Questions about Catholicism
#31
(06-10-2019, 08:14 PM)mpk1987 Wrote: So do Easterners believe that Mary was sanctified in the womb after her conception but before 3 months (when St. John the Baptist was)?

I generally prefer not to engage in garble-de-gook over the timing of sanctification. When they were sanctified is a manner of God's timing which operates on a level different than human thought. The matter of disagreement is really one about timing. But if God is timeless then the essence of "when" they were sanctified shouldn't even be a matter capable of theological settlement.
Reply
#32
(06-11-2019, 01:02 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: MagisterMusicae,
Incorrect. It does not make him a heretic any more than the entire Greek Catholic Church administering communion in both kinds (spoken against in the Council of Trent, I believe). I guess that makes our liturgy heretical? Smile

Glad you're the expert in theology. How many years did you study in a Catholic seminary?

I think your catechist, who is a heretic, has done you a serious disservice.

And yes, he is a heretic. He denies the Catholic Faith if he denies a defined dogma which the Teaching authority has definitively taught. He doesn't need to work out the theology, but to openly deny it is open heresy. He's not a Catholic and you ought to stay far away from that kind of arrogance and pride.

Trent does not condemn the administration of the Eucharist under both forms in itself. She did condemn the Protestants who would insist that this must be done. There is nothing dogmatically wrong about it. That is a disciplinary and customary matter.

The Immaculate Conception is not. If it does not mean much to an Easterner, fine, but it must be accepted.

(06-11-2019, 01:02 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: The East doesn't really have the notion of developed theology like the Latin West does either. Further, to make an ecumenical council, you need all the ecumenical patriarchs gathered together. Technically, that makes the papal infallibility claims of Vatican I non-binding in Eastern theology as well.

So you get to reject Trent as well? Florence, too?

One can have different theological opinions. Once can certainly reject a Western notion of grace and Original Sin if he preserves the essentials of the Catholic Faith, but if one can dissent from the Magisterium of the Church when it solemnly teaching something, then one has a different religion. Call it whatever you like, but it's not Catholic.

When the Pope defines something, it binds all Catholics of all rites, because he is the Vicar of Christ, and not only the Patriarch of the West.

(06-11-2019, 01:02 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: Where were all the bishops? Certainly, all the ecclesiastical patriarchs must be present.


Who has definitively determined that? You?
Reply
#33
"Once can certainly reject a Western notion of grace and Original Sin if he preserves the essentials of the Catholic Faith"


Just for my own info - you agree that one can do the above?
Reply
#34
(06-11-2019, 01:02 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: The East doesn't really have the notion of developed theology like the Latin West does either. Further, to make an ecumenical council, you need all the ecumenical patriarchs gathered together. Technically, that makes the papal infallibility claims of Vatican I non-binding in Eastern theology as well. Where were all the bishops? Certainly, all the ecclesiastical patriarchs must be present. For the Latin West, the magisterium is derived from the infallibility of the Pope. But if Vatican I doesn't bear the marks of a genuine ecumenical council, it cannot be considered binding.

Bishops from the eastern orthodox were invited to Vatican 1, but chose not to come.

*Didnt mean to like that post..
Reply
#35
(06-11-2019, 01:06 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: I generally prefer not to engage in garble-de-gook over the timing of sanctification. When they were sanctified is a manner of God's timing which operates on a level different than human thought. The matter of disagreement is really one about timing. But if God is timeless then the essence of "when" they were sanctified shouldn't even be a matter capable of theological settlement.

But God also deals in real time, no?

Hardly can be dismissed as garble-de-gook.
Reply
#36
(06-11-2019, 01:02 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: The East doesn't really have the notion of developed theology like the Latin West does either.

Apparently not.
Reply
#37
(06-11-2019, 01:02 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: You are correct that the East celebrates the Conception of the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary but it's no where near as important in the East as the Feast Day which comes before it--the Feast of St. Nicholas. 

Why would the Conception of the Theotokos, which was critical for the indwelling of Our Redeemer be relegated as less important than St. Nicholas, holy man that he is?
Reply
#38
(06-11-2019, 07:48 AM)BC Wrote:
(06-11-2019, 01:02 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: You are correct that the East celebrates the Conception of the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary but it's no where near as important in the East as the Feast Day which comes before it--the Feast of St. Nicholas. 

Why would the Conception of the Theotokos, which was critical for the indwelling of Our Redeemer be relegated as less important than St. Nicholas, holy man that he is?

Important as the Theotokos is, and she isn't venerated any more than in the Orthodox faith, St. Nicholas overshadows the celebration of the Conception of the Theotokos because he is the Patron Saint of all the Eastern Churches. Further, if you acknowledge the myriad of other important events regarding the Theotokos, you are constantly affirming the conception.
Reply
#39
MagisterMusicae,
No, I am not an expert and don't think I have claimed to be. I am a layman.

No, my catechist is not a heretick. As he repeats numerous times, we're Orthodox in Union with Rome. Also, he's a Fourth Order Knight.

"The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ's integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

Clearly, someone made an unauthorized development in the West regarding Communion in both kinds...

Regarding the Councils, yes. The 14 councils of the West do not have ecumenical but local merit. To be ecumenical requires all the ecumenical patriarchs to be present. It does not matter if they were invited, if they did not show, then the council is not ecumenical. Ecumenical referring to the wholeness. This, I learned in discussions with a Ruthenian deacon who mentored me for four years when I was still an Anglican. We have not had an ecumenical council since the Second Council of Nicaea. Simply put.

Well the Union of Brest allows Greek Catholics to keep their religion (Orthodoxy) while also being accepted in communion with the Pope of Rome. I stand by the Union of Brest. We are not Latins but Orthodox in Union with Rome.

And the Pope is only the Patriarch of the West (in terms of his authority). He is a unifying figurehead but he does not have authority over the Eastern Churches. This too, was established early on in Christianity.
Reply
#40
(06-11-2019, 10:48 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: MagisterMusicae,
No, I am not an expert and don't think I have claimed to be. I am a layman.

Alright, well then take what has been said above by someone who has done that masters-level study in philosophy and theology, and has been teaching Catholic Doctrine, Church History for the past 12 years ...

Your catechist is a heretic.

And you are as well if you reject the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, or if you reject that the Pope (while being Patriarch of the West) is not also the head of all of the sui juris churches as the Visible head of the only true Church, Vicar of Rome and Successor of St Peter.

Orthodoxy is not a religion. It is a false sect. If you are Orthodox you are a schismatic and not in union with Rome or the Church. If you are in union with Rome, you are a Catholic, not an Orthodox.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)