BREAKING : Cardinal Burke calls for Consecration of Russia to IHOM
#21
                                                    I know the Ukrainian Catholic Church has a catechism.
Reply
#22
(05-20-2017, 06:56 AM)Pacman Wrote: The Bishops of Rome began adding the filioque into the Creed in the 11th century due to pressure from the Frankish potentates of the age. They did not have the authority to do this. The only way the filioque could have been licitly added was by convening a new Ecumenical Council to approve it.

The Pope certainly had the authority for this. Christ gave the keys to Peter, not to all the Apostles. The Filioque is not heretical, and no Council has authority over a Pope. What's in the Nicene Creed is dogmatic, but choosing what to include and what not to include isn't.

I realise the Orthodox don't accept the authority of the Pope over other bishops, or over an ecumenical council, but you know what the Church teaches about the Pope. And by rejecting the primacy of Rome, it makes the Orthodox schismatic. Yes, from their point of view, the Catholics are the schismatic ones, but this is a traditional Catholic forum. We're not going to treat what the Church teaches as just one point of view, or one option.
Reply
#23
(05-20-2017, 08:53 AM)Eric F Wrote:                                                     I know the Ukrainian Catholic Church has a catechism.

Yes, I have a copy of their catechism.
Reply
#24
(05-20-2017, 11:09 AM)Paul Wrote:
(05-20-2017, 06:56 AM)Pacman Wrote: The Bishops of Rome began adding the filioque into the Creed in the 11th century due to pressure from the Frankish potentates of the age. They did not have the authority to do this. The only way the filioque could have been licitly added was by convening a new Ecumenical Council to approve it.

The Pope certainly had the authority for this. Christ gave the keys to Peter, not to all the Apostles. The Filioque is not heretical, and no Council has authority over a Pope. What's in the Nicene Creed is dogmatic, but choosing what to include and what not to include isn't.

I realise the Orthodox don't accept the authority of the Pope over other bishops, or over an ecumenical council, but you know what the Church teaches about the Pope. And by rejecting the primacy of Rome, it makes the Orthodox schismatic. Yes, from their point of view, the Catholics are the schismatic ones, but this is a traditional Catholic forum. We're not going to treat what the Church teaches as just one point of view, or one option.

Okay, but if you're interested in Catholic Apologetics you should know that quoting Matthew 16:18 as some kind of proof text for the dogma of Papal Infallibility doesn't really work because although it tells us that St Peter was to lead the Church it does not give any specific information about what his powers were in relation to other bishops, and nor does it tell us anything about the status of his successors and whether their jurisdiction is bound to a particular geographical office or some other arrangement (for instance, Peter was bishop of Antioch for a period, so why couldn't Antioch be the see of his successor as opposed to Rome?) And any reading of Matthew 16:18 must make reference to Acts which suggests a much more conciliar Ecclesiology in its depiction of the Council of Jerusalem. Matthew 16:18 is enough to counter most Protestant denominations which claim that their church is the direct successor of the catacomb church, but things get a little more nuanced when you're arguing with the Orthodox Church.
Reply
#25
Quote:The Gregorian Reforms codified the heresies of Legalism and Created Grace which has benighted Western Christendom since the Middle Ages and it led to Protestantism, which led to Liberalism, which led to the errors of Socialism and Marxism.

Even assuming that the Gregorian Reforms are "heresies" the idea that one can simply draw a straight line from there to every error of this age is dubious at best and genuinely misleading at worst. It's every bit as polemically shallow as the reflexive reaching for Matthew 16:18 as a sort of proof text for the whole of Papal dogma.

Perhaps you're just exhibiting the bad habits you picked up as a political scientist? Like all modern social sciences those in the political realm act as if their arguments simply exist within some sort of logical void that's analogous to the empirical void that that those in the hard sciences seek to set up during their experiments. And just like their cousins in the hard sciences we are lead to believe that one philosophical position inexorably leads to another and another until we are left with a very convenient paper trail that explains all our problems free of any superfluous information that might suggest that our problems in the philosophical realm are not so easily solved.

It's a load of crap of course, but one in which we all suffer the symptoms to varying degrees. Historical and cultural contingencies guarantee that a large degree of human knowledge (the vast majority in fact) remains inexact and to seek to replicate the metaphysical austerity that the empirical sciences exist under outside of that realm tends to only degrade those areas of knowledge instead of elevating them.

Anyone with eyes knows that the errors of Protestantism or Marxism etc. did not simply spring from the earth because of some philosophical chain reaction that impassively lead it's actors done on a path that they couldn't escape. In fact hilariously enough the only way all the modern errors you and I detest can be taken seriously is if one engages in the sort of shallow thinking that your above quoted line suggests. As soon as you bring in the vast array of historical an cultural contingencies at play all political thought that's post middle ages tends to collapse and reveal itself as nothing more then a very thin paper tiger.

I've rambled on enough, but I think it would be better if everyone on this thread drops the brandying about of terms like "schismatic" or " “Carolingian heresy” as if somehow they were magic talisman that imbued or arguments with some irresistible power. I've engaged in, and watched a great deal of Catholic/Orthodox sparring and not once have I seen anyone on either side compelled to admit anything by the use of these terms. Although I have seen people be genuinely hurt by them. God knows I've been guilty of this myself on more then one occasion.

It's better if we simply pray and make interior mortifications to God, because while I'm not 100% certain on which side is right between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I am 100% certain that only God is going to untie this knot. So why not just leave it up to him?




Reply
#26
Also, for what it's worth Pacman, I don't think the consecration needs to be seen as some sort of domineering act by an outside force on Russia. Instead it makes much more sense to see it as a genuinely loving act towards a country that was uniquely injured by something genuinely demonic. After all, I don't think Our lady would ask for a consecration of Russia because she sees Russia itself as somehow evil, but instead is doing so because she recognizes like any good mother, that one of her children was singularly injured and is in need of healing. The whole world was of course hurt by the communist revolution, but Russia was forced to watch the whole travesty come to being within her own backyard. And even the most strident Catholic triumphalist should recognize that Schism or not, Russia hardly deserved to suffer they way she did.

I have a very strident Russian friend who went from strong opponent of the consecration to strong advocate of it when I pointed this all out to him. As is so often the case it's a matter of perspective, and you or any other Orthodox Christian shouldn't let certain over zealous Rad Trads trouble you too much on this matter.
Reply
#27
I just still can't believe that there are people who believe OBL at Fatima was talking about Russia's conversion from the Orthodox Church and not from Bolshevik tyranny. It's like, 'hello?!... that's where the action is at'. The Bolshevik Regime is the Red Dragon of Revelation. It was created by the Synagogue of Satan that Our Lord warned us about in Revelation. The Bolshevik Party was the final transformation of the faithlessness of the Pharisees. If anything the Catholic Church in 2017 is in need of a conversion to something resembling the faith of the Russian Orthodox Church. And I am pretty sure that Sister Lucile confirmed before her death that OBL was talking about Russia's conversion from Communism. But don't quote me on that. OBL is telling the children at Fatima in 1917 of what is about to happen to Russia. It is the coming of the Bolshevik Revolution that has prompted OBL to reveal herself to the world.

Reply
#28
(05-21-2017, 05:16 AM)Pacman Wrote: (...). If anything the Catholic Church in 2017 is in need of a conversion to something resembling the faith of the Russian Orthodox Church. (...)
A conversion of the orthodox believers to the post-Vatican II faith would be a spiritual tragedy.
Reply
#29
(05-21-2017, 08:15 AM)Guingamp Wrote:
(05-21-2017, 05:16 AM)Pacman Wrote: (...). If anything the Catholic Church in 2017 is in need of a conversion to something resembling the faith of the Russian Orthodox Church. (...)
A conversion of the orthodox believers to the post-Vatican II faith would be a spiritual tragedy.
I think we have to keep the Orthodox in perspective. Whatever your view of the current crisis in the Church's human element, what is causing it, etc, the Orthodox are alienated from the Church outside of which there is no salvation. It would be a spiritual tragedy for them to remain cut off from the vine.
Reply
#30
                                                            Before all the post V2 ecumenical madness, and before we had become such an embarrassment, the belief was that Our Lady of Fatima was calling for the conversion of Russia from Godless communism to the Catholic Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)