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.
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

"But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has transported us out of darkness into his marvelous light when through these lights exteriorly given we are disposed to reenter the mirror of our mind in which divine realities shine forth."
-St. Bonaventure, Itinerarium
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • CarmeliteKnight
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.
:monstrance:Deo Gratias et Ave Maria! :monstrance:
Pray the Rosary

A Dieu mon ame,
Mon arme au roi,
Mon Coeur a la dame,
Mon honneur a moi!
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
#56
(11-11-2019, 03:35 AM)yablabo Wrote: It doesn't matter if you only commit the formal sin (the grave matter of the sin is not heresy, apostasy or schism, but the formal part (full knowledge and consent of the will) manifests these), or if you go whole hog and commit the material sin (the grave matter is heresy, apostasy or schism, committed with full knowledge and consent of the will).  The end result as I understand it is ipso facto excommunication either way.

The object of formal or material heresy is different, though related.  The crimes and penalties rendered in Canon Law are also different, though related.

To be clear, I am not including errors in speech or mistakes in what I wrote.  Those are simply manifestations of fallen human nature.  However, that is no excuse for sloppiness in discussion; we must always be on our guard to speak or write the truth with certitude.

Your mixing up terms and as a result this is a mess.

Sin has two aspects : the material (the action), and the formal (knowledge and consent). A sin could be material only, and thus an evil result which appears sinful has occurred, but without culpability. For example, shouting a blasphemy against Christ. This is a material sin. If one did it as a result of Turrets, there is no formal sin, because no knowledge or consent. If one did it in order to denigrate our Lord, then there is a formal sin because there is knowledge and consent.

One does not start with a formal sin, and then add the material. It's the other way around. One does something material, and there is actual sin if there is intention (consent + knowledge).

The same with the sin heresy. This is why mistakes or statements which we may not know are heretical are usually called "material heresy". The material of heresy (the erroneous statement) is present. The formal aspect (stubbornness in the face of correction), is not necessarily there. Externally, we can only know by declaration of the Church or actions which make this clear (joining another Church).

The crime of heresy requires the formal sin of heresy. One cannot commit a crime without first committing the underlying sin and being gravely culpable for it. Similarly, one cannot be ipso facto excommunicated for heresy without the formal and grave sin of heresy.

Thus, while we can assume, as the Church Law does, that Protestants are formal heretics, thus excommunicated once they can consent to their errors, whether this is actually the case for particular individuals cannot be ascertained. Thus all Protestants, at least traditionally, are received into the Church by a process in which they Profess the Faith, and then are absolved of censures, then confess their sins, are given conditional absolution (if their Baptism is certain), and then are given conditional Baptism (if their Baptism is uncertain).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)