Orthodoxy, TLM, NO
#31
(05-14-2013, 12:28 PM)silvia Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 11:36 AM)Warrenton Wrote: Salt, I think you're trying to square a circle.  The new approach to Orthodoxy is not the same as the old one.  Since Vatican 2, Rome has adopted a kind of middle ground, in which the Orthodox occupy a position that is neither fully Catholic nor schismatic.  On the one hand, you provide a definition of what separate means.  But on the other hand, the text you quote talks about being joined.  That which is joined, is by definition not separated.  The CCC and the other documents however, do in fact set up the paradox (I won;t say contradiction) of a Church joined and also separate. 

I think  the key for Latins is that we are obligated to believe in the supremacy of the pope over our spiritual lives.  If the pope wants to give the Greeks and the Russians a dispensation to believe this, that's up to him, arguably.  He has given no such dispensation to us, and we cannot agree with the east that the pope is simply another patriarch subject to the normal rules of the patriarchies.  In other words, there is no reciprocity in this.  That's troubling to Latins, because we like to think about things clearly, and clarity is best served by equality of the application of laws.   In a nutshell:  Greeks and Russians can come to us.  We cannot go to them, unless certain emergency or other critical conditions are met. 

Isn't that ironic, though, that you are providing as an argument that Orthodox Church is not that much schismatic by VII - the very reason, the OP is contemplating the idea to defect the Catholic Church?  :LOL:

I was only trying to clarify a point made by Salt.  I perfectly understand a Catholic saying "I hate the Greeks with all my soul, for their contemptible schism and stiff necked pride in refusing to honor the pope."  I perfectly understand a Catholic saying "The pope has given these contemptible Greek schismatics a green light, which is tantamount to heresy.  I'm protesting by leaving the Church."  I would, however, be most surprised to see that same Catholic walking out of the Greek Orthodox church on the next Sunday morning!

I don't think that the old approach of the Church to Orthodoxy can completely be reconciled with the new one.  Sure, there are some historical anamolies here or there, like the Armenians, or on a few of the Greek islands, or in the Levant.  But as a rule, the relationship was one of hostile adversity.  I do, however, think it was chiefly political, and I presume that the pope has the power to decide how much liberty to give dissident elements within his Church.  
Reply
#32
(05-14-2013, 10:05 AM)DoktorDespot Wrote: What a ridiculous reason to abandon the Catholic faith. While the institution of the liturgy is of divine origin, its practice and form are the work of men. Sure, maybe the Orthodox Divine Liturgies are usually prettier and more "reverent" than the Novus Ordo (although I certainly take issue with the suggestion that they never deviate from the rubrics or tradition.) Even if that was true, to become Orthodox requries a complete theological and philosophical shift from being a Catholic. To convert you would have to answer at least these questions: Are you willing to deny the dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption? Are you willing to deny the existence of purgatory? Do you reject the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son? Do you think that there is a real distinction between the essence and energies of God, which Western theologians have always rejected as heretical and verging on polytheistic? Are you going to adopt the Orthodox view of original sin or the notion that all souls are in the presence of God in the Afterlife?

I didn't realize they had so many differences! As I read each question, I shouted in my head No!

Reply
#33
(05-14-2013, 12:43 PM)Old Salt Wrote: You are swandangler little wimpy.

I just said I have learned the truth and I will abide by that jurisdiction .I didn't know about .and will fulfill my obligations at an Orthodox Church.

I just said that.

And do not call me bucko again.

Why have you not thanked me, bucko?

Here is a piece by Fr. John Hardon, who actually encourages Catholics to attend an Orthodox Church to fulfill their Sunday obligation:  http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/...ss_004.htm

From that talk:

Quote:Second Option - Eastern Orthodox Liturgy. One of the remarkable developments of ecumenism, I mean real ecumenism, is the openness which the Second Vatican Council gave Roman Catholics in their relationship with the Eastern Orthodox. In 1967 the Holy See declared that, “Catholics attending the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Eastern Churches, not in communion with Rome, do fulfill their Sunday obligation provided they have reasonable grounds for doing so.” “Such”, Rome also declares, “would be public office, or public function, blood relationship, friendship, or even the desire to be better informed about the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy.” This Roman document goes on to say that professed Catholic are, “Not then bound to assist at Mass in a Catholic Church. It is likewise a good thing if on such days Catholics for just reasons cannot go to Mass in their own Church attend the Holy Liturgy of their separated Oriental brethren if this is possible.”

You can indeed fulfill your obligation at an Orthodox Church.  I think it will be a good experience for you, bucko.  Let us know how it goes.
Reply
#34
(05-14-2013, 12:45 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 12:02 PM)Warrenton Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 11:42 AM)Old Salt Wrote: Thank you for clearing this up, sir.

So the Orthodox are now Catholic, and we are obliged to believe that?

Did not know that, thank you

I will say a thanksgiving prayer for you when my wife and I fulfill our Holy Day obligations at the local Orthodox Church.

Thank you.

Is this a reply to me or Impy?  Sorry- it just wasn't clear. :blush:
T o you.

The Orthodox parish is a lot closer to me than the Latin Catholic one.

If the Church know acknowledges the Orthodox as Catholic I will assist there.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I was agreeing with you that Latins should not go to Orthodox services as a general rule.  I disagreed with you on a relatively minor point about why.  

I don't think we are "obliged" to believe that the Orthodox are not Catholic.  I think we are obliged to obey the disciplinary rules regarding our right to participate in their sacraments.

Furthermore, I think that we have no obligation to believe that the Orthodox are not Catholic as a result of the somewhat conflicting teaching regarding Orthodoxy since (at least) Vatican 2.  Stated affirmatively rather than with the double negatives:  we may affirm Orthodox Catholicity with certain important reservations because of recent teachings from Rome.  

This is not the same thing as saying you are wrong in your belief.  Obviously, anyone looking at and listening to an Orthodox liturgy will notice differences with a Latin mass - like no mention of the pope.  Discussions with an Orthodox priest or bishop will reveal more differences.  Logic dictates that Catholics may draw the natural conclusions from these things.  
Reply
#35
(05-14-2013, 12:53 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 12:43 PM)Old Salt Wrote: You are swandangler little wimpy.

I just said I have learned the truth and I will abide by that jurisdiction .I didn't know about .and will fulfill my obligations at an Orthodox Church.

I just said that.

And do not call me bucko again.

Why have you not thanked me, bucko?

Here is a piece by Fr. John Hardon, who actually encourages Catholics to attend an Orthodox Church to fulfill their Sunday obligation:  http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/...ss_004.htm

From that talk:

Quote:Second Option - Eastern Orthodox Liturgy. One of the remarkable developments of ecumenism, I mean real ecumenism, is the openness which the Second Vatican Council gave Roman Catholics in their relationship with the Eastern Orthodox. In 1967 the Holy See declared that, “Catholics attending the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Eastern Churches, not in communion with Rome, do fulfill their Sunday obligation provided they have reasonable grounds for doing so.” “Such”, Rome also declares, “would be public office, or public function, blood relationship, friendship, or even the desire to be better informed about the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy.” This Roman document goes on to say that professed Catholic are, “Not then bound to assist at Mass in a Catholic Church. It is likewise a good thing if on such days Catholics for just reasons cannot go to Mass in their own Church attend the Holy Liturgy of their separated Oriental brethren if this is possible.”

You can indeed fulfill your obligation at an Orthodox Church.  I think it will be a good experience for you, bucko.  Let us know how it goes.
OK Dickwallop.

And you should consider reversing your sex change operation dickwallop.

Oh, thanks Cockwalloper.

Little boy weak.

Less than a man wallope.

Prune taker

Hi there Dickwallop.

Neither you nor I are Catholic and collwallopers. we will rot in the bowels of hell along with all little schwanson mommy lovers.
Reply
#36
(05-14-2013, 01:12 PM)Old Salt Wrote: OK Dickwallop.

And you should consider reversing your sex change operation dickwallop.

Oh, thanks Cockwalloper.

Little boy weak.

Less than a man wallope.

Prune taker

Hi there Dickwallop.

Neither you nor I are Catholic and collwallopers. we will rot in the bowels of hell along with all little schwanson mommy lovers.

Reverse my sex change operation?  What do you mean? 
Reply
#37
(05-14-2013, 01:22 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 01:12 PM)Old Salt Wrote: OK Dickwallop.

And you should consider reversing your sex change operation dickwallop.

Oh, thanks Cockwalloper.

Little boy weak.

Less than a man wallope.

Prune taker

Hi there Dickwallop.

Neither you nor I are Catholic and collwallopers. we will rot in the bowels of hell along with all little schwanson mommy lovers.

Reverse my sex change operation?  What do you mean? 

What, indeed.  That post was either meant to be funny, or he's totally lost it.

In view of the words that he used, Salt should have posted his comments on the "about men" subforum  :LOL:
Reply
#38
(05-14-2013, 01:43 PM)Warrenton Wrote: What, indeed.  That post was either meant to be funny, or he's totally lost it.

In view of the words that he used, Salt should have posted his comments on the "about men" subforum  :LOL:

Really packed a wallop.
Reply
#39
(05-14-2013, 01:49 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 01:43 PM)Warrenton Wrote: What, indeed.  That post was either meant to be funny, or he's totally lost it.

In view of the words that he used, Salt should have posted his comments on the "about men" subforum  :LOL:

Really packed a wallop.

:LOL: 

It was certainly overkill.  I wonder what he thinks "bucko" means  ???
Reply
#40
(05-14-2013, 01:57 PM)Warrenton Wrote: It was certainly overkill.  I wonder what he thinks "bucko" means  ???

Yes, "bucko" seems to be a trigger word.  I don't think he likes that word.  But his first post in this thread was somewhat dismissive and overassertive, which is why I addressed him as bucko.  Then he seemed to decompensate as the thread progressed.  I think he might be doing prostrations before an iconostasis by now, muttering various permutations of "wallop."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)