Orthodoxy, TLM, NO
#41
(05-14-2013, 12:49 PM)Warrenton Wrote:
(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.  

I was just pointing out the irony of the situation.

Plus gently reminding that infatuation by orthodoxy from the Catholic side is absolutely NOT reciprocated - you are still viewed as one in need to be converted to orthodoxy, not accepted as you are.

On the serious note, though, I highly suspect that defection from your own Church on a dubious reason of not liking it after the VII is not viewed well from "upstairs".  :grin:
If you do not like yo what you see - put yourself in improving it, not running away from it.
Reply
#42
(05-14-2013, 12:45 PM)Old Salt Wrote: 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.

It does not if you have an NO parish and omit it and go to Orthodox instead
It may be acknowledged if there is NO Catholic Church near, not a TLM one
Reply
#43
(05-14-2013, 02:22 PM)silvia Wrote:
(05-14-2013, 12:49 PM)Warrenton Wrote:
(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.  

I was just pointing out the irony of the situation.

Plus gently reminding that infatuation by orthodoxy from the Catholic side is absolutely NOT reciprocated - you are still viewed as one in need to be converted to orthodoxy, not accepted as you are.

On the serious note, though, I highly suspect that defection from your own Church on a dubious reason of not liking it after the VII is not viewed well from "upstairs".  :grin:
If you do not like yo what you see - put yourself in improving it, not running away from it.

It is ironic, and you are correct, reciprocity is mostly lacking.  Orthodoxy also exists in a different cultural context from Catholicism.  Most Catholics, I suspect, are not interested in becoming Greeks or Russians.  They are only looking for  a break from the problems that beset the Church. 
Reply
#44
I eagerly await the conversion of Russia so I can follow my heart in that regard. The Russian Catholic Church is near enough dead or filled with bi-ritual Latin Religious or whatever. Even if the TLM was widely restored I would still make the switch were it possible.
Reply
#45
(05-14-2013, 02:40 PM)Felix E Wrote: I eagerly await the conversion of Russia so I can follow my heart in that regard. The Russian Catholic Church is near enough dead or filled with bi-ritual Latin Religious or whatever. Even if the TLM was widely restored I would still make the switch were it possible.

So you're a quasi-collwalloper?  :colt:
Reply
#46
(05-14-2013, 11:10 AM)NatusDei Wrote: OldSalt, I am not looking to pick a fight, however according to the Code of Canon Law, it seems that they may indeed receive, as per Canon 844:

"§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches."

Modernist garbage. To be properly disposed is to have the catholic faith, which they don't have. The only possibility is if they were in danger of death and converted on the spot. Otherwise they aren't "properly disposed."

The USCCB statement/guidelines here are gobblitygook.

DD
Reply
#47
OK, can someone explain the linguistics here

bucko, collwalloper, etc I can suspect what that means, but I have never encountered those words.

Sure enough it is exactly the nuances which can not be explained by the book or internet  :grin:
Reply
#48
(05-14-2013, 01:57 PM)Warrenton Wrote:
(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  ???

by urban dictionary a very wide variety of "what" :

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bucko
Reply
#49
The way I see it, the position of the Orthodox is analogous to that of the SSPX (though the SSPX is better off), in terms of being in a complicated relationship with the Church at large.
Reply
#50
(05-14-2013, 05:11 PM)Parmandur Wrote: The way I see it, the position of the Orthodox is analogous to that of the SSPX (though the SSPX is better off), in terms of being in a complicated relationship with the Church at large.

The Eastern Orthodox do not hold the Catholic Faith. They deny the papacy and a few other items. The SSPX do not deny any articles of the Catholic Faith. Might look the same to a protestant, but us Catholics should know better.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)