• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Sacred Heart devotion and charges of Nestorianism

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
Just to add one footnote to the above that illustrates the problem with unending Catholic theological development:

Pope Benedict XVI, who is seen as a beacon of Catholic orthodoxy by traditional Catholics in our time, is an outspoken devotee of Fr. Teilard de Chardin and his theology. Teilard believed the Catholic Faith is progressing and evolving towards an "omega point", and that man and all Creation is evolving towards a "Cosmic Christ" consciousness. Pope JP2 believed this, and Francis believes likewise. This is the theology that allows them to believe all religions are simply outward expressions of "The Divine Oneness" (which is neo-Platonism). This is why Popes feel free to join in common prayer with all the world religions, to kiss the Koran, etc. This is the result of the false theology of unending development.

Will the Orthodox later be deemed defective and infantile for not following this later Catholic trend as well?
 
Last edited:

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
38
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Ok, I will go ahead and attempt a more serious response to this.
I appreciate the effort but your post shows many misunderstandings of what I’m saying and what the Catholic Church teaches about the church fathers and development of doctrine. It is becoming more apparent as time passes by that almost every major hangup you have with the CC is based on some strawman.

I imagine most Orthodox have no issue with Catholics participating in Adoration outside the Liturgy or worshipping the Sacred Heart since these are later Roman Catholic devotions, and Catholics are obviously free to do as they wish.
I wish this were the case but from past experience and this is confirmed by other Catholics who also interact with many EO across many platforms, this simply does not reflect reality even on this board. EO are hostile to even Eucharistic adoration and it’s very much not uncommon. The basic argument being that the Eucharist is meant for liturgy and not for anything else, like worship in Eucharistic adoration.

Having said that, we as Orthodox also adore Christ in the Eucharist during the Liturgy and worship the whole Christ. The issue is with your claim that without incorporating these later Catholic devotions, our Eucharistic theology has somehow become defective.
This is not my claim. My issue is that EO are hostile to these practices done by Latins when they shouldn’t be. That’s what makes their theology defective. The objection is the issue not the lack of incorporation.

When have I ever asked the EO to adopt these practices? Please quote me as justification for your claim about me. I have never.

Tell me, was the theology of the Church of Rome in the first millennium "defective and infantile"? Because that is the implication.
This is all based on your above strawman understanding of my position

And herein lies the problem with the Catholic concept of "development", which believes that the early Church and the Fathers held a "primitive" theology (which the scholastics later improved upon), and that each succeeding age of the Church and each living magisterium
improves and develops a superior theology and understanding of the Faith than that which came before.
Whether you want to admit this or not, the way the church in general understood the Holy Trinity, Hypostatic Union and it’s follow on implications on the Wills of Christ for example was significantly superior to the prior ages before those controversies.

It is absolutely ridiculous to consider as a possibility that the pre-Nicene church had a general understanding of the Trinity as did the post-Nicene and post-Constantinopolitan church after the Arian controversy. In fact this point is proven by the simple truth of how the ante-Nicene church authorities such as Origen were seen as orthodox in their theology of the 3 persons mostly, but later in the post-Nicene period their teachings even on the Trinity (outside of other controversial points) were seen with great suspicion and even heresy.

It’s the reason why Theodore of Mopsuestia and his works were left untouched by the Council of Ephesus and why Ibas’ letter was deemed okay by the council of Chalcedon but both later condemned by the church at the 5th council. it’s also why some of Origens teachings were also condemned at the 5th council yet had been left untouched and taught openly for centuries prior to the 5th council.

In the spirit of brutal honesty, there is no way that the early church before the councils understood any of the dogmas we now consider standard orthodoxy in the same way and depth as we do now. If this were not true, there would have never been an Arian, Monophysite, Nestorian nor Monothelite controversy as the church and everyone in it would have known that such teachings were false because everyone would have already been Trinitarian, Dyophysite and Dyothelite. Yet the opposite proved to be true; as these errors did not just the rise but even became a popular opinion amongst most of the churchmen in their day. No matter how much we are devout in our Christian Faith, it is simply ahistorical to believe that doctrine didn’t develop in a way that the church in subsequent centuries, based on the foundations of prior centuries, acquired a depth in understanding that those preceding centuries did not have.

The Church has always contained the fullness of truth even from her first moment. Yet, this was akin to the early church having a seed (the fullness of Faith in its most basic form) that contained all that would become a tree ( the later dogmas declared by the church). As time passes by it actually develops and grows into a tree. What was once implicit and implied became explicit and known. Where once in prior ages the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit were vaguely understood, allowing for all kinds of errors to flourish in this ambiguity and uncertainty without much objection, these same dogmas in later ages became solidified and precisely understood to the point where no room for error exitsted or if error did creep up it would be easily identified and rejected.

The tragedy being that this whole erroneous concept of development is the very root of the spread of modernism and the crisis within Catholicism.
Modernism has nothing to with development but has everything with rejection of prior teaching. It’s why modernists pretend that everything prior to the modern age is irrelevant and sometimes unbinding despite conciliar and papal definitions pinned with anathemas. Nevermind that every church has been infected with modernism to varying degrees and in different forms. As St Pius X said, modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.

The Orthodox Church believes that the Faith was understood the most clearly by the Apostles, who received it directly from Christ Himself and by direct revelation and illumination of the Holy Spirit. After them the holy Fathers received their Apostolic teaching and fleshed out the dogmas of the Faith through the Councils
That is literally doctrinal development but with a mystical and poetic spin put on it so as to hide what it really is.

t what has been handed down and understood "at all times, everywhere, and by all." (St. Vincent).
St Vincent more truly is understood in that saying by the analogy of the seed and the tree. The simple fact is the church as whole did not explicitly believe in dyothelitism until after the 6th council and anybody who thinks otherwise is honestly stuck in a romanticized version of church history that doesn’t bare out to the facts available to us. This romanticism does more harm for the Christian witness than good. The only way Church has always believed the same faith is implicit belief that by confessing Jesus Christ as the Son of God, to the best and limits of your understanding, you believe implicitly all the logical implications that follow from that confession.

Post-Schism Catholicism takes pains to constantly update and add to what has been revealed, as if it is in need of improvement. Before you know it you have a Popes who believe they are living oracles of the Faith, able to singularly declare dogmas about their own office, or radically alter the liturgy at will, etc.
This is simply a strawman not worth a reply
 
Last edited:

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
38
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Just to add one footnote to the above that illustrates the problem with unending Catholic theological development:

Pope Benedict XVI, who is seen as a beacon of Catholic orthodoxy by traditional Catholics
By conservatives, not by traditional Catholics.

in our time, is an outspoken devotee of Fr. Teilard de Chardin and his theology.
This is because it’s hard to shake off the influence of his youth. Remember Ratzinger was liberal in his youth and only later with age became a conservative openly admitting the errors of his youth.

Teilard believed the Catholic Faith is progressing and evolving towards an "omega point"...
You do know this man was censured by the church and received quite a few condemnations for his teachings and by as late as 1981 the Holy See reiterated its prior position on him from 1962. Until this very day the church has not changed its position of him and his teachings. He still enjoys popularity today because many elder clergy today were his students like Pope Benedict XVI and even Pope Francis during that era where he enjoyed popularity.

This is why Popes feel free to join in common prayer with all the world religions, to kiss the Koran, etc. This is the result of the false theology of unending development.
In the 4th century Pope St Marcellinus offered incense to pagan idols. I doubt this had anything to do with Fr. Teilard de Chardin as he wasn’t even born yet or to do with a false theology considering Rome was the most orthodox see around. Both acts, Kissing the Qur’an and offering incense to idols reflect only interior dispositions of those Saints at that time. Remember in St John Paul II’s day that act was seen as scandalous by most of the church and has never been repeated again.

Praying with other religious leaders may be problematic but isn’t necessarily heretical. It has always been disciplinary by the church so as to avoid the impression of syncretism. That’s by even praying with heretics and schismtics was banned but today even EO engage in this. Bare in mind that what happens at those prayer gatherings isn’t really properly praying with them but all praying at the same time according to their faith for some purpose of that gathering like religious (World peace, religious tolerance etc) I’m not a fan of these but I can’t either call it wrong.
 
Last edited:

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
Both acts, Kissing the Qur’an and offering incense to idols reflect only interior dispositions of those Saints at that time. Remember in St John Paul II’s day that act was seen as scandalous by most of the church and has never been repeated again.

Praying with other religious leaders may be problematic but isn’t necessarily heretical. It has always been disciplinary by the church so as to avoid the impression of syncretism. That’s by even praying with heretics and schismtics was banned but today even EO engage in this. Bare in mind that what happens at those prayer gatherings isn’t really properly praying with them but all praying at the same time according to their faith for some purpose of that gathering like religious (World peace, religious tolerance etc) I’m not a fan of these but I can’t either call it wrong.
You might wanna ask Mortalium Animos on what constitutes an act of apostasy according to the Roman magisterium itself and what not.
Interesting to see that your last line of defense is Jesuit casustry trying to pass itself off as humility.

Indeed.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
This is simply a strawman not worth a reply
None of your book-length, try-hard attacks on Christ's Church are worth a reply, yet here I am once again responding to your bs. :poop:
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
By conservatives, not by traditional Catholics.
Wrong. There are Trads out there who insist Benedict is still their pope for crying out loud.

You have also made it widely known here that you consider yourself in the "conservative" papal positivist camp who admires Benedict and defends him as orthodox. I even seem to recall you insisting that you found Francis' recent encyclical on par with St. Basil the Great. :ROFLMAO: If that was a true sentiment coming from you, then you are beyond help and I don't know why I'm even bothering.
This is because it’s hard to shake off the influence of his youth. Remember Ratzinger was liberal (i.e.heretic) in his youth and only later with age became a conservative openly admitting the errors of his youth.
Wrong again. Benedict hasnt changed a bit and is still a liberal, he just likes fancy vestments and high church liturgics. He praised Teilard while well into his papacy and was still writing strange nuevelle theology in his later books.
You do know this man was censured by the church and received quite a few condemnations for his teachings and by as late as 1981 the Holy See reiterated its prior position on him from 1962. Until this very day the church has not changed its position of him and his teachings. He still enjoys popularity today because many elder clergy today were his students like Pope Benedict XVI and even Pope Francis during that era where he enjoyed popularity.
Exactly.
Yet when I bring up certain Catholic devotions were once condemned you scoff because now your present day modernist clergy approves them? Your positions are all over the place and totally inconsistent.
In one post you'll praise the current pope and Vatican as perfectly orthodox, yet in other posts you will freely admit they aren't orthodox. All the while still insisting the East needs communion with modernist Rome in order to be orthodox (lol). The mental pretzels required to be a papalist lawyer must be truly exhausting, I must say.
In the 4th century Pope St Marcellinus offered incense to pagan idols. I doubt this had anything to do with Fr. Teilard de Chardin as he wasn’t even born yet or to do with a false theology considering Rome was the most orthodox see around. Both acts, Kissing the Qur’an and offering incense to idols reflect only interior dispositions of those Saints at that time. Remember in St John Paul II’s day that act was seen as scandalous by most of the church and has never been repeated again.

Praying with other religious leaders may be problematic but isn’t necessarily heretical. It has always been disciplinary by the church so as to avoid the impression of syncretism. That’s by even praying with heretics and schismtics was banned but today even EO engage in this. Bare in mind that what happens at those prayer gatherings isn’t really properly praying with them but all praying at the same time according to their faith for some purpose of that gathering like religious (World peace, religious tolerance etc) I’m not a fan of these but I can’t either call it wrong.
This is textbook papal sophistry.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
What's typical is your utter lack of self-awareness. You come here for years on end to attack our Faith and tradition, while at the same time unironically complaining that Orthodox are "mean" and "anti-Western". You do the very things you accuse us of doing. Just saying.

Again, we are not "anti-West", we are anti-heresy. And I'm sure you would say the same if I called you "anti-East"
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,151
Reaction score
83
Points
48
Location
wilderness
In all fairness to Wandile. Years ago the heart was considered to be the center point of consciousness.
Through science and development has changed that way of thinking.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
In all fairness to Wandile. Years ago the heart was considered to be the center point of consciousness.
Through science and development has changed that way of thinking.
Orthodox fathers believe that as well, and that's not why we object to it. It has everything to do with the source of the devotion originating from the sentimental locutions of Catholic nuns.

If you want a perfect example of the problem with these type of messages of Catholic mystics and visionaries, just look at the conflicting locutions of St. Brigid of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena, who both received "divine visitations", yet each received opposite confirming messages concerning the Immaculate Conception doctrine.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
38
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Wrong. There are Trads out there who insist Benedict is still their pope for crying out loud.
Most tradconsider the German contrastive contingent (Ratzinger, Muller etc) as heretics or at least suspect and the most favorable they view Benedict as is a traitor. Just busy any trad blog or site and your will see this in the first two comments of any comments section

You have also made it widely known here that you consider yourself in the "conservative" papal positivist camp who admires Benedict and defends him as orthodox
I am catholic. Conservative doesn’t accurately describe because the conservative camp has a lot of issues that don’t sit well with me while eat the same time I’m not papal positivist as I have no delusions of what the papacy is or it’s limits (That popes can err and even be heretics). Such ideas are almost unthinkable to most Catholics.

Stop trying to box me for your convenience of argument. All it results in is strawman after strawman.

I even seem to recall you insisting that you found Francis' recent encyclical on par with St. Basil the Great. :ROFLMAO: If that was a true sentiment coming from you, then you are beyond help and I don't know why I'm even bothering.
You haven’t read the encyclical have you?

Wrong again. Benedict hasnt changed a bit and is still a liberal, he just likes fancy vestments and high church liturgics. He praised Teilard while well into his papacy and was still writing strange nuevelle theology in his later books.
You need to read more and stop being so arrogant as you only expose your ignorance. It is better for the fool to not open his mouth as then people could still consider him wise. Once he talks, all doubt is removed. You should consider these words.

Ratzinger has written at length about the errors of his youth and he has admitted openly the failures of ideas he once championed prior to and at Vatican II as a periti. Like i said in my other posts he hasn’t completely shaken off the influence o Fr. Teilard de Chardin and his theology.

Exactly.
Yet when I bring up certain Catholic devotions were once condemned you scoff because now your present day modernist clergy approves them?
Those devotions were all approved in the Tridentine era and even had papal support before the Tridentine era You’re embarrassing yourself

In 1353 Pope Innocent VI instituted a Mass honoring the mystery of the Sacred Heart. In 1693 the Holy See imparted indulgences to the Confraternities of the Sacred Heart. In 1765 Rome granted a feast with a Mass and Office of its own. In 1856, at the urgent entreaties of the French bishops, Pope Pius IX extended the feast to the Latin Church under the rite of double major. In 1889 it was raised by the Latin Church to the double rite of first class. Pius XII wrote a shooo encyclical dedicated to the devotion. Educate yourself Brother.

Your positions are all over the place and totally inconsistent.
Simply saying this doesn’t make it so. I guess you say it to make you feel better because this argument isn’t going so well for you. I’ve been speaking with you long enough to know that when you start saying things like this that you have no argument of substance left and begin a descent into ad hominem attacks. Rest.


In one post you'll praise the current pope and Vatican as perfectly orthodox
I have never praised the current Vatican as perfectly orthodox as it is has liberals and heretics of all kinds that aren’t in short supply. I have granted that they have never officially taught as biding doctrine, anything wrong (Mainly due to the pushback from certain quarters of the church).

But more importantly why is this being discussed when this thread is about the sacred heart devotion? My words above ring true again as an assessment of you argumentative patterns

, yet in other posts you will freely admit they aren't orthodox.


All the while still insisting the East needs communion with modernist Rome in order to be orthodox (lol).
Even during the Arian and Monothelite crises where most of the church were heretics, being a member of the church was still necessary for salvation. The state of the church does not diminish Her necessity. Rest.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
38
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Orthodox fathers believe that as well, and that's not why we object to it. It has everything to do with the source of the devotion originating from the sentimental locutions of Catholic nuns.
Their is rich coming from you. Remember how the Eastern Orthodox dogmatized a teaching based off the experiences of monks who claimed to see divine light based on certain practices which include breathing a certain way. This is literally private revelation becoming dogma in Eastern Orthodoxy.

If you want a perfect example of the problem with these type of messages of Catholic mystics and visionaries, just look at the conflicting locutions of St. Brigid of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena, who both received "divine visitations", yet each received opposite confirming messages concerning the Immaculate Conception doctrine.

Regarding this matter, Pope Benedict XIV succinctly dealt with this:

“There is also a revelation attributed to S. Catherine of Sienna, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, and which is mentioned by S. Antoninus. But as there is no trace of that revelation among the visions and revelations of S. Catherine, collected by the Blessed Raymund of Capua, there arises no slight suspicion, that this has been added to them, and is therefore to be accounted apocryphal, as is shown at length by Cardinal Gotti, and Martin del Rio.”

Even today this revelation is not found in any works which serve as collections of all her visions.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
38
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
What's typical is your utter lack of self-awareness. You come here for years on end to attack our Faith and tradition, while at the same time unironically complaining that Orthodox are "mean" and "anti-Western". You do the very things you accuse us of doing. Just saying.
I don’t hate anything about the east. I don’t even have problems with the Eastern Orthodox purely on the basis of it being Eastern. All my objections are theological. Nothing more. The Eastern Orthodox have a habit and disagreeing with things purely because it’s western and even some Eastern Orthodox are finally starting to call their own communion out on this.

Again, we are not "anti-West", we are anti-heresy. And I'm sure you would say the same if I called you "anti-East"
Your rallying cry was “better the turban of the sultan than the mitre” Your church once considered us heretics for our clergy not having beards like eastern clergy. Sometimes you guys even consider us wrong for using statues and realistic religious art. You guys have attacked our practice of Eucharistic adoration and even the Holy Rosary. You have called our liturgies wrong for not having an explciesis despite the Roman canon never having one. You have called us heretics for believing in filioque yet virtually all the Latin fathers and many eastern fathers teach it. We have been attacked for having pews and kneeling on Sunday’s. Our saints have been utterly disrespected and called lunatics far too often by your memebers and sometimes deceivers because their mystical experiences (like stigmata, visions etc) differed to those in the Byzantine east. This thread on its own is proof that what you said is just false.
 
Last edited:

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
I encourage everyone to read the article I posted.

Here it is again: https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.c...tern-church-and-their-role-in-orthodoxy-1992/

The Heart of Christ (1) is the Heart of the God-Man and thus worthy of adoration (2) represents the Infinite Love of Christ for each one of us, and (3) has been pierced by our sins, which is what Christ's Heart being pierced by the soldier's lance in the Gospel should bring us to meditate upon.

"The Gospel is St. John’s account of the piercing of Christ’s side and the Offertory is Ps. 68: 21:

My heart is broken with insults and sadness, and I looked for one who would share my grief, and there was no one: for one who would comfort me, and I found no one.

From these texts we can see that the theme and interpretation is clearly set out. Christ has done and suffered all things out of His love for mankind. The Offertory hints at another theme which is also woven throughout the texts, that of our ingratitude to Christ for all that He has done out of His great love."
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
Relax. Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church.
"Relax" he says as he returns once again to feverishly rage-post against the Orthodox, lol. Ever notice the timing? It's every time the heresies and scandals boil over around the Vatican so badly that serious RC's across the web lament in despair. I feel sorry for them, and I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. Many of them are finally realizing that Rome's heresies go back a millennia and are now at the threshold of entering the fullness of Christ's Church.

And yes, Christ's Church is the Catholic Church (i.e. the Orthodox Church), of which Rome is now a withered, diseased limb. I do believe many within the RC communion are close to us in spirit and Christ will have mercy on them. I pray He will also be merciful to those who in ignorance argue and proselytize against the Orthodox Faith. They know not what they do.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
38
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
"Relax" he says as he returns once again to feverishly rage-post against the Orthodox, lol. Ever notice the timing? It's every time the heresies and scandals boil over around the Vatican so badly that serious RC's across the web lament in despair. I feel sorry for them, and I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. Many of them are finally realizing that Rome's heresies go back a millennia and are now at the threshold of entering the fullness of Christ's Church.
What a dream LOL

And yes, Christ's Church is the Catholic Church (i.e. the Orthodox Church), of which Rome is now a withered, diseased limb.
This idea is heretical in your communion as it implies Rome is still a member (though in a terrible state) of your communion.

I do believe many within the RC communion are close to us in spirit and Christ will have mercy on them. I pray He will also be merciful to those who in ignorance argue and proselytize against the Orthodox Faith. They know not what they do.
The Catholic Church is the church of Jesus Christ. The only church that has never changed her name nor has anyone dared to strip this name from her since the beginning for Christ’s church is known by this name and this name alone. When you ask where the Catholic Church is everyone will point to Rome and those parishes in communion with her.

As one father (St Jerome??? IIRC) said; even the heretics and schismatics claim this name for themselves but when an inquirer asks where to find the nearest Catholic Church, even they will not point to their own churches but to the Catholic Church (Rome and those in communion with her).

“Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal... Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward.”
- St Ambrose of Milan
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
You need to read more and stop being so arrogant as you only expose your ignorance. It is better for the fool to not open his mouth as then people could still consider him wise. Once he talks, all doubt is removed.
It is mind-blowing how the irony of your words is truly lost on you. You have next to zero interest in reading anything written from an Orthodox perspective, yet you come to an Orthodox board again and again to preach to us what Orthodoxy is all about and what we believe.

You haven't sat down and sincerely read anything by any serious Orthodox theologian or spiritual writer in your life. You only read Catholic critiques of Orthodoxy and pass it off as your own. Go and seriously read some Staniloe, some Florovsky, or some works by our holy Elders on true vs false theology & spirituality. Read something by St. Sophrony of Essex, St. John of Kronstadt. Read our hagiography and witness the holiness of our saints and wonderworkers accross the centuries.

Even better, get yourself an Orthodox prayer book and start to read the morning and evening prayers and the prayers before Holy Communion, which were composed by our holy fathers (and yours). Do that and you will be truly educated about Orthodoxy and will start to be able to discern the difference between true Apolstolic Christian spirituality and false, deluded spirituality.

Many of us here have seriously and sincerely lived out both the Catholic and Orthodox faiths in our lifetimes and have sincerely read countless works by Catholic saints and theologians. You however have not sincerely and honestly explored one side of the equation, therefore until you do, keep tending to that beam in your eye brother.
You’re embarrassing yourself
Educate yourself Brother.
Right back at you, as I emphasized above.
I'm sorry, but being educated in my mind does not entail studying all the promulgations and pronouncements of medieval popes. That's more your thing .
Simply saying this doesn’t make it so. I guess you say it to make you feel better because this argument isn’t going so well for you. I’ve been speaking with you long enough to know that when you start saying things like this that you have no argument of substance left and begin a descent into ad hominem attacks. Rest.
Once again, you accuse me of doing the very things you yourself are doing. You've got nothing and are just spewing out strawmen all over the place.

Orthodoxy never dogmatized anything based on the "private revelations" of monks. The Church dogmatized what has always been Her theology, that of the Cappadocian fathers, and Her theology is always discerndd and expressed in a spirit of Apostolic sobriety, not in one of heightened emotion, sentiment, and ecstasy. Roman Catholic locutions manifest from a heightened emotional state, one which is feminine and sentimental in character. Read the fathers and then read Catherine of Siena and you will discern the clear departure in tone and spirituality.

You are choosing to spend your time here creating chapter length posts, then you get flustered when I don't take the time to address every single point.. That's a known strategy of papal lawyers: Overwhelm your opponent with volume of words and then accuse them of lacking the ability to respond. Sorry, I'm not going to sit here and waste my time taking part in your intellectual pissing contest.
 
Last edited:

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,315
Reaction score
192
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
"Relax" he says as he returns once again to feverishly rage-post against the Orthodox, lol. Ever notice the timing? It's every time the heresies and scandals boil over around the Vatican so badly that serious RC's across the web lament in despair.
Thats why it’s better to pray for him than to engage him. I barely like our own bishops, I can’t imagine what it’s like on that side of the fence. Honestly, Rome would be better off with Jude Law as Pope.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
Thats why it’s better to pray for him than to engage him. I barely like our own bishops, I can’t imagine what it’s like on that side of the fence. Honestly, Rome would be better off with Jude Law as Pope.
It's hard not to when he publicly calls me out as a blathering fool while simultaneously accusing me of engaging in ad hominem in the same breath. The irony is too much to bear. But point taken.
 

hecma925

Orthodox Taliban
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
20,889
Reaction score
720
Points
113
Age
160
Location
Wandering Fool
Thats why it’s better to pray for him than to engage him. I barely like our own bishops, I can’t imagine what it’s like on that side of the fence. Honestly, Rome would be better off with Jude Law as Pope.
He did have sex with Rachel Weisz, so I concur with that sentiment.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
“Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal... Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward.”
- St Ambrose of Milan
Also from St. Ambrose:

"Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell."

"It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? Was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles?.. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from St. Peter? No; but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.
"

- On the Incarnation
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,706
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Age
57
Location
USA
What I do not understand is that our differences are irreconcilable as things stand ( & probably always). Any kind of unity that might be pronounced would probably be a false ecumenism for all of us. I believe there is still a savings grace despite our differences but we cannot formally commune in this world.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
38
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Also from St. Ambrose:

"Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell."

"It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? Was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles?.. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from St. Peter? No; but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.
"

- On the Incarnation
Good thing catholics believe that a person cannot be separated from his confession. Hence it is the Catholic belief that Peter is the Rock because of his confession of faith but yes... strawman arguments need to strawman

As to the second paragraph he is speaking of Apostleship as there is not greater or lesser super apostle as there was no greater or lesser or super Bishop. A Bishop is a Bishop. Their ordination and consecration is the same hence he says “but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself." Paul, like Peter, was an apostle.
Here is more of St Ambrose :


"[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .' Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church[Matt. 16:18]?" St. Ambrose of , "The Faith," c. 379 A.D.



"They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.'" St. Ambrose of ("On Penance," 388 A.D.)

"It is to Peter that He says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church' (Matthew 16:18). Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal." St. Ambrose of , "Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David" c. 389 A.D.
 

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
Wandile is just whistling in the dark, thinking that pronouncing his utmost desires as facts again and again and again in an increasingly prideful tone somehow will magically make them translate into reality. He already called his pope a heretic, so it is basically just a question of time before he will break down with his "Roman Catholicism" label fraud further unfolding this year and in the future. The only thing blocking him will propably be the desire to not let us over here "triumph" in the face of all these debates spanning over years. He's already bargaining though. Only "not jumping ship" because he "has to be in communion with Rome" and propably framing the ensuing cognitive dissonance and coping as some sort of heroic martyrdom to himself.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
Wandile is just whistling in the dark, thinking that pronouncing his utmost desires as facts again and again and again in an increasingly prideful tone somehow will magically make them translate into reality. He already called his pope a heretic, so it is basically just a question of time before he will break down with his "Roman Catholicism" label fraud further unfolding this year and in the future. The only thing blocking him will propably be the desire to not let us over here "triumph" in the face of all these debates spanning over years. He's already bargaining though. Only "not jumping ship" because he "has to be in communion with Rome" and propably framing the ensuing cognitive dissonance and coping as some sort of heroic martyrdom to himself.
Any further replies to Wandile should not be done for his benefit, but for the benefit of any here who might be wavering in faith or might be troubled by his proselytizing.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
Good thing catholics believe that a person cannot be separated from his confession. Hence it is the Catholic belief that Peter is the Rock because of his confession of faith but yes... strawman arguments need to strawman

As to the second paragraph he is speaking of Apostleship as there is not greater or lesser super apostle as there was no greater or lesser or super Bishop. A Bishop is a Bishop. Their ordination and consecration is the same hence he says “but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself." Paul, like Peter, was an apostle.
Here is more of St Ambrose :


"[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .' Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church[Matt. 16:18]?" St. Ambrose of , "The Faith," c. 379 A.D.



"They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.'" St. Ambrose of ("On Penance," 388 A.D.)

"It is to Peter that He says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church' (Matthew 16:18). Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal." St. Ambrose of , "Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David" c. 389 A.D.
Again you go back to your Catholic Answers playbook and post isolated quotes about Peter's chair, pretending that they teach ultramontane papism. Read the whole letter. St. Ambrose was talking about the heretics lacking the keys for the binding and loosing of sins. The "chair" refers to the bishopric, not the pope. The whole context of his statement has absolutely nothing to do with the Novations being "out of communion with Rome", but about their being cut off from apostolic succession and their denial of the sacrament of confession:

"What fellowship, then, can they have with You, who receive not the keys of the kingdom of heaven, saying that they ought not to remit sins?

33. And this confession is indeed rightly made by them, for they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they
What fellowship, then, can they have with You, who receive not the keys of the kingdom of heaven, saying that they ought not to remit sins?

33. And this confession is indeed rightly made by them, for they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."


And if you want this to devolve into a quote war, we can do that all day.

“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops., nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.” ~(Cyprian's opening address to the Council of Carthage.

"Though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark to Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, “That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us” [John 17:21].
-
Pope St. Gregory the Great

"But if you think the whole church to be built by God upon that one Peter only, what would you say of John the son of thunder or each of the Apostles? Are we to venture to say that the gates of Hades do not prevail against Peter by a special privilege, but prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? What is said surely belongs to each and all of them, since all are ‘Peter’ and the ‘Rock,’ and the church of God has been built upon them all, and against none who are such do the gates of Hades prevail. Is it to Peter alone that the Lord gives the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this privilege, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ is common to the others, so also are all the preceding words addressed as it were to Peter"
- Origen on Matthew XII, 10

"He (Peter) has not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.”~Augustine, Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul.

But observe how Peter does everything with common consent; nothing imperiiously.” ~John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12

To all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says "As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you: " ~Cyprian, De Unitate 4.

For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose... when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself unsolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held a primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.” ~Cyprian, Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of heretics.

“… through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the church is founded upon the bishops and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this then is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church.”~Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI.
 

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
Only "not jumping ship" because he "has to be in communion with Rome" and propably framing the ensuing cognitive dissonance and coping as some sort of heroic martyrdom to himself.
That shame-fueled dynamic is in general not to be understated when dealing with this kind of obstinate schismatics and heretics. It in itself is a terrible misjudgement of the nature of spiritual warfare and the fruits thereof, revealing how deficient in grace the whole affair really is.

That way pride passes itself off as humility, rabulistics as nuance and self-revealing condescension as integrity. Wandile really is just a rebel in need to take down his arms, and in no way different from any apostate nihilist of our day and age in need to do the same, of whom there are many. The only problem is that while doing that, he takes a name for himself that is not his.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
That shame-fueled dynamic is in general not to be understated when dealing with this kind of obstinate schismatics and heretics. It in itself is a terrible misjudgement of the nature of spiritual warfare and the fruits thereof, revealing how deficient in grace the whole affair really is.

That way pride passes itself off as humility, rabulistics as nuance and self-revealing condescension as integrity. Wandile really is just a rebel in need to take down his arms, and in no way different from any apostate nihilist of our day and age in need to do the same, of whom there are many. The only problem is that while doing that, he takes a name for himself that is not his.
I don't want to keep making this out to be something personal towards Wandile any more than it needs to be. I've been prideful and arrogant in my responses as well.
 

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
I don't want to keep making this out to be something personal towards Wandile any more than it needs to be. I've been prideful and arrogant in my responses as well.
Stop the piety signalling, even if you think you are genuine. Pride and arrogance as a sin are not a problem, atleast not more than sin itself is a problem. Problems arise once you pass your sin off as a virtue, and thus pervert and invert the Divine order. It is at the core of the rebellion against God.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
Stop the piety signalling, even if you think you are genuine. Pride and arrogance as a sin are not a problem, atleast not more than sin itself is a problem. Problems arise once you pass your sin off as a virtue, and thus pervert and invert the Divine order. It is at the core of the rebellion against God.
"Piety signaling", I'll have to remember that one. I like it(y)
These debates do usually end up with mutual apologies over "tone", but we might actually be beyond that at this point. Enough is enough already.
 
Last edited:

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
"Piety signaling", I'll have to remember that one. I like it(y)
These debates do usually end up with mutual apologies over "tone", but we might actually be beyond that at this point. Enough is enough already.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make every thread about yourself. No offense.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make every thread about yourself. No offense.
Point taken and apologies for any displays of fake piety/humility on my part or of dominating the thread.
At the same time it might help if some other Orthodox persons besides me would come in and contribute something of substance to these debates. I often find myself the only one bothering to answer.
 
Last edited:

Stinky

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
359
Points
83
Location
North America
Point taken and apologies for any displays of fake piety/humility on my part or of dominating the thread.
At the same time it might help if some other Orthodox persons besides me would come in and contribute something of substance to these debates. I often find myself the only one bothering to answer.
I am learning here by following along so it's not a waste of time or effort. Its great when others jump in with substance to add dimension.
Wading through personal attacks on method or delivery ( strawman! Bargaining! Desperate!) becomes distracting though. That puts Debate as a study on stage rather than Truth. Maybe this is how it's done, like follow the debate rules and don't color outside the lines? Kindergarten debate 101? Debate for Dummies? But I'm just wet behind the ears and still speak baby talk so maybe it's all over my head. What do I know? Very little. I'm not an educated person. But maybe that's "piety signaling"! Hahaha! New phrase for the new year! Love it. The piety flag. Pouring another shot of Gin. Happy New year!
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,585
Reaction score
331
Points
83
At the same time it might help if some other Orthodox persons besides me would come in and contribute something of substance to these debates. I often find myself the only one bothering to answer.
I might not participate for a variety of reasons: I don't have anything to add, I think the OP/main person is a troll or discussing in bad faith, I don't think there's much to be gained, I'm just burnt out on fighting the same battle over and over.
 
Top