Summing up

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,101
Reaction score
33
Points
48
Age
41
minasoliman said:
Alpha60 said:
Sharbel said:
The young fogey said:
Gorazd: Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage makes sense and is unchangeable.
I agree that it makes sense, but it has changed.  The Catholic Church has a long tradition of changing teachings and then, when the voices pointing them out turn too loud, turning the changes into dogmas.
The principle of the development of doctrine was further expressed as a tenet of the Roman Catholic Church by St. Henry Newman.  This was a serious error on his part, and if and when Rome and the Orthodox reunite, and I pray it is a matter of "when", we will need the Roman pontiff to issue an encyclical rejecting the principle of the development of doctrine in favor of the alternative idea, the Orthodox idea, of one ancient Apostolic faith, unchanging in doctrine; all that changes is the means by which we proclaim the Gospel in response to various heresies and confusions, to address the ever-changing spiritual diseases of humanity.
The way I have heard it explained, I don’t think development of doctrine necessarily contradicts unchanging dogma.  The principles seem sound, but their “development” lead to a different path.
+1  Having read the documents by Newman I don't think he meant to go any further in 'developing doctrine' than, say, St. Vincent.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
The young fogey said:
Pravoslavbob, your first guess is wrong: nobody in my Orthodox former parishes (there were two of them, one for many years) was particularly nasty. The current priest's wife/choirmistress at the second, longtime one will tell you I was noticeably depressed. My problem was and is with Orthodoxy, not with parish people. A religion that excludes Western Catholicism because of cultural chauvinism, a false accusation of heresy because of culture, is, I believe, nasty and narrow.

The true story in brief: ironically, what kept me nominally Orthodox for so/too long was I was attached to the longtime parish priest of the second place, a former/crypto-Catholic who grew up before Vatican II; he knew Orthodoxy's claim vs. Catholicism isn't true and wanted to come back but "my people need me" plus the pride that most Byzantine Catholics don't do the Byzantine Rite in its fullness like he could. He was my only real tie, so when he left, I did shortly afterwards. When he left, I didn't have to cover for him anymore, having to appear Orthodox in order to protect him from the Orthodox authorities. (He is now dead so that's no longer an issue.)

In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI removed all restrictions on the traditional Mass I usually go to (the other traditional Mass I go to, the Byzantine Liturgy, I attend once a month), and at the end of 2011 he implemented a reform/correction to the text of the modern English Mass so it is closer to its Latin original than before, better reflecting our teachings. I've been openly Catholic again since.

I did and do believe that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are really the same, which is what Catholicism teaches. We recognize your orders and Eucharist and we believe that doctrinally you are Catholicism as described by the first seven ecumenical councils. Because Orthodoxy hasn't had an eighth to proclaim anything anti-Catholic, unlike the Protestants' defined doctrines, we give Orthodox who aren't former Catholics the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean I go to your churches on Sunday expecting Communion; it means Catholicism and I believe reunion is extremely doable and we don't believe never-Catholic Orthodox are personally guilty of schism or heresy.

Because Catholicism gives never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt, I'm not trying to get individual conversions from them (we quietly accept those but they're not our main objective in approaching the Orthodox). I'm only trying to give them something to think about, answering questions about the Catholic Church, in the hope, I admit unlikely, that one day all your bishops will agree to join us.
I don't have time here to go into why your theology is wrong.  You didn't really address Dominika's point about the papacy anyway, so I'm not sure you would address any of the points I would care to make.  The Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church.  I truly hope and pray that Rome and Orthodoxy will be united again some day, even though I don't think it likely.  But with God, all things are possible.


To "sum up", despite your protests to the contrary, what you are doing here is proselytizing  Orthodox Christians with your own personal version of Roman Catholicism.  This is contrary to how your own Church says its people should relate to the Orthodox.  It baffles me no end that you seem to think that you have unique insights on Christian culture, ecumenical relations etc. to "share" with others.

The Orthodox certainly can be unnecessarily rude and even sectarian in outlook;  there is no need or even an excuse for this any longer in many parts of the world, since historical reasons that made these qualities understandable have passed their "best before" dates.  But this doesn't have much to do with the Orthodox rejection of erroneous Roman Catholic beliefs.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,198
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
53
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
That's okay if you think I'm wrong or didn't answer you well enough.

Your board, your church. So I can't post to discourage inquirers from leaving Catholicism. I respect you for not being relativists, taking your true-church claim seriously as we do ours, defending it. My posts' side info IDs me as Catholic; people can PM me with questions. I won't pester your people by starting PMs. My posts right now are about Western Rite Orthodoxy and aren't proselytism. I'm fascinated by what I think are alternative takes on Catholicism because on matters that are not doctrine, we can learn a thing or two from them (you).

The blessing of the Lord!
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,145
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Mor Ephrem said:
Dominika said:
The young fogey said:
I tried Orthodoxy.
Have you really tried? Have you embraced it? Lived it? Including, actually, above all, the Holy Sacraments?

So, what are you doing on an Orthodox forum?
Seeking attention.
Bingo!

The young fogey said:
Your board, your church. So I can't post to discourage inquirers from leaving Catholicism. I respect you for not being relativists, taking your true-church claim seriously as we do ours, defending it. My posts' side info IDs me as Catholic; people can PM me with questions. I won't pester your people by starting PMs. My posts right now are about Western Rite Orthodoxy and aren't proselytism. I'm fascinated by what I think are alternative takes on Catholicism because on matters that are not doctrine, we can learn a thing or two from them (you).
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
The young fogey said:
Because the church is indefectible and infallible (which Orthodoxy teaches about itself). Rome is still the apostolic faith as explained by Trent, for example, not a made-up faith from the 1500s that contradicts our teachings.
Now this is delicious irony.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Volnutt said:
Sharbel said:
Are they merely the pope's opinions when the sacramental life and discipline in the Church are changed, as in Argentina, Germany, Malta?
Care to expand a bit?
Amoris Laetitia and the Post-Modern Papacy of Pope Francis

Are the letters that Pope Francis writes affirming the interpretation of his writings by other bishops ex catedra or not?  Shrew Roman Catholics would deny it, for otherwise they'd have do admit that Pope Honorius was rightly anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.  But how couldn't Pope Francis be exercising his office when he confirms changes in the sacramental practice of local Churches?
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Porter ODoran said:
The young fogey said:
Because the church is indefectible and infallible (which Orthodoxy teaches about itself). Rome is still the apostolic faith as explained by Trent, for example, not a made-up faith from the 1500s that contradicts our teachings.
Now this is delicious irony.
Ironic, but tragically true.
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The recent signatures under the recent "correction" of Pope Francis concerning "Amoris Laetitia" shows that the FSSPX has been successful in enlarging the circle of critics beyond their own adherents. If conservative RCs become really convinced that Pope Francis is a heretic, will they elect an antipope? Bishop Bernard Fellay of the FSSPX would be an interesting choice. He is really serious about his faith, and at the same time he is rather diplomatic in his dealings with people and institutions.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,985
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Gorazd said:
The recent signatures under the recent "correction" of Pope Francis concerning "Amoris Laetitia" shows that the FSSPX has been successful in enlarging the circle of critics beyond their own adherents. If conservative RCs become really convinced that Pope Francis is a heretic, will they elect an antipope? Bishop Bernard Fellay of the FSSPX would be an interesting choice. He is really serious about his faith, and at the same time he is rather diplomatic in his dealings with people and institutions.
What would happen is that the critics would get big enough so that the cardinals would start to worry and then they would pressure P.Francis to change, or else he himself would see this. And if it got really bad, the cardinals could reject and depose him.

We are a very long way from that. Catholics are intense enough on the Pope's centrality and authority that it would be very hard for a huge percent of them to get together to make an anti-Pope.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Sharbel said:
Volnutt said:
Sharbel said:
Are they merely the pope's opinions when the sacramental life and discipline in the Church are changed, as in Argentina, Germany, Malta?
Care to expand a bit?
Amoris Laetitia and the Post-Modern Papacy of Pope Francis

Are the letters that Pope Francis writes affirming the interpretation of his writings by other bishops ex catedra or not?  Shrew Roman Catholics would deny it, for otherwise they'd have do admit that Pope Honorius was rightly anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.  But how couldn't Pope Francis be exercising his office when he confirms changes in the sacramental practice of local Churches?
Thanks.

Well, I guess as long as enough Catholics take fogey's "Water Department Head" point of view, they'll find always find a way to argue around anything the Pope does.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Gorazd said:
Alpha60 said:
if and when Rome and the Orthodox reunite, and I pray it is a matter of "when"
Let's be realistic... we are far, far, far from this.

Here is a study form Germany many in 2012-2014: http://kath.net/news/50442

Let me resume in English:
54% of priests, 70% of married deacons, 88% of unordained theologians working in parishes and 91% of pedagogues of religion working in parishes go to confession only once a year or less.
Only 58% of priests and 56% of pedagogues of religion working in parishes pray at least once every day. With married deacons it's a bit better, 66%.


What the heck? All these figures are supposed to be at 0% to the first and 100% to the second question...
There are substantial, well known problems with people not going to confession even annually in the Orthodox church.

As far as the "pray at least once a day" bit, I expect that could be warped because a Catholic priest, who is obliged to pray the divine office, might confuse that with ex tempore prayers for other purposes.  We also have impious or marginal priests in our churches, for example, priests and bishops who were originally installed by the KGB, Securitate, etc, in order to monitor the church for the Communist regime and who may or may not have developed an authentic faith since then.  Some might have stuck around simply because they like the feeling of power and get a rush when people kiss their hand, on a par with whatever glories they otherwise hoped to receive from their comrade superiors in the secret police.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gorazd said:
Bishop Bernard Fellay of the FSSPX would be an interesting choice. He is really serious about his faith, and at the same time he is rather diplomatic in his dealings with people and institutions.
Though never interested in the SSPX, over the years I too came to admire the irenic tone of Bp. Fellay.  But that's as much as can say about him.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
0
Points
0
rakovsky said:
What would happen is that the critics would get big enough so that the cardinals would start to worry and then they would pressure P.Francis to change, or else he himself would see this. And if it got really bad, the cardinals could reject and depose him.  We are a very long way from that. Catholics are intense enough on the Pope's centrality and authority that it would be very hard for a huge percent of them to get together to make an anti-Pope.
But historically that's exactly what divisive popes caused, schisms in the Roman Church by the election of anti-popes.  Unfortunately, the history of the many schisms in the West is scant, since they are a source of shame and pain to the Roman Church, which perhaps keeps historians away to investigate the context that led to them.  So it's difficult to assess the current situation, never forgetting the lingering damage caused by VII, either way.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alpha60 said:
As far as the "pray at least once a day" bit, I expect that could be warped because a Catholic priest, who is obliged to pray the divine office, might confuse that with ex tempore prayers for other purposes.
A Roman Catholic diocesan priest prays five canonical hours and usually one mass almost every day.  He could hardly miss them a prayers.  However, it's a known fact, whispered in chanceries and rectories, that many priests do not pray the breviary as they should, often by dispensation from their bishop.
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alpha60 said:
There are substantial, well known problems with people not going to confession even annually in the Orthodox church.
With people surely. But what about priests, deacons, and people teaching Orthodoxy in parishes?


Alpha60 said:
As far as the "pray at least once a day" bit, I expect that could be warped because a Catholic priest, who is obliged to pray the divine office, might confuse that with ex tempore prayers for other purposes. 
The original German question is phrased in a way to exclude this.


Alpha60 said:
We also have impious or marginal priests in our churches, for example, priests and bishops who were originally installed by the KGB, Securitate, etc, in order to monitor the church for the Communist regime and who may or may not have developed an authentic faith since then.
I know some of them personally, both in Ukraine and Bulgaria. Both people who started to attend church in Communist times and afterwards. Including priests who were in the KGB (or Bulgarian DS).

While I would disagree with many of their views, I have absolutely no reason to doubt their faith. Yes, they are not great fans of the evil, decadent west and favour a strong, authoritarian state. But in fact their many belief is "symphonia", the harmonious "sounding together" of church and state. They will say communism was basically a good thing, the state taking seriously its task to ensure social quality and preventing a few privileged from stealing the wealth of the country. The only bad thing about communism, they say, is that it rejected the church. That's why they love people politicians who themselves come from the KGB and now have good relations with the church. I am sure you know whom I mean, but this should really be discussed in the Politics Forum.

Back to the topic: All these old Communists in the Orthodox Church are very serious about Orthodox dogma. (According to some, that also worked the other way around, saying Soviet Communism became so dogmatic because of its cultural proximity to Orthodox Christianity).

Whereas I know a lot of RC theologians in the West questioning and relativising the virgin birth, and even the resurrection, old Communist Orthodox are sincerely horrified by this and fail to understand how people can call themselves Christians without holding to basic belief, as defined by the Symbol of the Faith (Niceno-Constantinopolian Creed), which everyone knows by heart since it is sung/recited in every liturgy.
 
Top