seem to), or from sites of some far out, unapproved apparitions - neither of which would represent the official stance of the Catholic Church, or even the majority of Catholics.

I have already noted that there's a difference between the 'official' words of peace of the RCC and it's actions. IF you want to cite something from the Catholic Church with regards to the discontinuance of the 'mission' to convert Russia, you're free to do so.

Which 'fringe' site was wrong about Mary calling for the conversion of Russia? Are you saying that the first Fatima shrine in Russia (http://www.fatimafamily.org/dedication.html) didn't happen?

I wondered how this would have happened as you said:

Ah, the hidden agenda Yes, you've hit upon the 'If he's ex-Catholic he must have an axe to grind'

So, were you unaware of these facts before you posted the links?

I've added corrections where needs be. You've missed them?

In your time in the Catholic Church, had you ever heard from your priest to convert "them schismatic Orthodox" and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

I was Catholic a long long time ago - sort of undermines your axe to grind theory, as I've subsequently explored Islam, Baha'i etc; this must also mean taht I can't comment on them either, hey?

Seeing as how the majority of your posts have been aimed against the Catholic church I can't help but wonder if perhaps you are just harboring some negativity and "convert baggage" - meaning once one has converted they must prove the truth of their newly found faith by criticizing their previous affiliations.

Let me take a quote from a post of BrotherAidan, which is from earlier in the thread and substitute "Carl Carlton" with your user name, "montalban" and "protestant" with "Catholic".

Given that the 'substance' of your rebuttal is nothing but to cast innuendo I look forward to an actual substantive discussion where you take a particular comment made (say from one of my 'fringe' citations and discuss it)

If you want to discuss the Fatima spectre at all, such as her false prediction about the end of WWI, please do so. But alas substance is missing from your posts.

 

[montalban]

Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.

Montalban
thank you for your edifying and enlightening response

No problems

 

[montalban]

Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.

Montalban
thank you for your edifying and enlightening response

So far you're number three in the 'person has grudge, so what would you expect' school-of-debate

Yours being the funniest given Carlton Clark is an ex-Protestant so his 'grudge' against the RCC is not the same as that claimed against me for being ex-Catholic.

 

[Arystarcus]

I have already noted that there's a difference between the 'official' words of peace of the RCC and it's actions. IF you want to cite something from the Catholic Church with regards to the discontinuance of the 'mission' to convert Russia, you're free to do so.

"the young fogey" has done this already - see below:

The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

There ya go. 8)

Which 'fringe' site was wrong about Mary calling for the conversion of Russia? Are you saying that the first Fatima shrine in Russia (http://www.fatimafamily.org/dedication.html) didn't happen?

The sites in questions are:

http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cr/toccr.asp

http://www.fatima.org/whyfatima.htm

http://www.fatimapriest.com/faq02.html

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/b007ht.htm

The first three links are tied to Fr. Nicholas Gruner, who as "the young fogey" said:

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

Ah, the hidden agenda Yes, you've hit upon the 'If he's ex-Catholic he must have an axe to grind'

I did not state it as if it were fact, what I said was:

I can't help but wonder...

I think you were reading something into my comment which was not there.

So, maybe I just struck some nerve and you felt convicted.

I was Catholic a long long time ago - sort of undermines your axe to grind theory, as I've subsequently explored Islam, Baha'i etc; this must also mean that I can't comment on them either, hey?

No, it does not undermine.

The fact is you were Catholic, you only "explored" the rest.

At one time, I was a protestant, and I researched all sorts of things before I became Orthodox, but that does not make me a Lutheran, or a Mennonite, or a Mormon - does it?

Feel free to comment on your explorations all you like, I might learn something.

I've added corrections where needs be. You've missed them?

No, I think you missed them, as the links which I commented on above are still in your posts. ;D

Given that the 'substance' of your rebuttal is nothing but to cast innuendo I look forward to an actual substantive discussion where you take a particular comment made (say from one of my 'fringe' citations and discuss it)

If you want to discuss the Fatima spectre at all, such as her false prediction about the end of WWI, please do so. But alas substance is missing from your posts.

The above looks like a case of "substance" use abuse.

To be honest with you, I am not concerned with Fatima in the least, nor any of the apparition's "false predictions".

Once again, I defer to "the young fogey". I have italicized and used bold to highlight the portions of the post which should inform you as to why I am unconcerned with Fatima.

Again, Fátima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone. One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

 

[montalban]

The sites in question are...

You missed the point. I asked you which of these is incorrect in saying that the the dedication has now ceased owing to the fall of communism

I did not state it as if it were fact, what I said was:
I can't help but wonder...

I know you implied it, hence I stated innuendo.

The above looks like a case of "substance" use abuse.

Thanks for another implied insult ÂÂ

To be honest with you, I am not concerned with Fatima in the least, nor any of the apparition's "false predictions".

You are indeed selective on what you want to comment on; hence missing questions etc.

Once again, I defer to "the young fogey". I have italicized and used bold to highlight the portions of the post which should inform you as to why I am unconcerned with Fatima.

Once again I reiterate that I've said it's not dogma (see post #42). But for someone not 'interested' in debating Fatima...

 

[Arystarcus]

Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.

BrotherAiden,

In my opinion it does.

Apparently we just have different opinions, which is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Arystarcus]

Thanks for another implied insult

I was merely making light of your overuse of the word "substance", in an attempt to lighten the mood.

Apparently, the use of a "smiley face" did not help my point to come across.

Sigh. : :-\

Once again I reiterate that I've said it's not dogma (see post #42).

Then why dwell upon it?

But for someone not 'interested' in debating Fatima...

Are you implying something?

(Another joke) ;D

 

[montalban]

I was merely making light of your overuse of the word "substance", in an attempt to lighten the mood.

Apparently, the use of a "smiley face" did not help my point to come across.

Sigh.  :  :-\

Then why dwell upon it?

Why dwell upon it? Now that is funny. You're the one who repeated in an above post re: that it's not dogma and you've even underlined it bringing this to my attention, even though
a) I've not stated it is dogma
and
b) you seem to wish to keep posting that you're not really interested in it, but you keep replying on this issue. you need to make up your mind.

And I note you've still avoided the question re: which 'fringe' post is wrong with regards the conversion of Russia. I half expect you to re-enter this debate, make another attempt at point scoring, then say you're not really interested in the subject (again! )

 

[montalban]

Not dogma, but still...
"...by a decree dated 1 January 1996, it inscribed the commemoration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as obligatory in the universal Roman Calendar."
http://www.crc-internet.org/JP1/ch3.htm

Communism has fallen, but...
"Despite the claims of ignorant optimists, today's Russia is not converting and is far, far worse than it was in 1917"
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/russia.htm

 

[Timos]

Montalban, as for the "false dates" given in the apparitions, such things have occured in Orthodoxy. Many times the Theotokos has been credited for saving Constantinople from the barbarians. Thus the popular Akathist Hymn is chanted in honour of Her and the hymn "To You the Champion Leader" was written up.

However, in 1453, after an Akathist was chanted, the icon of the Theotokos fell from the hands of the people carrying it and a day(s) later, the City fell to the Turks.

So, because "The Theotokos let the City fall to the Turks" does that mean that us venerating the theotokos as "protectress and champion leader" wrong? Maybe we should stop chanting this Hymn, after all, its origins lie in the protection of the City.

 

[montalban]

Montalban, as for the "false dates" given in the apparitions, such things have occured in Orthodoxy. Many times the Theotokos has been credited for saving Constantinople from the barbarians. Thus the popular Akathist Hymn is chanted in honour of Her and the hymn "To You the Champion Leader" was written up.

However, in 1453, after an Akathist was chanted, the icon of the Theotokos fell from the hands of the people carrying it and a day(s) later, the City fell to the Turks.

So, because "The Theotokos let the City fall to the Turks" does that mean that us venerating the theotokos as "protectress and champion leader" wrong? Maybe we should stop chanting this Hymn, after all, its origins lie in the protection of the City.

That's a silly comparison. It's like saying that God has let us down because of some tragedy. Just because the people called upon Mary to intervene, and she didn't apparently, doesn't mean the same as a 'vision' appearing and saying something that wasn't true.

Look at the difference between me asking you to help, and you don't, to you telling me you'll help, and you don't.

One is an active act, a lie. The other is just me hoping for something.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Young Fogey,

That seems a nasty bit of Byzantinocentrism. As has been written here, yes, the Armenians do use them.

It's not, actually. I forget the exact details, but there are a couple of things involved. First of all, the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church believes that the meal that Jesus had the "last supper" at with his disciples was not the passover meal, as might seem to be the case in the synoptic gospels, where unleavened bread would have been used. Rather, we take the lead of the Gospel of John, which indicates that it was a fellowship meal. In this case, leavened bread would have been used. I've also seen it written elsewhere that it's important that the bread be leavened for a few reasons, some of which (I think) are that the wheat used in the bread has been changed by humans into something different. (That is, God's gift to us has been made into something different through our effort to be offered back to him:it's not just plain wheat.....or "partial" bread, which unleavened bread could be viewed as being. The same goes for the wine used at the Eucharist: we don't use grape juice, which is more or less the gift as we received it from God, but something changed from the original gift into something that we offer back to Him:wine.) I believe that the leaven is supposed to be important also in the sense that it represents, as it were, the resurrection of Christ.

As for the Immaculate Conception, both sides teach that Mary is immaculate. The difference is to do with how the East describes original sin, which is very hard to explain without making it seem like the Pelagian heresy so I'm not going to try. (Perhaps somebody with theological credentials can have a go at it.) One can fairly say that the RC definition, using Western concepts, isn't needed in the Orthodox theological system.

I'll take a crack at this
Not only is it not needed, it's simply wrong. The Immaculate Conception says that Mary was made free from all stain of original sin at the time of her conception. For the Orthodox, this makes her somehow "superhuman", and takes away her solidarity with the human race. For the fantastic thing about the Theotokos is that she chose, in cooperation with the grace of God, to be completely obedient to God in every way. It's a reminder to us that we are also able to choose this most excellent way, if we wish, just like the Mother of God, if we call on God to help us.

The Latin Church feels the need to dogmatize the Immaculate Conception because of the Great influence that St. Augustine had on the theology of the West. The later Western interpreters of Augustine, if not Augustine himself, seemed to believe that we inherit not just the results of Adam's sin (death), but also the guilt for his sin. So the West sees a need to somehow separate the Theotokos from this guilt. In the East, we acknowledge that all humanity shares the results of Adam's sin. (Each one of us is just a unique personal manifestation of the one human nature. We are all connected to each other, so if one member of the human race sins, we are all affected. Of course, if one member of the human race does good, we are all affected in this way too!) But we do not believe that we share the responsibility for the sin of Adam. Hence, the Theotokos was born a normal human being, just like every one of us. It is for this reason that I also believe that it is important to believe that Mary died. She shares in all the characteristics of fallen humanity, except that she did not sin herself. (There are some who believed that she did sin. We had a big discussion about this a few months ago. Personally, I don't think anyone should believe that she sinned.) You can believe that she was assumed to heaven after her death if you wish, but as far as I can remember, as Orthodox believers it is important for us to believe that she died first.

BTW, "immaculate" is a loaded term of Latin derivation. It refers indirectly to the "spot" of original sin, since immaculate more or less literally means "without a spot" or "mark". IMHO, we Orthodox really should refer to the Theotokos in English as "most pure" or something similar.

Mary's dying or not isn't doctrine on either side. The original story from the East, as shown in icons, says she did before being assumed body and soul into heaven.

Please see my rant above.

Rantfully yours,
Bobba-Jim

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Which seems to agree that the matter isn't defined to them. I've had the notion of two waiting rooms described to me by an Orthodox here as what Orthodoxy teaches, which I think is what Pravoslavbob means by not believing in a middle state. That nicely covers the practice of praying for the dead from that point of view.

Actually, I mean just what I wrote. There is no one dogmatic position that an Orthodox believer must hold regarding a middle state of some kind after death. You can believe in a waiting room if you want. You can believe in a number of things. But you are not obligated to believe anything at all about a middle state.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

As for Immaculate Conception, I don't believe exactly in the way Catholics do, unless the Orthodox church is misunderstanding it. After all, the Theotokos did appear in France to St. Bernadette Soubirous telling her she was the "Immaculate Conception".

Well, that's what people in the Latin Church have interpreted St. Bernadette's words to be, anyway. I have an amusing story about this. I used to have a priest who was an Anglican priest before his conversion to Orthodoxy. At his Anglican seminary, there was a wonderful old and very English professor who once said to his class that "saying that 'I am the Immaculate Conception' makes about as much sense as announcing that 'I am the diamond jubilee!'"

 

[Arystarcus]

Why dwell upon it? Now that is funny. You're the one who repeated in an above post re: that it's not dogma and you've even underlined it bringing this to my attention, even though
a) I've not stated it is dogma
and
b) you seem to wish to keep posting that you're not really interested in it, but you keep replying on this issue. you need to make up your mind.

Sigh. :-\

When I said, "Why dwell upon it", I meant Fatima as a whole, not whether or not it was dogma.

I really have no idea why an Orthodox Christian is concerned with a Catholic apparition, which is not considered dogmatic as it is a private revelation and does not need to believed by anyone.

That is why I said, "Why dwell upon it?"

It appears that you have missed my point, yet again.

And I note you've still avoided the question re: which 'fringe' post is wrong with regards the conversion of Russia.

I'm not avoiding anything. The post was not "fringe", only some of the groups who put out the websites which you have selectively quoted from.

Insofar as the conversion of Russia is concerned as "the young fogey" said,

One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

As young fogey's post says, one can interpret the conversion of Russia in different ways. Show me something from the Vatican, or at least a reputable reference from a respected group who is in communion with Rome which says that Russia must be converted to the Catholic faith.

That is all I am asking.

I half expect you to re-enter this debate, make another attempt at point scoring, then say you're not really interested in the subject (again! )

Point scoring? What on earth are you talking about, man? ???

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, as I am not trying to engage you in some kind of "apologetic debate".

Also, you have misquoted me (once again). I did not say I was "not really interested" in anything!

What I said was:

To be honest with you, I am not concerned with Fatima in the least, nor any of the apparition's "false predictions".

I'm not concerned with it because it is not dogma and nobody who is a member of the Catholic Church has to believe in any apparition, as they are of a private revelation.

Period.

I am beginning to wonder the benfit in replying to your posts as I have had to keep repeat myself (over and over again) and you persist in misconstruing the comments I have made.

:

 

[montalban]

Sigh. :-\

When I said, "Why dwell upon it", I meant Fatima as a whole, not whether or not it was dogma.

I really have no idea why an Orthodox Christian is concerned with a Catholic apparition, which is not considered dogmatic as it is a private revelation and does not need to believed by anyone.

I’ve already stated why. It is because this apparition is directing Catholics to think that Russia should be converted.

That is why I said, "Why dwell upon it?"

It appears that you have missed my point, yet again.

No, I’ve already stated several times I agree it is not dogma. We’re in agreement, but you’re determined to bring it up again and again.

I'm not avoiding anything. The post was not "fringe", only some of the groups who put out the websites which you have selectively quoted from.

Which of these quotes was incorrect?

Insofar as the conversion of Russia is concerned as "the young fogey" said,

As young fogey's post says, one can interpret the conversion of Russia in different ways. Show me something from the Vatican, or at least a reputable reference from a respected group who is in communion with Rome which says that Russia must be converted to the Catholic faith.

Again, I’ve already accepted that it can be interpreted in different ways.

That is all I am asking.
Point scoring? What on earth are you talking about, man? ???

I mean the fact you ignore my questions to you, continually repeat something we’re in agreement with, etc.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, as I am not trying to engage you in some kind of "apologetic debate".

You’re not engaging me in any kind of debate. Unless you think debate is to ignore a persons questions and to repeat statements such as these are ‘fringe’ cites (innuendo regards to their truth), or that as an ex-Catholic you can ‘publicly speculate’ as to my motives (innuendo), or that you can repeat ad infinitum that it’s not dogma to believe in Fatima… which as I’ve noted again and again I recognise, but have also added that the Pope, the leader of Catholics believes in it, and that shrines are being raised in honour of this spectre — and in Russia

Given you’re still going on with this style of discussion there’s not going to be any real progress on any issue. You might consider answering my questions.

 

[montalban]

Well, that's what people in the Latin Church have interpreted St. Bernadette's words to be, anyway.  I have an amusing story about this.  I used to have a priest who was an Anglican priest before his conversion to Orthodoxy.  At his Anglican seminary, there was a wonderful old and very English professor who once said to his class that "saying that 'I am the Immaculate Conception' makes about as much sense as announcing that 'I am the diamond jubilee!'"

I think it was Catherine of Sienna who argued against the Immaculate Conception; and she claimed to get visions from Mary too!

"The Immaculate Conception
Let's take the Immaculate Conception first. As you probably know, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared to be a dogma of the Church in 1854. Before that time, it was merely what we call a theolegoumenon (a theological opinion). Thus, before the Church solemnly defined it in 1854, Catholics were free to either believe in the Immaculate Conception or reject it. Indeed, even some of our greatest Catholic saints, such as Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux...had serious problems with the idea that she was conceived without original sin (although they believed she was personally sinless). Yet, despite this, there were also others in the Church, such as St. Bonaventure and Blessed Duns Scotus who championed the Immaculate Conception. So, the Immaculate Conception was a debated question in the Church for centuries."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

 

[montalban]

Let's do a summation.

Some Orthodox might think that the Fatima spectre is from God. Reasons to doubt this have been stated, including the visitations were to kids, they involve dedication to a part of a person, the prophecies were inaccurate and were directed to converting Russia etc.

One Catholic has entered this debate saying the sites I cited were 'fringe' Catholic sites. I asked what within these sites that I cited does he dispute? Silence.

I noted that belief in Fatima is not dogma. I also noted that the Pope visited it, continued to praise the message (post #60), and places dedicated to the spectre are being opened in Russia and its cult is spreading there. Despite the fall of communism the 'mission' to Russia continues. And yes I agree that the message may be viewed by 'some' as meaning a fight against Communism, but as just noted, the cult is spreading despite the fall of Communism. Russia is still the target by Catholics BECAUSE of this spectre's faulty warning.

Another Catholic has restated its not dogma. I accept this (still). It doesn't negate the points I just raised. And the question still remains unanswered. All I get is the evasive "I don't care about it, so why should you", to which I've already addressed in the points as to why Orthodox should be wary of putting faith in an aspiration from outside the church.

Innuendo has been raised; questions as to my motives, etc. as an ex-Catholic. Still the question remains unanswered (repeated in various posts, such as #52). Repeats of 'it's not dogma', and 'I don't care" go on now like a mantra. Innuendo about the sites themsevles remain; they're 'fringe' sites. Then why's the Catholic Church still pushing the Fatima visitations into Russia?

 

[Ntinos]

In regard to how the Fatima visions could be true about Russia and Catholicism, or if the children of the Fatima visions saw the same thing 'from their side'.

St. John of Kronstadt (+1908): “I foresee the restoration of a powerful Russia, still stronger and mightier than before. On the bones of these martyrs, remember, as on a strong foundation, will the new Russia we built - according to the old model; strong in her faith in Christ God and in the Holy Trinity! And there will be, in accordance with the covenant of the holy Prince Vladimir, a single Church! Russian people have ceased to understand what Rus’ is: it is the footstool of the Lord’s Throne! The Russian person must understand this and thank God that he is Russian”.

“The Church will remain unshaken to the end of the age, and a Monarch of Russia, if he remains faithful to the Orthodox Church, will be established on the Throne of Russia until the end of the age.”

 

[montalban]

In regard to how the Fatima visions could be true about Russia and Catholicism, or if the children of the Fatima visions saw the same thing 'from their side'.

St. John of Kronstadt (+1908): “I foresee the restoration of a powerful Russia, still stronger and mightier than before. On the bones of these martyrs, remember, as on a strong foundation, will the new Russia we built - according to the old model; strong in her faith in Christ God and in the Holy Trinity! And there will be, in accordance with the covenant of the holy Prince Vladimir, a single Church! Russian people have ceased to understand what Rus’ is: it is the footstool of the Lord’s Throne! The Russian person must understand this and thank God that he is Russian”.

“The Church will remain unshaken to the end of the age, and a Monarch of Russia, if he remains faithful to the Orthodox Church, will be established on the Throne of Russia until the end of the age.”

Go, Russia! Go!

 

[Ntinos]

You're referring to the Single Church thing, or the Czarist Russia part?

Heh, Czar Vladimir Putin ;D ;D

 

[armando]

Go, Russia! Go!

I hope you are kidding... Russia is one of the worst things ever happened to Europe.
The Soviet Union, now, is the worst thing ever happened to the world.

 

[DerekMK]

The Soviet Union, now, is the worst thing ever happened to the world.

I think Nazi Germany or even the Ottoman empire could give them a run for their money.

 

[Serge]

I think the bolshies had the Turks and the Nazis beat.

And Armando isn't being fair to Russia really - they didn't invent Communism.

 

[montalban]

I think Nazi Germany or even the Ottoman empire could give them a run for their money. ÂÂ

I agree.

Russia has a wonderful Orthodox tradition. They fought off Catholic Poland, Protestant Sweden, etc.

 

[DerekMK]

They fought off Catholic Poland

Definetly not one of the more Orthodox moments in Russian history. Being barbaric towards fellow Christians.

 

[montalban]

Definetly not one of the more Orthodox moments in Russian history.  Being barbaric towards fellow Christians.

You mean that they defended themselves against Catholic aggression? What about the Crusade of 1204, should Orthodox have fought back?

 

[MicahJohn]

Νεκτάριος, do tell me more about your avatar of Elder Joseph's chapel. Where is it, who was he, have you seen it?