How do the Orthodox go to hell if their sacraments are valid?
#51
(11-12-2019, 11:50 AM)Augustinian Wrote: Rejection of the supernatural gifts and acts of the saints is a reflection of a lack of faith. Having a healthy skepticism of the claims of unverified miracles is natural and right, but once the Church proclaims their truth I don't see how there can be any doubt in them through the eyes of faith. I mean, if we are going to start dismissing the acts of the saints, then we are already on the slope towards denying the supernatural accounts of Scripture and even the acts of Christ (I am not saying this is where you are, though, to be clear).

Perhaps it was just the author saying the Church verified these miracles when it really hadn't?  In reading this book, you would think people were being raised from the dead every other day during the middle ages.

My skepticism on this comes in where miracles were happening left and right at a time when they couldn't be easily verified, but as soon as we develop techniques for verifying them, all of sudden they stop happening.  I don't buy the excuse some people make that there were more miracles back then because the faith was stronger, and we don't see them now because of a huge lack of faith in society.  The first problem with that explanation is that the drop in miracles took place a century or more before the societal loss in faith.  The other problem is that miracles are supposed to be proofs that God exists.  We should expect more miracles when faith is so severely lacking, not less.  If there were more miracles taking place when people had faith, then that would mean God was sending them to people who didn't need them, and is withholding them from those who do.

I think it is more likely that miracles took place before the industrial age with more-or-less the same frequency that they occur today, and that most of the stories of miracles from those times are just made up.  It would have been much harder to disprove them back then.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#52
(11-12-2019, 10:19 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 03:13 AM)Blind Horus Wrote: Melkite: Certainly you don't believe every legend about the saints you hear, right?  When I first came to faith, I believed everything.  EVERYTHING. 

Well, dont you wish you could recapture that first love?

Not really.  That kind of gullibility where you believe everything makes you a prime victim for every wolf in sheep's clothing that crosses your path.

But I also know what you mean.  The child-like magic of believing in God like Santa Claus is also gone.  I never regained it after my return to the faith - every belief is constantly muddled with doubt.  After a few years, I realized that that is probably something that is gone for the rest of this life.  I attribute it to having gained knowledge on certain things - things that have a more rational explanation than "God did it" that I wasn't aware of before.  I also kind of wonder if that wasn't the sin that caused Adam to fall.  The desire to have knowledge and understanding of your surroundings, rather than merely accepting them as they are, is in a sense making yourself to be a god of those surroundings.  A forensic understanding of the faith sanitizes it from the magic of belief.  It kind of kills the beauty and serendipity of faith.

The Sheep shouldn't worry to much about the Wolves, but the Wolves should be a little bit worried about The Shepherd.

And for no particular reason at all

“He often used to say there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep and every path was its tributary. “It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door,” he used to say. “You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to.”


Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
Reply
#53
I came across this video this morning, since we're on the topic of EO.



The video claims that due to the existence of Eastern Catholicism, the claims of Rome are bunk. Yet I think it proves just the opposite: that the issues are not at all theological, but ecclesiastical.

The thing I just do not get is that Orthodox are perfectly fine having a secular power, like the Byzantine Emperor or some other secular power (Russian Orthodoxy is an example), preside over them; but take issue with the Bishop of Rome taking this position, separating the Church from the secular influence? I just don't see how this is a bad thing, when Rome is willing to accept theological differences for the sake of unity. It makes a lot more sense to have the Church operate over and above the secular powers than to have any secular influence at all.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2

My blog: https://slavetothesacredhe.art.blog/
Reply
#54
It is a sin to be in schism, to receive the Sacrament of Penance one must renounce any present state of schism for to intentionally do otherwise is a sacriledge.
MonstranceDeo Gratias et Ave Maria! Monstrance
Pray the Rosary
Reply
#55
(11-14-2019, 10:46 AM)Augustinian Wrote: I came across this video this morning, since we're on the topic of EO.



The video claims that due to the existence of Eastern Catholicism, the claims of Rome are bunk. Yet I think it proves just the opposite: that the issues are not at all theological, but ecclesiastical.

The thing I just do not get is that Orthodox are perfectly fine having a secular power, like the Byzantine Emperor or some other secular power (Russian Orthodoxy is an example), preside over them; but take issue with the Bishop of Rome taking this position, separating the Church from the secular influence? I just don't see how this is a bad thing, when Rome is willing to accept theological differences for the sake of unity. It makes a lot more sense to have the Church operate over and above the secular powers than to have any secular influence at all.

There’s no doubt a contradiction.  The Byzantine Catholic churches liturgically celebrate the Feast of St. Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Great Lent.  That being the very St. Gregory Palamas that Roman Traditionalists call a heretic and a “polytheist”.  Yet Traditionalists themselves are often the ones who will encourage Catholics to explore the Eastern Rites and even to take refuge there from the Novus Ordo if they so desire. But isn’t that encouraging them to explore heresy?

Regarding your second point, an Emperor presiding over Christians is much different from a Patriarch or Pope who believes they have the right to single-handedly and unilaterally declare matters of dogma.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)