Patriarch of Constantinople: Catholic-Orthodox Re-Union now inevitable?
#31
(11-30-2019, 08:36 PM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(11-30-2019, 07:37 PM)Melkite Wrote: Whether or not Francis and Barthilomew are heretics or apostates seem irrelevant to me. If the Christians are reunited in one Church, to me that is a good thing - far greater than whatever wrong reason may have been its catalyst.

Only prophecy speaks of a false Church emerging.

Catechism of the Catholic Church Wrote:675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

Will Orthodox joining the Catholic Church and accepting its doctrine shake the faith of many Catholic believers?  Does the return of part of Orthodoxy offer a solution to man's problems that will entice Catholics to leave the Church?  Does the return of Orthodox glorify man in place of God?  I'm not sure where you were trying to go with this.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melkite's post:
  • XavierSem
Reply
#32
(11-30-2019, 08:56 PM)Melkite Wrote: Will Orthodox joining the Catholic Church and accepting its doctrine shake the faith of many Catholic believers?
 

Only that's not what's happening under Francis who himself has already shaken the faith of many believers with the Pachamama Idolatry incident for example.

(11-30-2019, 08:56 PM)Melkite Wrote: Does the return of part of Orthodoxy offer a solution to man's problems that will entice Catholics to leave the Church?  Does the return of Orthodox glorify man in place of God?  I'm not sure where you were trying to go with this.

It's accumulative.



If you wanna join up with these clowns at the moment be my guest lol otherwise I will much more trust those who seek to join the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church via a different route then Francis and his accomplices or after their reign (Which itself is spurious due to the validity of that election IMO) and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored.

God Bless You
Jesus to St Faustina:

"For you I descended from heaven to earth; for you I allowed myself to be nailed to the cross; for you I let my Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come, then, with trust to draw graces from this fountain. I never reject a contrite heart." (Diary, 1485)

"Remember My Passion, and if you do not believe My words, at least believe My wounds." (Diary, 379)

"It is in My Passion that you must seek light and strength." (Diary, 654)
Reply
#33
(11-30-2019, 06:38 PM)josh987654321 Wrote: There are three reasons I cannot accept that premise, the first is that not even the Patriarch claims to be a validly elected Pope and the other to be an imposter, hence secondly for the same reason I reject Sedevacantism I reject the Orthodox view, I cannot believe that Christ has abandoned His bride the Church for Milennia, He gave St Peter the keys, said he was the rock upon which He would build the Church and said the gates of Hell would never prevail.

And thirdly, I believe in the Saints such as St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, St Faustina, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Fatima etc etc. There are many such miracles in the Catholic Church after the schism between east and west clearly indicating that Christ has not abandoned His Church.

I also have no idea why the Filioque "Proceeds from the father and the son" is such a stumbling block, it makes total sense to me.

God Bless You
Christ hasn't abandoned his Bride.  The belief that Rome alone is the Bride of Christ is simply wrong.  If the city of Rome was completely destroyed and the Pope perished in the flames, would the Church then cease to exist?  No.  Because the Church exists in her fullness wherever there is a bishop with true Apostolic succession and a true Eucharist.  Every bishop is a successor to the Apostles and in every Liturgy with a true Eucharist, there the Church exists in her fullness.  There is the Bride of Christ.  That is the ecclesiology of the early Church and that is what Orthodoxy holds today. 

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
-St. Ignatius of Antioch

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest.

-St. Ignatius of Antioch

The Universalist papal ecclesiology of Rome developed later as the West grew and progressed in the temporal sphere.  But no particular earthly city and no singular bishop can be fundamental to the Church’s existence.  You will not find that idea anywhere in the Fathers.    

I never said Christ has abandoned the Roman Church or that His grace is not present and active there.  The papacy has simply exaggerated its own power over the centuries and even Catholic Traditionalists are starting to finally realize it.  You seem like a nice guy and I won’t press you any further or get into a big debate.  I only post here when I see topics related to Orthodoxy in order to clear up misconceptions and strawman beliefs Trads sometimes hold about the East.  
[-] The following 1 user Likes PorphyriosK's post:
  • formerbuddhist
Reply
#34
(11-30-2019, 07:37 PM)Melkite Wrote: Personally, I think this is great news.  I have thought for many years now, if Orthodoxy returns to Catholicism, it would not be a corporate reunion but piecemeal.  I imagine those churches who recognize the OCU would come over mostly intact, and individual dioceses of other churches might.

Whether or not Francis and Barthilomew are heretics or apostates seem irrelevant to me.  If the Christians are reunited in one Church, to me that is a good thing - far greater than whatever wromg reason may have been its catalyst.

Also, Josh, you may have to give up your hang up on married clergy.  It's a tradition that isn't going anywhere, and doesn't invalidate anything, so I'm afraid a refusal to reunite over it would be based more on vanity than orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is not "returning to Catholicism".  Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
Reply
#35
"You will not find that idea anywhere in the Fathers."

When I used to hear Orthodox throwing this at Catholics as a critique I used to argue and bring up patristic examples to show how the fathers believed everything exactly like us (hint: they don't, and that goes for Orthodoxy and Catholicism), but now I realize that this critique is pretty much meaningless because we don't play by those rules. This applies to pretty much every Orthodox critique of Catholicism.

If something in Catholicism isn't explicitly found in the Scriptures or the Fathers it really doesn't make for a slam dunk from the Catholic point of view. Our religion isn't a hearkening back to some pure patristic past.
"If your heart comes to feel a natural hatred for sin, it has defeated the causes of sin and freed itself from them. Keep hell’s torments in mind; but know that your Helper is at hand. Do nothing that will grieve Him, but say to Him with tears: ‘Be merciful and deliver me, O Lord, for without Thy help I cannot escape from the hands of my enemies.’ Be attentive to your heart, and He will guard you from all evil."

- St. Isaias the Solitary

"Constant action overcomes cold; being still overcomes heat. Purity
and stillness give the correct law to all under heaven."

- Tao Te Ching 45
Reply
#36
(11-30-2019, 10:19 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Laymen of both confessions shouldn't get too wrapped up in the politics of mostly faithless bishops.

This is the position I've taken since the close of the Synod. It does nothing for my spiritual life to stress out over what the Pope is doing. Just because the Vicar is failing at his job doesn't mean the King is no longer in control.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'And he shall be as a tree that is planted by the waters, that spreadeth out its roots towards moisture: and it shall not fear when the heat cometh.' - Jeremias 17:8
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • formerbuddhist
Reply
#37
(11-30-2019, 10:26 PM)Florus Wrote: "You will not find that idea anywhere in the Fathers."

When I used to hear Orthodox throwing this at Catholics as a critique I used to argue and bring up patristic examples to show how the fathers believed everything exactly like us (hint: they don't, and that goes for Orthodoxy and Catholicism), but now I realize that this critique is pretty much meaningless because we don't play by those rules. This applies to pretty much every Orthodox critique of Catholicism.

If something in Catholicism isn't explicitly found in the Scriptures or the Fathers it really doesn't make for a slam dunk from the Catholic point of view. Our religion isn't a hearkening back to some pure patristic past.

I never said it was a slam dunk or that they believed everything exactly as we do, but yes Orthodoxy and Catholicism do have very different concepts of Tradition and place different levels of emphasis on Patristics.  We emphasize the Fathers while you tend to emphasize Thomism, Trent & Counter-Reformation, Vatican I, and the Popes of the 19th-early 20th century.  Most Catholics view Patristics as more of a niche field of study for those who are inclined to it. 
Reply
#38
(11-30-2019, 11:12 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: I never said it was a slam dunk or that they believed everything exactly as we do, but yes Orthodoxy and Catholicism do have very different concepts of Tradition and place different levels of emphasis on Patristics.  We emphasize the Fathers while you tend to emphasize Thomism, Trent & Counter-Reformation, Vatican I, and the Popes of the 19th-early 20th century.  Most Catholics view Patristics as more of a niche field of study for those who are inclined to it. 

Yeah fair. I was mainly using your point for broader observation, since I have seen so many Orthodox act as if just because our tradition isn't straight out of the great Greek fathers that it is inferior.

That is true about Catholicism of a certain tendency, but the reality is broader. I think of the Medieval commentators, the Renaissance Platonists, and Franciscan school scholastics. Catholic thought isn't limited to either Thomism or Patristics (and these two are not as sharply opposed as many think). I would say that your categorization of Catholic theology to be correct of you only look at the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
"If your heart comes to feel a natural hatred for sin, it has defeated the causes of sin and freed itself from them. Keep hell’s torments in mind; but know that your Helper is at hand. Do nothing that will grieve Him, but say to Him with tears: ‘Be merciful and deliver me, O Lord, for without Thy help I cannot escape from the hands of my enemies.’ Be attentive to your heart, and He will guard you from all evil."

- St. Isaias the Solitary

"Constant action overcomes cold; being still overcomes heat. Purity
and stillness give the correct law to all under heaven."

- Tao Te Ching 45
Reply
#39
(12-01-2019, 01:47 AM)Florus Wrote:
(11-30-2019, 11:12 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote: I never said it was a slam dunk or that they believed everything exactly as we do, but yes Orthodoxy and Catholicism do have very different concepts of Tradition and place different levels of emphasis on Patristics.  We emphasize the Fathers while you tend to emphasize Thomism, Trent & Counter-Reformation, Vatican I, and the Popes of the 19th-early 20th century.  Most Catholics view Patristics as more of a niche field of study for those who are inclined to it. 

Yeah fair. I was mainly using your point for broader observation, since I have seen so many Orthodox act as if just because our tradition isn't straight out of the great Greek fathers that it is inferior.

That is true about Catholicism of a certain tendency, but the reality is broader. I think of the Medieval commentators, the Renaissance Platonists, and Franciscan school scholastics. Catholic thought isn't limited to either Thomism or Patristics (and these two are not as sharply opposed as many think). I would say that your categorization of Catholic theology to be correct of you only look at the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
But like Jay Dyer has correctly pointed out, there is a broad spectrum of RC thought and theology BUT the official teachings laid out in Trent, Vatican I and Denzinger's are almost exclusively of the Thomist/Counter Reformation variety.  It can certainly appear as if officially there's no room for anything else since Rome has pretty much dogmatized and thought in that style for so long.

 There was plenty of variety but it's ultimately irrelevant since the official dogmas of Rome are couched in scholastic counter reformation language with the assumptions of Thomism behind them. 

Personally I think Dyer is right that many of the Greek Fathers taught something like the Essence/Energies distinction and that one cannot read Thomist metaphysics back into the Fathers. I tend to think that Gregory Palamas was not necessarily coming up with something novel but taking up what was already taught in John of Damascus and Basil the Great at least in part 

 Like St. John of Damascus states in his "On the Orthodox Faith", our conception of God starts with the Father, not with an abstract, absolutely simple Essence whose distinctions are only virtual (i.e. not real).

Another thing I find particularly damning is that after Vatican II the theological milieu of official Catholicism seemingly changed again.  Thomism and the Counter Reformation were dropped, and a bizarre concoction of pseudo patristics wed to modernism was put in its place,  and yet the official teachings for centuries were couched in Thomist/Scholastic assumptions and metaphysics.  It's as if Rome no longer really knows what it believes or teaches at all.


I am a huge fan of a lot of the early Western saints, histories and practices (stuff from the pre Norman British isles,  Bede,Cuthbert,Guthlac,Brendan the Navigator,Benedict Biscop, Benedict of Nursia and his emphasis on the Office etc.) but it's not much of a living tradition anymore aside from in the hearts and minds of scattered eccentrics.
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
#40
(12-01-2019, 11:51 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: But like Jay Dyer has correctly pointed out, there is a broad spectrum of RC thought and theology BUT the official teachings laid out in Trent, Vatican I and Denzinger's are almost exclusively of the Thomist/Counter Reformation variety.  It can certainly appear as if officially there's no room for anything else since Rome has pretty much dogmatized and thought in that style for so long.

 There was plenty of variety but it's ultimately irrelevant since the official dogmas of Rome are couched in scholastic counter reformation language with the assumptions of Thomism behind them. 

Personally I think Dyer is right that many of the Greek Fathers taught something like the Essence/Energies distinction and that one cannot read Thomist metaphysics back into the Fathers. I tend to think that Gregory Palamas was not necessarily coming up with something novel but taking up what was already taught in John of Damascus and Basil the Great at least in part 

 Like St. John of Damascus states in his "On the Orthodox Faith", our conception of God starts with the Father, not with an abstract, absolutely simple Essence whose distinctions are only virtual (i.e. not real).

Another thing I find particularly damning is that after Vatican II the theological milieu of official Catholicism seemingly changed again.  Thomism and the Counter Reformation were dropped, and a bizarre concoction of pseudo patristics wed to modernism was put in its place,  and yet the official teachings for centuries were couched in Thomist/Scholastic assumptions and metaphysics.  It's as if Rome no longer really knows what it believes or teaches at all.


I am a huge fan of a lot of the early Western saints, histories and practices (stuff from the pre Norman British isles,  Bede,Cuthbert,Guthlac,Brendan the Navigator,Benedict Biscop, Benedict of Nursia and his emphasis on the Office etc.) but it's not much of a living tradition anymore aside from in the hearts and minds of scattered eccentrics.

I'd argue that the attempt to exalt Thomism over every other form of thought was a recent phenomena that didn't have much staying power. 

I really can't comment on Gregory Palamas since I've never read him nor the relevant passages of Basil, but I am eager to learn. Any recommendations for reading?

I don't think anyone would disagree that our conception of God begins with the Father, but why can't we reason about his attributes? This is what both John of Damascus and Thomas do, and many of Thomas' arguments come straight from John's Exposition, he didn't think of himself an innovator.

I agree with your last point though, I think it's a sad reality. The modern worldview kills religion, our Western society is set up in a way that will destroy every ancient living tradition. We ourselves are victims of this since we have to really examine our practices and beliefs if we are to be Christians, in earlier times people just unconsciously did what society mandated, but these societies were built upon centuries of tradition and religion, now if you do the same you have nothing but soulless consumer culture.
"If your heart comes to feel a natural hatred for sin, it has defeated the causes of sin and freed itself from them. Keep hell’s torments in mind; but know that your Helper is at hand. Do nothing that will grieve Him, but say to Him with tears: ‘Be merciful and deliver me, O Lord, for without Thy help I cannot escape from the hands of my enemies.’ Be attentive to your heart, and He will guard you from all evil."

- St. Isaias the Solitary

"Constant action overcomes cold; being still overcomes heat. Purity
and stillness give the correct law to all under heaven."

- Tao Te Ching 45
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)