Hypothetically, would ordination of women mean the gates of hell had prevailed?
#13
(10-13-2019, 11:43 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(10-13-2019, 11:00 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Bingo.  Exactly this.  Part of this stuff is why I did finally become Orthodox. 

Not trying to get anyone here to do the same but I'm always curious as to why people stay where they do and how they rationalize and try to make sense of all this chaos. 

While this sort of thing was not my sole reason for leaving Rome by a longshot it certainly put me on a journey to seek out the answers to almost everything that troubled me and at the end of it I left the RCC and have not regretted it for a single moment, not even for a second.  

I feel for trads because RC ecclesiology leaves no real room for disobeying and not going along with or at least being under whoever happens to be pope and bishop of whatever diocese. 

 Personally I never was convinced of the SSPX position. If anything the sedes have a more logically coherent system but the papacy is the sine qua non of Catholicism and they don't have a pope so the whole thing falls apart.  To their credit they do not compromise. FSSP had to sell their souls for the mess of pottage that is the arguably different religion of Vatican II and live a precarious existence as a neutralized ghetto WITHIN the VAT II system.  

There's simply no legitimate recourse lay Catholics have other than to basically go in schism from their church. It's a very difficult and precarious situation for sure, and one I sympathize with because I've been there.

I guess I still STRONGLY believe the papacy as it came to be by the time of Vatican I is THE Achilles heel of Catholicism. I cannot be convinced otherwise at this point.

You're not wrong on any of your points in my opinion.  For others, the best version of the argument FB is making from the Orthodox position can be found here: http://orthochristian.com/105123.html

"The fruits of Vatican II can be found in Vatican I."

Quote:In 1870, Rome added yet another new dogma—Papal Infallibility. What most traditional Roman Catholics do not know about is the political maneuvering and tremendous pressure used by Pope Pius IX to get this new dogma declared. Ecumenical Councils are to meet free of outside pressure and their decisions must be unanimous or nearly so. Vatican I was anything but a free Council, and when Pius IX saw that he could not get a near unanimous vote he changed the rules and required only a majority. The night before the vote many bishops left Rome knowing that under the new rules a tragic new innovation would be pushed through. When the vote was taken many bishops were already gone, and lightening struck St. Peter’s where the bishops were meeting during the vote.

Many Roman Catholics refused to accept the new dogma of Papal Infallibility saying that a New Catholic Faith had been invented at the Vatican Council. Sound familiar? It should as many say the same thing about Vatican II. Professing the “Old Catholic” faith, many Roman Catholics separated from Rome and entered the Orthodox Church or formed Old Catholic Churches in Europe and the United States. Once again, rather than a center of unity, Rome was a cause of division.
Less than a century after the First Vatican Council ended the Second Vatican Council met in Rome. All of the changes in doctrine and practice adopted over some nine centuries made it easy to again “change the Church” at and after the Second Vatican Council.

The problem I have is that when I went Orthodox, I didn't find anything different from what I was seeing in the Catholic Church.  Orthodox metropolitans are liberal retards with the best of them, and that's a fact.  It takes exactly one second of googling to find evidence of this (e.g., https://www.oca.org/news/headline-news/m...f-families).  Now you may say that that is different from Orthodox metropolitans corrupting dogma.  True!  But if you're talking about being scandalized by modernists hierarchs in day to day life by every possible application of your faith to the contemporary world, you're SOL.  If you're talking about your church acting seditiously by, for instance, importing refugees into your country and not just into urban centers but into rural areas just to alter the demographics in deference to their globalist masters, the Orthodox Church is right there with the Catholics.  Your money WILL go to the bug eaters and the Facebook Soy Milk Industrial Complex as an Orthdox.

To be perfectly frank, I felt about as betrayed either way.  Do I want the church run by liberals that hasn't changed their liturgy or the church run by liberals that has?  Orthodoxy also, let's be real, has altered their teachings when it pleased them to do so.  Divorce, for example.  For the rest, they generally just refuse to comment on things and leave a wide berth for priests to say whatever the hell they want or nothing at all.  

I left Orthodoxy for the SSPX.  I simply don't want to deal with liberal retards in any capacity.  Period.  SSPX accommodates me on that point.  That's good enough for me, but I also am not one of the people on this forum fretting existentially.  If I don't go to heaven it will be because I never stopped watching porn and masturbating, not because I poorly discerned the true Church.  Experiencing Orthodoxy made me realize I don't actually care that much about the crisis in the Church in terms of "oh no my dogma".  I actually just 1) truly hate communists and crypto-communists to the very core of my being, 2) believe they deserve the death penalty, and 3) will never submit in any way or give money to any church or organization from which I get even the slightest whiff of any of that.  There's also the issues of your church dying, but that's circumstantial.

I don't think this is the rebuttal that many here would hope for.  However, I am completely at peace.  I know who I am and what I believe: a person who hates liberals.

Edit: Also, unlike most here, I 100% would leave the Catholic Church if they ordained female deacons/priests.  I would leave in a heartbeat and never look back.  It wouldn't even faze me.  Seeing a woman cosplay in vestments like in the Episcopal Church is pure cringe.  I look at it and know there is no truth there.  And my reaction would be thankfulness that I would be privileged to be alive at a time when such a revelation might be made known to me.  I would feel less anxiety for my soul to be blessed with such a clear cut opportunity for discernment.
Fair enough.  Your conscience is clear as is mine, and from reading your post I can tell this was not easy for you either, it took a long time of praying, reading and struggling through these very deep and difficult issues. 

I guess I'm not scandalized by Orthodoxy because I chose to become an Old Ritualist. If I lived in Erie I'd attend that Church exclusively and not even go to other Orthodox churches that weren't old rite, doing the home alone thing that I did for the last year or so of my Catholic days when not around an Old Rite Church.  I guess I have the eccentric and hardcore spirit of the Old Believers and probably always have, even when in Rome. 

I'd never attend an OCA, or GOA church for any reason.  That being said I do not deny there are a lot of problems within the Orthodox world just like there are in Rome. The same modernism is creeping into mainstream Orthodoxy here in America. I have no illusions about that.  I have an easier time justifying my position within the scope of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology than with as Roman one. Like I mentioned before, I just cannot personally square the circle of what I believe the papacy became and what that has done to the RCC.

  Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson in his paper  Notes on Orthodox Ecclesiology: Created Grace and the Mystification of Episcopal Power on his Rusjournal.org site gives a pretty good run down on my own views as does his book Sobornosti: Essays on the Old Faith. I like how the bishop is not the sine qua non of the Faith itself.  Maybe he is in modernist world Orthodoxy, but he isn't amongst more traditional and I suppose these days eccentric characters like me. 

I'm glad we could discuss this without rancor to be honest.

Oh, and I do like how there is a line in the sand for you regarding a female priesthood or diaconate. As I said in the other post for 99% of Catholics I would argue that no such line exists.  They would rationalize it, justify it, bury their heads in the sand or "go along to get along. "
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Hypothetically, would ordination of women mean the gates of hell had prevailed? - by formerbuddhist - 10-13-2019, 12:07 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)