ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics
#51
(05-14-2012, 02:37 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 02:30 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 01:03 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 12:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I would also like to say that any kind of attacks against Catholic doctrine, even if very implicit via criticism of the concilliar popes and teachings, should not be allowed on this forum, for it is a Roman Catholic forum.


Then you have to shut down most SSPX discussion as they have a lot of criticism for conciliar popes and teachings.

Like I said, they are wrong for the right reasons, you're right for the wrong reasons. I co wider the SSPX position to be illogical, but at they err in good faith trying to be faithful to true Roman Catholicism. You are criticizing SSPXers and those who criticize post concilliar novelties, scandals, and heresies not because of concern for Roman Catholic truth, but to ultimately serve your Eastern schismatic agenda.

P.S. please take none of this personally, Silouan. I sincerely hope you abandon schism and heresy and enter into the Roman Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. I only tell you this in fraternal charity and concern.

I'm sorry, it is not clear to me what makes a Western schismatic agenda preferable to an Eastern schismatic agenda?  Huh?

Because one is objectively schismatic and heretical. The SSPX position is erroneous, but it is a legal folly. As you should know, I consider it the same as one who "steals" his own umbrella unknowingly.

I know you are raising good points, but my oh my the neo-con assault against the SSPX has reached a peak on fisheaters.
Reply
#52
(05-14-2012, 02:44 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Because one is objectively schismatic and heretical. The SSPX position is erroneous, but it is a legal folly. As you should know, I consider it the same as one who "steals" his own umbrella unknowingly.

I know you are raising good points, but my oh my the neo-con assault against the SSPX has reached a peak on fisheaters.

I think you give the Orthodox too little credit.  They are not heretics, even their position on divorce is defensible and often vastly misunderstood.  If you are right in your position, I fail to see what makes their historical position so untenable.
Reply
#53
Quote:I think you give the Orthodox too little credit.  They are not heretics, even their position on divorce is defensible and often vastly misunderstood.  If you are right in your position, I fail to see what makes their historical position so untenable.

They are heretics in re. the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, very obviously so. They also have a heretical misunderstanding or rejection of the apostolic Petrine office and dignity, and also reject the dogma of papal infallibility. So, they are heretics and schismatics.
Reply
#54
I believe the Orthodox traditionally accept the Assumption.
Reply
#55
(05-14-2012, 03:02 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:I think you give the Orthodox too little credit.  They are not heretics, even their position on divorce is defensible and often vastly misunderstood.  If you are right in your position, I fail to see what makes their historical position so untenable.

They are heretics in re. the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, very obviously so. They also have a heretical misunderstanding or rejection of the apostolic Petrine office and dignity, and also reject the dogma of papal infallibility. So, they are heretics and schismatics.

The Orthodox celebrate the Feast of the Dormition ("Falling Asleep") on August 15, which "commemorates the "falling asleep" or death of the Theotokos (Mary, the mother of Jesus; literally translated as God-bearer), and her bodily resurrection before being taken up into heaven."  So they very much accept the Assumption.

And they claim to not accept the Immaculate Conception, but listen to a hymn about the Theotokos sometime.  Or ask a Russian priest if Mary was guilty of sin, and see if you get punched in the face.  They are implicitly orthodox on these points.
Reply
#56
Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.
Reply
#57
(05-14-2012, 03:54 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

According to Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox, Copts and Protestants have their own reasoning on the matter.
Reply
#58
(05-14-2012, 03:54 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

Oh, so if Benedict XVI made a canonical determination, you would jump at the chance to accept it?  At least the Orthodox are consistent  Grandpa.
Reply
#59
(05-14-2012, 04:00 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 03:54 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

Oh, so if Benedict XVI made a canonical determination, you would jump at the chance to accept it?  At least the Orthodox are consistent  Grandpa.

So, now let's resort to baiting?  Eye-roll

The only thing they are consistent in is rejecting the true Faith and the true Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to compare non-regularized trads with Eastern schismatics, fine.
Reply
#60
(05-14-2012, 04:05 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 04:00 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 03:54 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

Oh, so if Benedict XVI made a canonical determination, you would jump at the chance to accept it?  At least the Orthodox are consistent  Grandpa.

So, now let's resort to baiting?  Eye-roll

The only thing they are consistent in is rejecting the true Faith and the true Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to compare non-regularized trads with Eastern schismatics, fine.

They say they accept the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the one true Church of Christ.  Why are they wrong?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)