What Would The Catholic Church Have To Concede?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
theistgal said:
JoeS2 said:
theistgal said:
JoeS2 said:
theistgal said:
Just wanted to say, Mor Ephrem, if all Orthodox were as understanding and compassionate towards us beknighted Romans as you, reunion would happen a lot faster.  :angel:
I personally feel you are falling away from us more and more each day as evidenced by these photos.  
I kinda like it the way it is.  You go your way and I'll go mine.  (I think that was a song wasn't it?)
Photos?   ???
You would have to go back a little to Reply #152 showing young people handling the Eucharist both male and female.
OK, but I didn't post those, and I don't go to churches where that takes place, so not sure why you addressed that message to me.

Also, I see no one answered my question about why, if the RC has to disavow Marian apparitions which affected their doctrines, the OC wouldn't have to do the same. Case in point: St. Gregory the Wonderworker.

The Theotokos and Apostle John appeared to St. Gregory in a dream, and taught him about the Holy Trinity. St. Gregory [of Nyssa] wrote down what was revealed to him.

    "The teaching about the Holy Trinity in Orthodox Theology is based on it. Subsequently it was used by the holy Fathers of the Church: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. The Symbol of St Gregory of Neocaesarea was later examined and affirmed in the year 325 by the First Ecumenical Council, showing his enduring significance for Orthodoxy."
- Orthodox Wiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Wonderworker

So here we have a fundamental doctrine of Orthodoxy based on a dream. Why isn't that on the same level as the confirmation of the (already-defined) Immaculate Conception at Lourdes?
Well, not to make this lengthy, I'm quite satisfied that I am Orthodox and would not entertain the idea of any unity with the RCC in the state that she is in.  And as far as not going to churches that have this sort of stuff, IMHO, you still belong under the Roman Authority regardless and no matter how you try to run away from this sort of practice it is still is part of your church ie the Vatican. 
Suffice it to say, I don't see any unity between the Orthodox and RC or EC's in the future.  We will keep our 'dreams' and you keep yours. 
But, there are a lot of areas we can seek common cause such as the de-Christianization/ de-moralization of Europe, helping the poor, resisting war, etc.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Oh, yes, I definitely agree, and I always tell that to my Catholic friends who dreamily wonder about "when we're all reunited, which church would you go to if you could?" and ridiculous things like that. I always make sure to say, "IF, not when, because the Orthodox are way less anxious to reunite with us than we are with them." When they don't believe me, I direct them to threads like this, which tends to end the conversation.  ;D
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Mor Ephrem said:
theistgal said:
The Theotokos and Apostle John appeared to St. Gregory in a dream, and taught him about the Holy Trinity. St. Gregory [of Nyssa] wrote down what was revealed to him.

   "The teaching about the Holy Trinity in Orthodox Theology is based on it. Subsequently it was used by the holy Fathers of the Church: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. The Symbol of St Gregory of Neocaesarea was later examined and affirmed in the year 325 by the First Ecumenical Council, showing his enduring significance for Orthodoxy."
- Orthodox Wiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Wonderworker

So here we have a fundamental doctrine of Orthodoxy based on a dream. Why isn't that on the same level as the confirmation of the (already-defined) Immaculate Conception at Lourdes?
I never read or heard anything remotely like this in any book, article, class, or discussion about Trinitarian theology in three years of seminary.  An OrthodoxWiki stub quoting the OCA's hagiographies (which are riddled with errors or "massagings of truth" more often than I'd prefer) is not on the same level of every published book or article about the Lourdes apparitions and their messages.      
My point being, though, that a Marian apparition *is* cited by Orthodox (not vagantes or schismatics, but actual Orthodox that you are in communion with) as the basis for a very major doctrine. And as I was just told by Joe above, if I'm in communion with the RCs that have female Eucharistic ministers, I'm one of them, then that same standard should apply both ways.  8)

Whereas Lourdes, agree with it or not, can't possibly be the basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as sometimes charged; since the IC was defined in 1854, and the apparitions started in 1858.

Now you could make an argument that the Lourdes apparitions strengthened popular acceptance of the IC dogma, and I'd agree with you. And you could say the same about St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker's apparitions - even though he got the whole teaching about the Trinity from his dream, it still had to be ratified and agreed to by a Council (and it was).

I guess my point is that if the Orthodox say "if we reunite the RCs have to give up all their apparitions", and I say, "OK, we will if you will", then you shouldn't say you don't have any like ours, because you do have at least one.

Personally, I like both of them so I'm not giving up on Gregory OR Bernadette.  ;D
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
theistgal said:
Mor Ephrem said:
theistgal said:
The Theotokos and Apostle John appeared to St. Gregory in a dream, and taught him about the Holy Trinity. St. Gregory [of Nyssa] wrote down what was revealed to him.

   "The teaching about the Holy Trinity in Orthodox Theology is based on it. Subsequently it was used by the holy Fathers of the Church: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. The Symbol of St Gregory of Neocaesarea was later examined and affirmed in the year 325 by the First Ecumenical Council, showing his enduring significance for Orthodoxy."
- Orthodox Wiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Wonderworker

So here we have a fundamental doctrine of Orthodoxy based on a dream. Why isn't that on the same level as the confirmation of the (already-defined) Immaculate Conception at Lourdes?
I never read or heard anything remotely like this in any book, article, class, or discussion about Trinitarian theology in three years of seminary.  An OrthodoxWiki stub quoting the OCA's hagiographies (which are riddled with errors or "massagings of truth" more often than I'd prefer) is not on the same level of every published book or article about the Lourdes apparitions and their messages.      
My point being, though, that a Marian apparition *is* cited by Orthodox (not vagantes or schismatics, but actual Orthodox that you are in communion with) as the basis for a very major doctrine. And as I was just told by Joe above, if I'm in communion with the RCs that have female Eucharistic ministers, I'm one of them, then that same standard should apply both ways.  8)

Whereas Lourdes, agree with it or not, can't possibly be the basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as sometimes charged; since the IC was defined in 1854, and the apparitions started in 1858.

Now you could make an argument that the Lourdes apparitions strengthened popular acceptance of the IC dogma, and I'd agree with you. And you could say the same about St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker's apparitions - even though he got the whole teaching about the Trinity from his dream, it still had to be ratified and agreed to by a Council (and it was).

I guess my point is that if the Orthodox say "if we reunite the RCs have to give up all their apparitions", and I say, "OK, we will if you will", then you shouldn't say you don't have any like ours, because you do have at least one.

Personally, I like both of them so I'm not giving up on Gregory OR Bernadette.  ;D
Well, I don't think any of us 'experts' on this website can speak for the church in matters of "will we give up our apparitions" so its a Mute point at best.  The RCC holds these apparitions very close to their heart and from their standpoint, understandably so.  But, are dogmas (not to be confused with little 't' tradition ) supposed to be the result of apparitions or do we follow the teachings of the early Church Fathers?  Im confused. ???
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,158
Reaction score
28
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
theistgal said:
My point being, though, that a Marian apparition *is* cited by Orthodox (not vagantes or schismatics, but actual Orthodox that you are in communion with) as the basis for a very major doctrine. And as I was just told by Joe above, if I'm in communion with the RCs that have female Eucharistic ministers, I'm one of them, then that same standard should apply both ways.  8)
That's not much of a point.  You've provided one Wiki page citing one OCA hagiography claiming that the Orthodox teaching on the Trinity is derived from a private revelation to a particular saint.  No authoritative Orthodox source I've ever come across corroborates this claim, and my chrism dried a long time ago.

Whether or not I'm in communion with your Wiki author is besides the point (most likely, I personally am not).  This is one fairly unknown "fact" of dubious authority.  The allowance for female Eucharistic ministers and other such things comes from the highest levels of the RCC.  It's really not a fair comparison.  

Whereas Lourdes, agree with it or not, can't possibly be the basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as sometimes charged; since the IC was defined in 1854, and the apparitions started in 1858.

Now you could make an argument that the Lourdes apparitions strengthened popular acceptance of the IC dogma, and I'd agree with you. And you could say the same about St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker's apparitions - even though he got the whole teaching about the Trinity from his dream, it still had to be ratified and agreed to by a Council (and it was).
Did anyone really say that the Lourdes apparitions were the basis for the IC?  That's preposterous, considering that Duns Scotus lived a long time before 1858.  My recollection is that the opposition to apparitions like Lourdes is that their "messages" contradict Orthodox teaching to some degree.  I like Lourdes, but the only way that could ever be accepted "as is" in the event of a reunion is if the IC itself was accepted "as is" by the Orthodox or redefined to mean something it didn't mean in 1854.  

We don't know anything about St Gregory's apparitions except what has been claimed.  Did our Lady really teach him about the Trinity in order to reveal it to the Church?  Or was he unclear about the teaching and required "special assistance"?  Whatever the case, I'd love to see even one authoritative Orthodox source claiming that these visions are the source for our Trinitarian doctrine.  

I guess my point is that if the Orthodox say "if we reunite the RCs have to give up all their apparitions", and I say, "OK, we will if you will", then you shouldn't say you don't have any like ours, because you do have at least one.

Personally, I like both of them so I'm not giving up on Gregory OR Bernadette.  ;D
I don't know if I'd agree that "all" apparitions would have to be abandoned.  For instance, I don't know of any doctrinal problems in the content of the visions of Guadalupe, Mexico.  But when Lourdes refers to the IC, or when Fatima refers to purgatory, such visions need to be evaluated against Orthodox teaching.  
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
The Marian apparition that I have the biggest issue with is Our Lady of La Salette, in which Mary allegedly says:

If my people refuse to submit,
I will be forced to let go the arm of my Son. It is so strong and so heavy,
I can no longer hold it back.
How long a time I have suffered for you! If I want my Son not to abandon you,
I am obliged to plead with him constantly. And as for you, you pay no heed! However much you pray,
however much you do, you will never be able to recompense the pains I have taken for you.
I gave you six days to work;
I kept the seventh for myself,
and no one will give it to me.
This is what makes the arm of my Son so heavy.
And then, those who drive the carts cannot swear
without using my Son's name.
These are the two things that make the arm of my Son so heavy.
I would bold the parts that trouble me, but I'd end up bolding the whole thing. This is a Church-approved apparition. And I know these things aren't technically requirements for belief, but that is nonsense^. This ended up being a pretty big nail in the coffin for me (so to speak) in my Catholic vs. Orthodoxy struggle.
 

Regnare

High Elder
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
523
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
I don't remember that part of the message, but I didn't ever really pay too much attention to Fatima. La Salette was enough.
 

Regnare

High Elder
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
523
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
I haven't actually seen a quote of this, although in the actual text Mary is presented as attempting to appease an angry God ("if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father."). However, I have seen her words paraphrased many a time as implying what I said above.
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
Regnare said:
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
I also understand that Mary was alledged to say that the world should pray for the conversion of Russia.....a country that was converted in 988 to Orthodoxy.  Was this apparition pertaining to Christianity in general or conversion to RC'ism?
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JoeS2 said:
Regnare said:
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
I also understand that Mary was alledged to say that the world should pray for the conversion of Russia.....a country that was converted in 988 to Orthodoxy.  Was this apparition pertaining to Christianity in general or conversion to RC'ism?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g15htFatimaPoupard.htm

Sedevacantists seem to interpret it as the latter.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
Regnare said:
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
That's actually not something that was said at Fatima.
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
0
Points
0
xOrthodox4Christx said:
JoeS2 said:
Regnare said:
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
I also understand that Mary was alledged to say that the world should pray for the conversion of Russia.....a country that was converted in 988 to Orthodoxy.  Was this apparition pertaining to Christianity in general or conversion to RC'ism?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g15htFatimaPoupard.htm

Sedevacantists seem to interpret it as the latter.
Oh, those "Sedevecantists," and their subtle jabs at the "Orthodox" Church. ::)

We should get them in a room with the "True" "Orthodox"; then they can both hate each other and share in their hatred of us!
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
lovesupreme said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
JoeS2 said:
Regnare said:
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
I also understand that Mary was alledged to say that the world should pray for the conversion of Russia.....a country that was converted in 988 to Orthodoxy.  Was this apparition pertaining to Christianity in general or conversion to RC'ism?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g15htFatimaPoupard.htm

Sedevacantists seem to interpret it as the latter.
Oh, those "Sedevecantists," and their subtle jabs at the "Orthodox" Church. ::)

We should get them in a room with the "True" "Orthodox"; then they can both hate each other and share in their hatred of us!
Hey, I heard of a wedding that took place between an extreme "true orthodox" HOCNA and a member of the SSPX. Since neither church recognized the wedding at either church, the couple had to have a double wedding. I don't know how they raised their children.  ::)
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maria said:
lovesupreme said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
JoeS2 said:
Regnare said:
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
I also understand that Mary was alledged to say that the world should pray for the conversion of Russia.....a country that was converted in 988 to Orthodoxy.  Was this apparition pertaining to Christianity in general or conversion to RC'ism?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g15htFatimaPoupard.htm

Sedevacantists seem to interpret it as the latter.
Oh, those "Sedevecantists," and their subtle jabs at the "Orthodox" Church. ::)

We should get them in a room with the "True" "Orthodox"; then they can both hate each other and share in their hatred of us!
Hey, I heard of a wedding that took place between an extreme "true orthodox" HOCNA and a member of the SSPX. Since neither church recognized the wedding at either church, the couple had to have a double wedding. I don't know how they raised their children.  ::)
Truly a loving and happy family of God, just like Christ taught us.  :laugh:

They probably decided to raise their children in a Protestant fringe group. Let's see... the Westboro Baptist Church.
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Mesa, AZ
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
lovesupreme said:
Jetavan said:
*The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
The Pope/RCC doesn't teach this already?
Perhaps "officially", but isn't there a lot of talk in Catholic circles (perhaps stemming from Augustine) about, for instance, the Holy Spirit being the "love" that exists between the Father and the Son?
Your guess is as good, if not better, than mine. I'm not privy to the talk in Catholic circles.

At any rate, that's a catechetical problem, not a doctrinal one.
Section 264 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

...suggests that the H.S. proceeds from the communion (or "love") of the Father and Son.
With all due respect, I think that's a stretch if you're going to accuse the Catechism teaching modalism, even modalism "lite."
I would say that the Augustine quote (in which the Father is, in Himself, not the Father, but simply "God") from then-Cardinal Ratzinger's text on Christianity edges towards modalism.

This CCC quote, on the other hand, seems to undermine the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit, making Him the result of the communion between the Father and the Son.
In what sense could the Father be called Father except because of the Son? 
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,210
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ZealousZeal said:
The Marian apparition that I have the biggest issue with is Our Lady of La Salette, in which Mary allegedly says:

If my people refuse to submit,
I will be forced to let go the arm of my Son. It is so strong and so heavy,
I can no longer hold it back.
How long a time I have suffered for you! If I want my Son not to abandon you,
I am obliged to plead with him constantly. And as for you, you pay no heed! However much you pray,
however much you do, you will never be able to recompense the pains I have taken for you.
I gave you six days to work;
I kept the seventh for myself,
and no one will give it to me.
This is what makes the arm of my Son so heavy.
And then, those who drive the carts cannot swear
without using my Son's name.
These are the two things that make the arm of my Son so heavy.
I would bold the parts that trouble me, but I'd end up bolding the whole thing. This is a Church-approved apparition. And I know these things aren't technically requirements for belief, but that is nonsense^. This ended up being a pretty big nail in the coffin for me (so to speak) in my Catholic vs. Orthodoxy struggle.
hmmm I'm guessing you haven't read the Old Testament? God seems a lot more like this than the modern "lovey Dovey ...I'll never punish you" fictional god.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,210
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
JoeS2 said:
Regnare said:
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
I also understand that Mary was alledged to say that the world should pray for the conversion of Russia.....a country that was converted in 988 to Orthodoxy.  Was this apparition pertaining to Christianity in general or conversion to RC'ism?
According to the seers ... Catholicism. This only makes sense. Its in agreement with another apparition where Mary said Portugal will keep the true faith... And Portugal is thoroughly Catholic...
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
xOrthodox4Christx said:
rakovsky said:
JoeS2 said:
rakovsky said:
Rome would have to concede its claim to papal supremacy, what Isa calls ultramontism. The idea that the Pope is to the Patriarchs like an emperor to all others cannot stay, because this belief prevents the EOs from having their own beliefs and practices when the Pope disagrees with them. The Pope can simply order them to do whatever he will want, and if they are one Church it becomes an unworkable contradiction. An idea that "oh, he would never do that against their will" is not practical or secure, because sometimes the Pope believes X and EOs think Y. But if the Pope is the ultimate hierarch it becomes a situation where you must accept his beliefs because he is your hierarch.
Suffice it to say, we don't see any chance of unity at least in this lifetime.  But, it is good that we do have dialogues from time to time for discussing the deplorable state of morals in the world.  I for one, would not tolerate any compromising of our Faith just for the sake of obtaining a unity.  Its just not worth it. 
I agree. I think that some differences could be allowed, but the main one that could not would be papal supremacy. A difference that could be allowed I believe is the use of unleavened bread in RC churches. Our Western Rite ones use unleavened bread, but I think that the leavening issue should not be enough for a division of churches. I could even see an Orthodox rendering of the filioque to be acceptable, because once it has proceeded from the father to the son, the Spirit now proceeds from the Son too. There was an ecumenical (joint) meeting of RCs and EOs that explained that a certain view of it would be OK.

But Papal supremacy is the thing that could not be allowed to stay because if it did, it would mean Orthodox would have to agree with whatever the Pope said, because he would be their highest leader then. Catholics even have a chart I saw about how the Pope is at the top and Patriarchs are below him.
Yeah, from the Father through the Son was taught by St. John of Damascus. But, that's not what the Creed said. And the consensus view as outlined in the Council of Chalcedon and by Pope St. Leo III was that the Creed couldn't be tampered with.

Therefore, even if 'through the Son' is acceptable theologically, it is not acceptable as an addition to the Creed. That's my view anyway.
And it's a good one.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
ZealousZeal said:
The Marian apparition that I have the biggest issue with is Our Lady of La Salette, in which Mary allegedly says:

If my people refuse to submit,
I will be forced to let go the arm of my Son. It is so strong and so heavy,
I can no longer hold it back.
How long a time I have suffered for you! If I want my Son not to abandon you,
I am obliged to plead with him constantly. And as for you, you pay no heed! However much you pray,
however much you do, you will never be able to recompense the pains I have taken for you.
I gave you six days to work;
I kept the seventh for myself,
and no one will give it to me.
This is what makes the arm of my Son so heavy.
And then, those who drive the carts cannot swear
without using my Son's name.
These are the two things that make the arm of my Son so heavy.
I would bold the parts that trouble me, but I'd end up bolding the whole thing. This is a Church-approved apparition. And I know these things aren't technically requirements for belief, but that is nonsense^. This ended up being a pretty big nail in the coffin for me (so to speak) in my Catholic vs. Orthodoxy struggle.
hmmm I'm guessing you haven't read the Old Testament? God seems a lot more like this than the modern "lovey Dovey ...I'll never punish you" fictional god.
I take it then that the apparition at Fatima called for the Portuguese to drop their drawers and line up for circumcision and mass conversion to Judaism.

"God so loved the world...." I heard that somewhere.

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Maria said:
lovesupreme said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
JoeS2 said:
Regnare said:
The apparition at Fatima is similar, where Mary tells people she's been interceding with Jesus to forestall His wrath. It sounds like substitutionary atonement moved down one level.
I also understand that Mary was alledged to say that the world should pray for the conversion of Russia.....a country that was converted in 988 to Orthodoxy.  Was this apparition pertaining to Christianity in general or conversion to RC'ism?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g15htFatimaPoupard.htm

Sedevacantists seem to interpret it as the latter.
Oh, those "Sedevecantists," and their subtle jabs at the "Orthodox" Church. ::)

We should get them in a room with the "True" "Orthodox"; then they can both hate each other and share in their hatred of us!
Hey, I heard of a wedding that took place between an extreme "true orthodox" HOCNA and a member of the SSPX. Since neither church recognized the wedding at either church, the couple had to have a double wedding. I don't know how they raised their children.  ::)
Truly a loving and happy family of God, just like Christ taught us.  :laugh:

They probably decided to raise their children in a Protestant fringe group. Let's see... the Westboro Baptist Church.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,210
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
ZealousZeal said:
The Marian apparition that I have the biggest issue with is Our Lady of La Salette, in which Mary allegedly says:

If my people refuse to submit,
I will be forced to let go the arm of my Son. It is so strong and so heavy,
I can no longer hold it back.
How long a time I have suffered for you! If I want my Son not to abandon you,
I am obliged to plead with him constantly. And as for you, you pay no heed! However much you pray,
however much you do, you will never be able to recompense the pains I have taken for you.
I gave you six days to work;
I kept the seventh for myself,
and no one will give it to me.
This is what makes the arm of my Son so heavy.
And then, those who drive the carts cannot swear
without using my Son's name.
These are the two things that make the arm of my Son so heavy.
I would bold the parts that trouble me, but I'd end up bolding the whole thing. This is a Church-approved apparition. And I know these things aren't technically requirements for belief, but that is nonsense^. This ended up being a pretty big nail in the coffin for me (so to speak) in my Catholic vs. Orthodoxy struggle.
hmmm I'm guessing you haven't read the Old Testament? God seems a lot more like this than the modern "lovey Dovey ...I'll never punish you" fictional god.
I take it then that the apparition at Fatima called for the Portuguese to drop their drawers and line up for circumcision and mass conversion to Judaism.

"God so loved the world...." I heard that somewhere.
Lol God was not a Jew. Ok he kinda was  :p..but in his actions God was God. He doesn't change and certainly not because Judaism has been rendered obsolete by christianity .

I can quote the bible too.

"I'm a just God..." heard that somewhere
I've also hear that apparently God flooded the whole world because of the sins of man. Like apparently he killed everything except one mans family and a few animals :eek: I also hear he destroyed two cities because of their sins by raining fire and brimstone on the inhabitants of the cities! I hear he asked the Jews to lay a city waste and kill everything that moves! Even rip out the babies from their mothers' wombs and throw them against the rocks!
Dude I also heard, apparently, that God nearly killed the Israelites because they worshipped a golden calf instead of him!
I've also heard that God said he does not change.

Woah... Lets take that in for a second... That means if God was willing to punish humanity back then, that he is still willing to punish us today? MIND BLOWN!  :eek:
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Even rip out the babies from their mothers' wombs and throw them against the rocks!
I can't speak for Roman Catholic teaching, but the Orthodox take on this passage is that it refers to one's sins and passions, not to actual murder.  :angel:
 

#1Sinner

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations. They would also have to loosen up on the abortion restriction and allow it for "theraputic" reasons (according to the GOARCH website).
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,210
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
LBK said:
Even rip out the babies from their mothers' wombs and throw them against the rocks!
I can't speak for Roman Catholic teaching, but the Orthodox take on this passage is that it refers to one's sins and passions, not to actual murder.  :angel:
That's fine. But you so know that when sacking a city, this was common practice? It REALLY happened so it wasn't an unusual command from God. It was literal too...
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Wandile said:
ZealousZeal said:
The Marian apparition that I have the biggest issue with is Our Lady of La Salette, in which Mary allegedly says:

If my people refuse to submit,
I will be forced to let go the arm of my Son. It is so strong and so heavy,
I can no longer hold it back.
How long a time I have suffered for you! If I want my Son not to abandon you,
I am obliged to plead with him constantly. And as for you, you pay no heed! However much you pray,
however much you do, you will never be able to recompense the pains I have taken for you.
I gave you six days to work;
I kept the seventh for myself,
and no one will give it to me.
This is what makes the arm of my Son so heavy.
And then, those who drive the carts cannot swear
without using my Son's name.
These are the two things that make the arm of my Son so heavy.
I would bold the parts that trouble me, but I'd end up bolding the whole thing. This is a Church-approved apparition. And I know these things aren't technically requirements for belief, but that is nonsense^. This ended up being a pretty big nail in the coffin for me (so to speak) in my Catholic vs. Orthodoxy struggle.
hmmm I'm guessing you haven't read the Old Testament? God seems a lot more like this than the modern "lovey Dovey ...I'll never punish you" fictional god.

What an odd assumption to make from my post.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
ZealousZeal said:
The Marian apparition that I have the biggest issue with is Our Lady of La Salette, in which Mary allegedly says:

If my people refuse to submit,
I will be forced to let go the arm of my Son. It is so strong and so heavy,
I can no longer hold it back.
How long a time I have suffered for you! If I want my Son not to abandon you,
I am obliged to plead with him constantly. And as for you, you pay no heed! However much you pray,
however much you do, you will never be able to recompense the pains I have taken for you.
I gave you six days to work;
I kept the seventh for myself,
and no one will give it to me.
This is what makes the arm of my Son so heavy.
And then, those who drive the carts cannot swear
without using my Son's name.
These are the two things that make the arm of my Son so heavy.
I would bold the parts that trouble me, but I'd end up bolding the whole thing. This is a Church-approved apparition. And I know these things aren't technically requirements for belief, but that is nonsense^. This ended up being a pretty big nail in the coffin for me (so to speak) in my Catholic vs. Orthodoxy struggle.
hmmm I'm guessing you haven't read the Old Testament? God seems a lot more like this than the modern "lovey Dovey ...I'll never punish you" fictional god.
I take it then that the apparition at Fatima called for the Portuguese to drop their drawers and line up for circumcision and mass conversion to Judaism.

"God so loved the world...." I heard that somewhere.
Lol God was not a Jew. Ok he kinda was  :p..but in his actions God was God. He doesn't change and certainly not because Judaism has been rendered obsolete by christianity .

I can quote the bible too.
I you just did.
Wandile said:
hmmm I'm guessing you haven't read the Old Testament? God seems a lot more like this than the modern "lovey Dovey ...I'll never punish you" fictional god.
I just applied logic and took it to its conclusion.
Wandile said:
"I'm a just God..." heard that somewhere
Yes, from those circumcised Hebrews.
Wandile said:
I've also hear that apparently God flooded the whole world because of the sins of man. Like apparently he killed everything except one mans family and a few animals :eek:
And He made a covenant that He would never do it again.  The Virgin Mary wasn't even a twinkle in Noah's eye.
Wandile said:
I also hear he destroyed two cities because of their sins by raining fire and brimstone on the inhabitants of the cities! I hear he asked the Jews to lay a city waste and kill everything that moves! Even rip out the babies from their mothers' wombs and throw them against the rocks!
Dude I also heard, apparently, that God nearly killed the Israelites because they worshipped a golden calf instead of him!
I've also heard that God said he does not change.
Like I said, drop your drawers, Portugal, line up and we'll get the knife.
Wandile said:
Woah... Lets take that in for a second... That means if God was willing to punish humanity back then, that he is still willing to punish us today? MIND BLOWN!  :eek:
It's blown all right.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control
You mean like the line >90% of the Vatican's followers have taken?
#1Sinner said:
and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations.
You mean like the one that the Vatican's Corban factories a/k/a Marriage tribunals take?
#1Sinner said:
They would also have to loosen up on the abortion restriction and allow it for "theraputic" reasons (according to the GOARCH website).
What the Vatican calls "double effect"?
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations.
The Catholic Church already accepts artificial birth control, they just call it "natural family planning."
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
Iconodule said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations.
The Catholic Church already accepts artificial birth control, they just call it "natural family planning."
Natural Family Planning is not 'artificial', its a matter of Timing and Temp. It doesn't use 'artificial methods of preventing conception such as pills or condoms.  There is no interference in the act.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
JoeS2 said:
Iconodule said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations.
The Catholic Church already accepts artificial birth control, they just call it "natural family planning."
Natural Family Planning is not 'artificial', its a matter of Timing and Temp. It doesn't use 'artificial methods of preventing conception such as pills or condoms.  There is no interference in the act.
Just the timing and temp.

I know of no Church Father (let alone Holy Scripture) who makes the artificial distinction of "Natural family planning," which is why Humanae Vitae could not cite any for its position.
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
0
Points
0
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations. They would also have to loosen up on the abortion restriction and allow it for "theraputic" reasons (according to the GOARCH website).
It's almost as if you're accusing the Orthodox of unscrupulous behavior!
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
lovesupreme said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations. They would also have to loosen up on the abortion restriction and allow it for "theraputic" reasons (according to the GOARCH website).
It's almost as if you're accusing the Orthodox of unscrupulous behavior!
#1 Sinner is.  I guess his #1 sin might be slander.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
JoeS2 said:
Iconodule said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations.
The Catholic Church already accepts artificial birth control, they just call it "natural family planning."
Natural Family Planning is not 'artificial', its a matter of Timing and Temp. It doesn't use 'artificial methods of preventing conception such as pills or condoms.  There is no interference in the act.
Referring to a calendar to decide when and when not to have sex with the purpose of preventing conception is indeed artificial; the fact that chemicals or latex are not involved doesn't make it less so. The entire basis of the Catholic condemnation of contraception is the idea that sex without the intention to procreate is sinful.
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
lovesupreme said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations. They would also have to loosen up on the abortion restriction and allow it for "theraputic" reasons (according to the GOARCH website).
It's almost as if you're accusing the Orthodox of unscrupulous behavior!
#1 Sinner is.  I guess his #1 sin might be slander.
All that aside, don't some Eastern Catholic clergy also adopt the same "worldly attitude" and allow for some forms of birth control in the context of a marriage? If so, his remarks aren't valid, since it's been proven that two different approaches can exist in the same communion. Rome would not need to "compromise" its standards for us promiscuous Easterners.
 

#1Sinner

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control
You mean like the line >90% of the Vatican's followers have taken?
#1Sinner said:
and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations.
You mean like the one that the Vatican's Corban factories a/k/a Marriage tribunals take?
#1Sinner said:
They would also have to loosen up on the abortion restriction and allow it for "theraputic" reasons (according to the GOARCH website).
What the Vatican calls "double effect"?
Whether or not "Vatican followers" obey the Catholic Church's condemnation of contraception matters not. What matters is that it is an official teaching of the Church. It is not left up to your "spiritual father" to determine the morality or lack thereof.

And you clearly have no idea what is meant by "Double Effect." Direct abortion has for its end the termination of the life of the unborn child. Double effect applies if a procedure may result in the death of the unborn child but it is not intended and is not direct. If a cancer patient's hair falls out due to chemo that is a possibly foreseen, but unintended consequence of fighting the cancer. The doctor does not administer chemo to remove the patient's hair.

I've had to explain this several times and I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.
 

#1Sinner

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
JoeS2 said:
Iconodule said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations.
The Catholic Church already accepts artificial birth control, they just call it "natural family planning."
Natural Family Planning is not 'artificial', its a matter of Timing and Temp. It doesn't use 'artificial methods of preventing conception such as pills or condoms.  There is no interference in the act.
Just the timing and temp.

I know of no Church Father (let alone Holy Scripture) who makes the artificial distinction of "Natural family planning," which is why Humanae Vitae could not cite any for its position.
I know Double Effect is a bit theologically nuanced: but do you really not understand the difference between using the natural rhythm of a woman's cycle and placing an artificial barrier (or pill) to intentionally frustrate procreation?

Perhaps you should look to the teaching Church for your answer instead of Patristic quote mining. Oh, the problem is that the Orthodox Church can't seem to, or lacks the ability, to come to a consensus on this matter of Moral Theology.
 

#1Sinner

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
lovesupreme said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations. They would also have to loosen up on the abortion restriction and allow it for "theraputic" reasons (according to the GOARCH website).
It's almost as if you're accusing the Orthodox of unscrupulous behavior!
#1 Sinner is.  I guess his #1 sin might be slander.
Slander is spoken, this would be libel or perhaps calumny, IF......

what I said was inaccurate, which it is not. If I'm wrong about my statements regarding the Orthodox Church's stand on contraception or abortion, please post the proof or retract your charge of slander.
 

#1Sinner

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Points
0
lovesupreme said:
ialmisry said:
lovesupreme said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations. They would also have to loosen up on the abortion restriction and allow it for "theraputic" reasons (according to the GOARCH website).
It's almost as if you're accusing the Orthodox of unscrupulous behavior!
#1 Sinner is.  I guess his #1 sin might be slander.
All that aside, don't some Eastern Catholic clergy also adopt the same "worldly attitude" and allow for some forms of birth control in the context of a marriage? If so, his remarks aren't valid, since it's been proven that two different approaches can exist in the same communion. Rome would not need to "compromise" its standards for us promiscuous Easterners.
If they do than they act under pain of sin since the Church they are in communion with has declared that it is not allowed under any circumstances.
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
ialmisry said:
JoeS2 said:
Iconodule said:
#1Sinner said:
The Catholic Church would have to concede holding the line on artificial birth control and adopt a more worldly attitude towards marital relations.
The Catholic Church already accepts artificial birth control, they just call it "natural family planning."
Natural Family Planning is not 'artificial', its a matter of Timing and Temp. It doesn't use 'artificial methods of preventing conception such as pills or condoms.  There is no interference in the act.
Just the timing and temp.

I know of no Church Father (let alone Holy Scripture) who makes the artificial distinction of "Natural family planning," which is why Humanae Vitae could not cite any for its position.
Well, from what I understand, there is nothing preventing a conception when using NFP method.  Many Catholic families have had children with this not so scientific method, aka accidental.  Nothing is fool proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top