Orthodox Posters?
#31
(08-20-2013, 02:01 PM)christulsa123 Wrote: Guacamole,

I was wondering, what doctrine (s) of the Roman Catholic Church do you not accept, and why, that caused you to join the Eastern Orthodox Church and later the Old Catholic Church?

i either had to reject papal infallibility or become a sedevacantist.  since the flip flops go back further than vatican ii (usury, etc.), rejecting papal infallibility made much more sense.  (but i did go through a sedevacantist phase.  whew!)

and yes, i know all the arguments about usury and have had them bookmarked for a long time.  so -- don't bother, at least for my sake!

i hold to the principle enunciated by st. vincent of lerins for holding fast to tradition.  it is quoted in the first article of the declaration of utrecht (http://www.utrechter-union.org/page/152/...ion_of_utr) .  that is why i have an icon of st. vincent of lerins on my icon wall.

as an old catholic, i also have great sympathy for the jansenists and an interest in their history.  i share their preference for st. augustine over st. thomas aquinas.  and i greatly revere the memory of the great blaise pascal and his masterwork, pensées.  thomas a kempis is also a part of this tradition.  that said, i am not, strictly speaking, a jansenist -- except that i have a great devotion to the divine wrath!  :laughing:

for awhile, i attended an sspx chapel, keeping my old catholicism in foro interno.  i refrained from receiving communion there.  (but did receive absolution and communion, for example, at the pncc church.)  i still consider the sspx to be a nascent old catholic church of sorts.  they reject vatican ii.  we reject vatican i.
Reply
#32
Here's the thing with the Orthodox rites being "frozen."  Between the Apostles and St. John Chrysostom, changes were made and new rites were developed in the true Church.  All acknowledge this.  If the Church back then had the authority to make such changes then it does today, or else it is not the same Church as back then. If EO claim this can't be done any more, then they aren't the same Church as the one the developed the rite of St. John Chrysostom.

Furthermore, some EO's like to prey on Catholics who have misgivings about the new form used in the Roman rite, but they have similar gripes about the TLM, which is why it had to be retrograded to a form well before Trent with additional modifications to be used as a "Western Rite" (and even then most Orthodox jurisdictions still reject it).  They've had problems with Catholic liturgies from very early on, be it the use of unleavened bread, the change to the Creed, Communion under one species, the lack of an epiclesis, and in some cases, even the lack of beards or the style of mitre!  If it's not one thing, it's another.

Furthermore, their doctrinal fluctuations are much more severe than many realize.  Most people seem not to know the history of the EO Churches and their pan-Orthodox Councils in the second millenium.   Are indulgences part of Orthodox doctrine or are they a heretical innovation? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  How about original sin (as Catholic's understand it)? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. The need for satisfaction from sin and purgatory? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.
Reply
#33
(08-20-2013, 10:45 AM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: From what I can relay from my own experience about the Orthodox, they have expressed that if one of their patriarchs had attempted to do what Paul VI did to the liturgy and rotes of the Church, he would've been deposed and possibly worse.

The Orthodox priests I've talked to think what's been done to the Roman rites is a travesty.

This is likely why Met. Hilarion wanted a traditionalist pope.  

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03...cally.html
http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/...41739.html

Reply
#34
(08-20-2013, 04:19 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Furthermore, some EO's like to prey on Catholics who have misgivings about the new form used in the Roman rite, but they have similar gripes about the TLM, which is why it had to be retrograded to a form well before Trent with additional modifications to be used as a "Western Rite" (and even then most Orthodox jurisdictions still reject it).  

Please clarify. Are you claiming that the NO is an attempt to go further back in ancient liturgical history? Because that is a canard that has been foistered upon unsuspecting Catholics ever since the NO was introduced.
Reply
#35
Thanks again, Guac, Melk, Ptoch and others for helping me understand.

Guac: "bending the norm for pastoral reasons" sounds a LOT like VII, no?
Melk: Your avatar has the guy I was rooting for for pope (guy on the left. I know, he's not a cardinal, but stranger things have happened . . . ). Your answer concerning divorce vs/=annulment, Guacamole's concerning "bending rules for pastoral reasons" as well as the issue of papal primacy, and Saint Sebastian's comment on OE 'fluctuations' all seem to suggest a couple of things to me:

1. It suggests JPII's "two lungs" theory.
2. It suggests that some in the Catholic Church may well be deliberately positioning itself for a future reunification with the OE, in the sense of gradually restructuring how papal primacy is exercised (not the same as redefining, but restructuring the processes) and how membership is defined. Already Benedict XVI had basically stated that the Church established by Our Lord on earth was the Catholic Church, including in that term the Eastern Orthodox Church because of the validity of their sacraments.
3. It suggests that the differences are more temperamental than essential, as far as Rome sees the "essentials".

In the end, I think that demographic changes will require more practical arrangements among all Christian groups that celebrate valid sacraments, which means trads of all stripes and the Eastern Orthodox.
Reply
#36
(08-20-2013, 02:28 PM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-20-2013, 02:01 PM)christulsa123 Wrote: Guacamole,

I was wondering, what doctrine (s) of the Roman Catholic Church do you not accept, and why, that caused you to join the Eastern Orthodox Church and later the Old Catholic Church?

i either had to reject papal infallibility or become a sedevacantist.  since the flip flops go back further than vatican ii (usury, etc.), rejecting papal infallibility made much more sense.  (but i did go through a sedevacantist phase.  whew!)

and yes, i know all the arguments about usury and have had them bookmarked for a long time.  so -- don't bother, at least for my sake!

i hold to the principle enunciated by st. vincent of lerins for holding fast to tradition.  it is quoted in the first article of the declaration of utrecht (http://www.utrechter-union.org/page/152/...ion_of_utr) .  that is why i have an icon of st. vincent of lerins on my icon wall.

as an old catholic, i also have great sympathy for the jansenists and an interest in their history.  i share their preference for st. augustine over st. thomas aquinas.  and i greatly revere the memory of the great blaise pascal and his masterwork, pensées.  thomas a kempis is also a part of this tradition.  that said, i am not, strictly speaking, a jansenist -- except that i have a great devotion to the divine wrath!  :laughing:

for awhile, i attended an sspx chapel, keeping my old catholicism in foro interno.  i refrained from receiving communion there.  (but did receive absolution and communion, for example, at the pncc church.)  i still consider the sspx to be a nascent old catholic church of sorts.  they reject vatican ii.  we reject vatican i.

Do you agree that this information about the Old Catholic Church is accurate:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church#Beliefs" Wrote:The Old Catholic Church shares some of the liturgy with the Roman Catholic Church and similar to the Orthodox, Anglicans and high church Protestants.

Christ-Catholic Swiss bishop Urs Küry dismissed the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation as well as consubstantiation because these Scholastic interpretations presume to explain the Eucharist using the metaphysical concept of "substance". Like the Orthodox and Methodist approaches to the Eucharist, the Old Catholic Christian ought to accept an unexplainable divine mystery as such, and should not cleave to or insist upon a particular theory of the sacrament.[46]

Because of this approach, Old Catholics hold an open view to most issues, including the role of women in the Church, the role of married people within ordained ministry, the morality of same sex relationships, the use of one's conscience when deciding to use artificial contraception, and liturgical reforms such as open communion (because no human can presume to exclude any Christian from communion). Its liturgy has not significantly departed from the Tridentine Mass, as is shown in the English translation of the German Altarbook (missal).

In 1994 the German bishops decided to ordain women as priests and put this into practice on 27 May 1996; similar decisions and practices followed in Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands.[47] The Utrecht Union allows those who are divorced to have a new religious marriage, and it has no particular teaching on abortion, leaving such decisions to the married couple.[48]

This sure doesn't sound like anything any Roman/Eastern Catholic should consider, regardless of the problems with the changes in the Church recently, and the problems some may perceive in the past.  It abandons the moral law, as well as the Catholic tradition and authority that upholds it. 
Reply
#37
(08-20-2013, 06:22 PM)Doce Me Wrote: This sure doesn't sound like anything any Roman/Eastern Catholic should consider, regardless of the problems with the changes in the Church recently, and the problems some may perceive in the past.  It abandons the moral law, as well as the Catholic tradition and authority that upholds it. 

i don't agree with all the policies of the IBC (International Bishops Conference) of the Union of Utrecht, but i hold the basics of the Old Catholic faith.  they have valid sacraments.  i would not be able to receive Our Lord as a Roman Catholic, because I do not believe in the dogma of papal infallibility.

this is the best i can do, and i think it's good enough.  i have not claimed to be a trad.

well, the pwp's are starting to march.  i'm going to go watch  dr. who on netflix.
Reply
#38
Guacamole,

Is it possible you followed the sedevacantist interpretation of papal infallibility leading to rejection of this doctrine?

The problem is that the sedes extend papal infallibility to all magisterial statements including all papal-approved conciliar statements.

But this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Please see New Advent encyclopedia on papal infallibility, which includes what Vatican I actually said.

The SSPX does not reject Vatican II, as the Old Catholics did Vatican I.

Christ founded the Church upon the Rock which is St. Peter.

Reply
#39
(08-20-2013, 06:22 PM)Doce Me Wrote: This sure doesn't sound like anything any Roman/Eastern Catholic should consider, regardless of the problems with the changes in the Church recently, and the problems some may perceive in the past.  It abandons the moral law, as well as the Catholic tradition and authority that upholds it. 

From the Orthodox folk that I know in real life, Orthodoxy hardly even believes in a moral "law." Obviously they believe in morality, but mostly on a circumstantial basis. Orthodoxy rejects anything similar to the Catholic teaching that lying is ALWAYS sinful, even though St. Augustine himself said, "One may not slay his own soul by lying to save his life." Lying is not intrinsicically evil to to the Orthodox, but is actually justified in many circumstances. To me it reeks of moral relativism. They tend to reject the ideas of absolute morality. And the exceptions to this are nonsensical (for example that violence is always wrong, even in self defense, such that even a soldier whose actions may be justified is still guilty of the sin of murder, a stark contrast to Catholicism). But without a centralized teaching authority it's incredibly difficult to even say what Orthodoxy actually believes since very little of it is formalized into law. In general, Orthodoxy rejects the idea of anything resembling something like a canon law, but again I can hardly even say that for the reason I just stated.

It hurts me inside to see Roman Catholics swept away because they have attached themselves more to a liturgy than to a theology. Orthodox theology is broken, and honestly stupid. They honor tradition, but only insofar as what they remember. What is actually written by the Church Fathers, or the decisions made by the Orthodox Church in times long forgotten, hardly matters to them. Apparently they don't remember the great Orthodox heroes who fought bravely against the Turks to stop the spread of Islam across Europe. Apparently those men are in hell. Even if the TLM was outlawed, I would never leave Catholicism for the sheer reason that it is the only body of thought in all of human history that actually makes any damn sense. I'd sooner suffer through communion in the hand at the command of a bishop, and stand by in my innocence and watch as he is thrown into hell, than apostatize and send myself there.
Reply
#40
(08-20-2013, 08:51 AM)guacamole Wrote: i converted to orthodoxy, but later reverted to traditional roman catholicism because i was homesick for the western tradition.  now i consider myself old catholic for many of the reasons that led me originally to orthodoxy, but i get to keep my western ethos.

So you apostatized not once, but twice.   

(08-20-2013, 06:48 PM)guacamole Wrote: i don't agree with all the policies of the IBC (International Bishops Conference) of the Union of Utrecht, but i hold the basics of the Old Catholic faith.  they have valid sacraments.  i would not be able to receive Our Lord as a Roman Catholic, because I do not believe in the dogma of papal infallibility.

this is the best i can do, and i think it's good enough.  i have not claimed to be a trad.

well, the pwp's are starting to march.  i'm going to go watch  dr. who on netflix.


A new high water mark in Cafeteria Catholicism.  Congratulations. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)