Can A Catholic Worship At Orthodox Liturgies?
#61
(10-02-2021, 11:43 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2021, 10:23 PM)Tomas Wrote: Catholic oriental or eastern (as you call them, but they are oriental) ...
 
In religious usage in the English language, 'Oriental' has a standard meaning. It means the Oriental Orthodox who are miaphysite heretics, rejecting the Chalcedonian definition of Christ's two Natures. The Oriental Orthodox are not in communion with either the Eastern Orthodox or the Catholic Church.


If they are a confussing words, then, it shouldn't be used.

You don't mix catholic rites from orient, with ortodox church using same name: ortodox
Of course catholics rites in orient has an "ortodox liturgie", it was preserved after 2nd Vatican Council, it just changed the language used in the Mass. But this is not enough argument to call as "ortodox" when there is another group of churches internationally called ortodox.

You know, the word "ortodox" means "right", but if you think what they have done, they haven't follow The Way right. It would be "distorted churchs"
Reply
#62
Ok. the term Catholics "sui juris" is better (the Orthodox call them "uniates"). But let's not lose time in frivolous distinctions. I think Jovan66102 knows the difference.
Ores, casta legas, jejunes otia vites si servare velis corpora casta Deo.
Reply
#63
(10-02-2021, 11:52 PM)Lavenderson Wrote:
(10-02-2021, 11:04 PM)Tomas Wrote: By traditional you mean donatists?
Whoever has a problem with Catholics kissing the koran, take notes! Tomas please remind me of the Church's long history of koran-kissing by Catholic leaders as an appeal to muslims. Do you really think any pre-Vatican 2 Pope or saint would regard that action as acceptable from any Catholic?

There is no ecumenical dialogue outside the Church. Ecumenism is derived from a greek word meaning "within the house," which is why no Council prior to V2 had leaders of different faiths attending and chiming in (let alone assisting in designing a new style of worship).


Well, it seems you have a trouble with the limited vocabulary of the English language, as i can see.

Ecumenic dialogue:
Jn 10:16  And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

As you said, ecumenic dialogue refers to "within the house", doesn't refer to "houses". This is because there is just 1 house, that everybody must reunite there.
There are many parts in Bible that refers to this, for example in Jeremiah's book, it's profetized that the jew and the gentil will be adoring the same God, the true one. This prophecy of course it's not during last time period, by the contrary, it will happen in the last day.

Now, the Gospell is to be teached for everyone (catholic, universal)
Jn 13:34  A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 
Jn 13:35  By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.

Mat 28:19  Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 
Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Jesus said "all nations", catholic mission.

Now, if you understand Gospell is for all nations, you were in this position (and maybe you are still in it):
Mat 15:1  Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: 
Mat 15:2  Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 
Mat 15:3  But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: 
Mat 15:4  Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. 
Mat 15:5  But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. 
Mat 15:6  And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. 
Mat 15:7  Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: 
Mat 15:8  This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. 
Mat 15:9  And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.


As i told you previously, islam can be hard people to deal with. The koran stuff with JP II is just one episode in his entire life, and maybe you can see it as a voluntary act from him, but it was a forced one. All the dialogue that started JP II after 700 years without any relation with the islam, would have been in vane. What do you think it would have happened if he would have said "No, i won't" and he would have thrown it on the floor?
Seems that with your Donatism, you would have add a paragraph at the book called "lapsi" from Saint Ciprian of Cartagus, talking about the Pope.
Seems you think Heaven, it's for the ones who doesn't commit sins. (Ecl 7:20  (7:21) For there is no just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not.)
Seems that you are agree with the Borgias attitude in life, but to JP II, it's too bad person to be a Pope. As if you were the Holy Spirit in person. Are you the resurrection  of Montano, who said that he was the Holy Spirit in person?
Reply
#64
If JPII would've thrown the koran on the floor? He wouldve acted like a true Catholic. The koran doesn't say good things about Christianity, it belongs in the trashcan.

Be careful of accusing people of heresy, this is a very heavy accusation in our world that you haven't even come close to proving.
Daily Rosary pray,
Scapular as She asked,
Little Office at my side,
Until the day I pass.

Through the highest heaven,
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son, and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lavenderson's post:
  • Marmot
Reply
#65
(10-03-2021, 11:47 AM)Lavenderson Wrote: If JPII would've thrown the koran on the floor? He wouldve acted like a true Catholic. The koran doesn't say good things about Christianity, it belongs in the trashcan.

Be careful of accusing people of heresy, this is a very heavy accusation in our world that you haven't even come close to proving.


First, an heretic person is the one who is against the revelead Truth in any of it points. A confussed one, is other thing.

Once you have an explanation with property, well explained, and you are against it, automatically is an heretic person.


1) If he had done what you wished from him, he would probably haven't went out that country alive, and wouldn't have started any dialogue later (dialogue which Pope Francis reasumed).
2) Read Cathecism about numbers related with life concepts (abortion, self defence, wars, they are all near), it mentions St. Aquino's texts, in all cases, life must prevale, and Cathecism is against killing even in self-defense. 
3) As i told you before, if you don't know that in Irak, 1.000.000 christians (ortodox, catholics and some protestants) were killed because of their belifs in the lastests 5-7 years. And this is one of the cases. Also in Armenia last year Azerbajian took some more territories, killed a lot of civilians, used  cluster bombs, which are forbidden weapons.
So, Would you like a Holly War against muslims? Would you fight in it as the good catholic you are?
4) As i told you, occidental people, won't be able to understand why Pope JP II did that, but even if you don't understand you, Grace of Christ, is greater than yours, luckly.
5) I'm not someone who doesn't talk without knowing how middle east works, i've been there, i still have relatives there, and during Armenian Genocide, more than 250 relatives of me were killed. It's not a thing easy to deal with, my grandparents lived with the trauma their entire lifes.
Reply
#66
Catechism is against killing even in self-defense? Go read the Catechism, it sounds like you havent yet.
Daily Rosary pray,
Scapular as She asked,
Little Office at my side,
Until the day I pass.

Through the highest heaven,
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son, and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen
Reply
#67
(10-03-2021, 02:38 PM)Lavenderson Wrote: Catechism is against killing even in self-defense? Go read the Catechism, it sounds like you havent yet.
THE LEGITIMATE DEFENSE 2263.
The legitimate defense of individuals and societies is not an exception to the prohibition of the death of the innocent that constitutes voluntary homicide. ―The action of defending oneself [...] can have a double effect: the one is the preservation of one's life; the other, the death of the aggressor ”(Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 2-2, q. 64, a. 7). ―Nothing prevents a single act from having two effects, of which only one is wanted, however the other is beyond the intention‖ (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 2-2, q. 64, a. 7 ).

2264. Self-love is a fundamental principle of morality. It is, therefore, legitimate to enforce one's own right to
life. Whoever defends his life is not guilty of homicide, even when he is forced to inflict a mortal blow on his aggressor: “If violence is used to defend oneself that is greater than necessary, it would be an illicit action. But if violence is rejected in a measured way, the action would be lawful [...] and it is not necessary for salvation to omit this act of measured protection in order to avoid killing the other, since the obligation that one has is greater to watch over his own life rather than that of another ”(Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 2-2, q. 64, a. 7).


I've used google translator to translate this.
To kill someone in legitime defence, you MUST BE FORCED TO. It's not an exception of the commandament NOT TO KILL.
Reply
#68
(10-03-2021, 12:15 PM)Tomas Wrote: it mentions St. Aquino's texts, in all cases, life must prevale, and Cathecism is against killing even in self-defense.
St. Tomas Wrote:Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible.
Roman Catechism Wrote:If a man kill another in self­ defence, having used every means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this [Fifth] Commandment.
[-] The following 2 users Like Marmot's post:
  • Lavenderson, Tomas
Reply
#69
Tomas Im glad you figured it out
Daily Rosary pray,
Scapular as She asked,
Little Office at my side,
Until the day I pass.

Through the highest heaven,
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son, and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen
Reply
#70
(10-03-2021, 04:08 PM)Lavenderson Wrote: Tomas Im glad you figured it out


I hope you do. Cathecism is not in favor to kill even in self-defence. It's last resource.

i've been in that situation, it's not easy. I was stabbed about 10 years ago, 11 times.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)