Orthodox Posters?
(08-22-2013, 02:12 PM)Farmer88 Wrote: Considering Fatima and the Consecration of Russia is being brought up again, let me postulate something I had thought of. Maybe the Consecration DID happen when it was said to have happened and the result was the fall of the Soviet Union and the EXPLOSION in the Russian Orthodox Church as well as values held by the ROC. It seems to be a logical conclusion.

If the consecration was performed when it was said to have happened may God preserve us from any more consecrations! In 2001, 1.31 million children were born in Russia, while 2.11 million abortions were performed. IOW, more children were murdered than were born alive. In 2005, 1.5 million abortions were registered in Russia; 20% of these involved girls under the age of 18. Official statistics put the number at 989,000 in 2011, though Russian pro-life activists say that number is much higher.

And that is not even addressing the rampant crime, corruption, alcoholism, etc.
Reply
(08-22-2013, 11:24 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-22-2013, 02:12 PM)Farmer88 Wrote: Considering Fatima and the Consecration of Russia is being brought up again, let me postulate something I had thought of. Maybe the Consecration DID happen when it was said to have happened and the result was the fall of the Soviet Union and the EXPLOSION in the Russian Orthodox Church as well as values held by the ROC. It seems to be a logical conclusion.

If the consecration was performed when it has said to have happened may God preserve us from any more consecrations! In 2001, 1.31 million children were born in Russia, while 2.11 million abortions were performed. IOW, more children were murdered than were born alive. In 2005, 1.5 million abortions were registered in Russia; 20% of these involved girls under the age of 18. Official statistics put the number at 989,000 in 2011, though Russian pro-life activists say that number is much higher.

And that is not even addressing the rampant crime, corruption, alcoholism, etc.
Church attendance twice per year, confession once, you're good to go.  Sexual activity vital for health, preferably in a marriage, but not enough men to go around, so do what you have to.  Catechism is for the monastics.  The church takes marching orders from the state.  Yeah, they need salvation. 
Reply
Remember the nonsense at the time that Gorby was a convert to Catholicism ? Frigging hysterical. Yet the neo-Catholics wouldn't let it go, and so when he went to . Italy for holiday and visited Assissi again the BS flowed until he told the press he was not any kind of Catholic.Russia is run by ex-KGB and the criminals they released from prison. I have a friend in the machinery for meat processing. His stories of meetings with clients to purchase his machinery are like a cross between the Godfather and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. All contain high speed Mercedes rides flipping 180 degree turns at 140 mph.

This stuff come directly from the churchmen in the Vatican that are opposed to Fatima. They'll float anything to diminish the need for the Consecration. Cardinal Bertone to the best of my knowledge has never read the third secret, so he gets trotted out to spew his silliness because he has plausible deniability since he hasn't the foggiest what is contained in each part. He knows the press release.

Sheesh,

tim
Reply
Just out of curiosity has anyone heard of Vladimir Soloviev's theory (he was a renowned Russian philosopher who was in contact with Pope Leo XIII) ? Soloviev argues that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have never been disunited because they have never fully repudiated the council of Florence. So though the eastern orthodox church leaders oppose fully explicit recognition of the fact that the churches have never really split they are still united after all this form. This theory may seem to be confirmed by the allowing of post florence saints to be celebrated by the Eastern Catholics (allowed by no less than Saint Pius X) and the intercommunion which was more prevalent a long time ago but which still continues in parts of the Middle East.
Reply
(08-23-2013, 01:51 PM)SaintLouis Wrote: Just out of curiosity has anyone heard of Vladimir Soloviev's theory (he was a renowned Russian philosopher who was in contact with Pope Leo XIII) ? Soloviev argues that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have never been disunited because they have never fully repudiated the council of Florence.

when i was orthodox (still am?), i learned that any ecumenical council, to be valid, must be received by the clergy and the people.  thanks to st. mark of ephesus (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Mark_of_Ephesus), a hero of the orthodox who rallied the clergy and people against the council of florence, that council was never received.  so it is not valid as far as they are concerned.

they would say that you are thinking in typically latin, 'juridical" categories that they do not accept.
Reply
I am actually Eastern Orthodox too right now but I am being drawn towards traditional catholicism and it is precisely because of the thing you have just mentioned. I was thinking about the question of how do the orthodox know which ecumenical councils are binding and which are false? I realized that there is no real connection historically between the ecumenical councils...except that the pope ratified those which we hold now to be true and help us distinguish between what are false and true councils. Some of the councils were accepted by everyone...some weren't...some of the councils were accepted by all the patriarchs...some weren't. So there must be some criterion of visible authority and the only possible one must be the pope. I cannot help but admire the traditions and saints of the Eastern Orthodox Churches even post Council of Florence. However, I agree with "extra ecclesiam nullam salus" and that the truth is the Catholic Church.  How can there be reconciliation between these principles without resorting to the false tactic that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have part of the truth? Vladimir Soloviev is part of the answer. He also has a certain respectability given his connection with the pope. Vladimir Soloviev believed that he could be a Catholic fully loyal with the pope while being an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I am not saying this a good solution because as far as I know it is against canon law. But Soloviev did make interesting arguments. He argued that the churches have never really been disunited because the Eastern Orthodox Church has never repudiated the dogmas of catholicism and has in certain periods of times agreed with them. So in some sense the Orthodox churches are part of the Catholic church although most of their leaders do not recognize it. This is attested to by the fact that for long periods of times the two churches thought there was a dispute WITHIN the one church rather than two separate communions disputing with each other. Also, St Pius X allowed the eastern catholics to celebrate many saints that came after the Council of Florence and there was also intercommunion in many parts of the world which still remains between the churches. This is just an interesting idea. Another part of Soloviev's thought was concerned with reviving the Holy Roman Empire by reconciling the tzar with pope...interesting...however, if the eastern orthodox churches recognize explicitly that they are united with the catholics then they could twart the modernism that is prevalent after Vatican II.
Reply
i agree that the roman catholic church and the orthodox churches are really the same church.

however, if you convert to roman catholicism, you will be exchanging one set of uncertainties for another.  you might like those uncertainties better, however. 
Reply
(08-23-2013, 07:22 PM)SaintLouis Wrote: I am actually Eastern Orthodox too right now but I am being drawn towards traditional catholicism and it is precisely because of the thing you have just mentioned. I was thinking about the question of how do the orthodox know which ecumenical councils are binding and which are false? I realized that there is no real connection historically between the ecumenical councils...except that the pope ratified those which we hold now to be true and help us distinguish between what are false and true councils. Some of the councils were accepted by everyone...some weren't...some of the councils were accepted by all the patriarchs...some weren't. So there must be some criterion of visible authority and the only possible one must be the pope. I cannot help but admire the traditions and saints of the Eastern Orthodox Churches even post Council of Florence. However, I agree with "extra ecclesiam nullam salus" and that the truth is the Catholic Church.  How can there be reconciliation between these principles without resorting to the false tactic that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have part of the truth? Vladimir Soloviev is part of the answer. He also has a certain respectability given his connection with the pope. Vladimir Soloviev believed that he could be a Catholic fully loyal with the pope while being an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I am not saying this a good solution because as far as I know it is against canon law. But Soloviev did make interesting arguments. He argued that the churches have never really been disunited because the Eastern Orthodox Church has never repudiated the dogmas of catholicism and has in certain periods of times agreed with them. So in some sense the Orthodox churches are part of the Catholic church although most of their leaders do not recognize it. This is attested to by the fact that for long periods of times the two churches thought there was a dispute WITHIN the one church rather than two separate communions disputing with each other. Also, St Pius X allowed the eastern catholics to celebrate many saints that came after the Council of Florence and there was also intercommunion in many parts of the world which still remains between the churches. This is just an interesting idea. Another part of Soloviev's thought was concerned with reviving the Holy Roman Empire by reconciling the tzar with pope...interesting...however, if the eastern orthodox churches recognize explicitly that they are united with the catholics then they could twart the modernism that is prevalent after Vatican II.

Welcome St. Louis. I appreciate what you wrote.

Is there by chance a Catholic Byzantine rite in your neck of the woods?

I went to the Byzantine Mass for a year, then switched to the Tridentine rite.
Reply
"Welcome St. Louis. I appreciate what you wrote.

Is there by chance a Catholic Byzantine rite in your neck of the woods?

I went to the Byzantine Mass for a year, then switched to the Tridentine rite."

Thank you! I think there is one within half an hour of driving distance.
Reply
(08-23-2013, 09:53 PM)SaintLouis Wrote: "Welcome St. Louis. I appreciate what you wrote.

Is there by chance a Catholic Byzantine rite in your neck of the woods?

I went to the Byzantine Mass for a year, then switched to the Tridentine rite."

Thank you! I think there is one within half an hour of driving distance.

Great!  Keep us posted please.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)