The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
ruthenianbyz513, Panteleimon, Cabine, Greg C, AdrianFarrell
5622 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 89 guests, and 476 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,805
Posts412,288
Members5,622
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419476 09/23/19 01:17 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,520
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,520
Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

I don't know your age, but being a sedevacantist should, by this time, be fading out of existence. I'm old enough to remember when the sedevacantists declared that the new ordination rite made mandatory in the Latin Catholic Church on January 1, 1968, made all future ordinations to whatever orders void. Now that means that, according to them, there have been no bishops, priests, deacons ordained since then. That also means that we are perilously close to having no sacramental life left anywhere. And since orders are not personal, according to St Cyril of Alexandria, the Latin Church is close to dying out.

Taken to its logical conclusion, that means that the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome are the last harbor of the Apostolic Faith that comes to us from Christ.

Is that where you stand?

Bob

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: theophan] #419477 09/23/19 01:38 PM
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 11
K
Kyrie Eleison Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by theophan
Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

I don't know your age, but being a sedevacantist should, by this time, be fading out of existence. I'm old enough to remember when the sedevacantists declared that the new ordination rite made mandatory in the Latin Catholic Church on January 1, 1968, made all future ordinations to whatever orders void. Now that means that, according to them, there have been no bishops, priests, deacons ordained since then. That also means that we are perilously close to having no sacramental life left anywhere. And since orders are not personal, according to St Cyril of Alexandria, the Latin Church is close to dying out.

Taken to its logical conclusion, that means that the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome are the last harbor of the Apostolic Faith that comes to us from Christ.

Is that where you stand?

Bob


There have been valid lines since then namely the Thuc and lefebvre lines. There have been plenty of bishops and priests ordained since then like Bp Donald Sanborn and Bp Pivarunas. And i would highly suggest you check out their work

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419478 09/23/19 07:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,520
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,520
Kyrie Eleison:

Christ is in our midst!!

First of all, this is becoming tiresome. This is not a Latin Catholic forum. This is not necessarily a Catholic forum. This is a forum for Eastern Christians. Please take a hiatus and read "Who We Are" in Town Hall before posting again.

Eastern Christians do not believe in St. Augustine's theory that orders are personal and go with a person when he leaves the Church. St. Cyril if Alexandria presents the Eastern theory and practice, which may be found on a thread in this forum, that orders are not personal and they cease to be anything but void when a man leaves his particular Church and bishop.

So your post is totally alien to the thinking of the Eastern Churches and oddly out-of-place here.

Bob
Moderator

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419486 09/26/19 05:28 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by theophan
Eastern Christians do not believe in St. Augustine's theory that orders are personal and go with a person when he leaves the Church. St. Cyril if Alexandria presents the Eastern theory and practice, which may be found on a thread in this forum, that orders are not personal and they cease to be anything but void when a man leaves his particular Church and bishop.

So your post is totally alien to the thinking of the Eastern Churches and oddly out-of-place here.

Sounding to me dismissive, this presents certain forum posts as definitive and comprehensive: "Eastern Christians do not believe... St. Cyril if Alexandria presents the Eastern theory...orders are not personal ."

Contrast this, the dogma of the forum posts and opinions, with the (no need to mention it ?) Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote
VII. THE EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS

The indelible character

1581 This sacrament configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ's instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king.

1582 As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ's office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily. 74

1583 It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, 75 because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.


This is not a matter of anyone's "theory" or what this or that Father said (even though worthy of consideration) but of explicit dogma. Also it's Cyprian's not Cyril's "theory.".

There is no such "Eastern Christian" common belief. There is no Eastern Catholic dogma, or Western Catholic dogma, apart from Catholic dogma. Otherwise, the Catholic communion of churches is just another opinion club. How then, " totally alien"?

Catholic trumps Eastern and Western. Seriously consider a clarification, although I believe a formal retraction is in order.



Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Administrator] #419489 09/27/19 12:37 AM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Administrator
Welcome, KE, to the Forum!

That the Catholic Church has not officially recognized some Orthodox saints does not mean they are not saints. As Bob noted above, holiness knows no boundaries. And keep in mind that prior to modern times and the Vatican's centralization of the canonization process, the process was much more local.

You might check the archives. A quick search brought up a discussion from which had a quote from Saint Pope John Paul II in pointing out that in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" he refers to "Saint Seraphim of Sarov".

John


Right, but there have been cases of 'saints' who had their names taken from the Roman Martyrology, such as Clement of Alexandria. I believe that it is necessary to better substantiate the answers, otherwise "controversial" saints will always be questioned; commitment to the truth is part of being a Christian.

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: ajk] #419490 09/27/19 01:21 AM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by ajk

This is not a matter of anyone's "theory" or what this or that Father said (even though worthy of consideration) but of explicit dogma. Also it's Cyprian's not Cyril's "theory.".

There is no such "Eastern Christian" common belief. There is no Eastern Catholic dogma, or Western Catholic dogma, apart from Catholic dogma. Otherwise, the Catholic communion of churches is just another opinion club. How then, " totally alien"?

Catholic trumps Eastern and Western.




Nice. I would like to share an excerpt from a post taken from an Orthodox website:

"My title is “St. Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas between East and West.” The notion of East/West opposition, as you are doubtless aware, has been a prominent feature of Orthodox theology since at least the time of the Russian Slavophiles in the early-to-mid 19th century. With this overall paradigm of opposition, one of the distinctive feature of 20th century Orthodox theology in particular, especially in the Russian diaspora, has been the elevation of St. Gregory Palamas to the status of a kind of archetype of the Christian East to set against Thomas Aquinas understood as an archetype of the Christian West. In other words, Orthodox neo-Palamism has emerged as a conscious counterweight to Catholic neo-Thomism."

"But the basic fact that an archetypal Easterner (Palamas) should embrace an archetypal Westerner (Augustine) is strange only if one begins with an assumption of an East/West dichotomy in opposition in the first place. What is puzzling is the fact that so many observers across the theological spectrum in East and West alike have approached the issue under precisely such an assumption. A serious engagement with Augustine is out of the question for virtually all critics and admirers of Palamas. But a serious engagement there was, and one which must press us to question further the hackneyed dichotomy of East and West."

"It’s been the main purpose of this lecture to suggest that Palamas is not as Eastern nor Aquinas as Western as had previously been widely supposed. Each has substantial interest in the other’s tradition. Each shares a complimentary approach to the theological endeavor and displays an unusually irenic approach to the Latin/Greek schism. In each case, they stand out among their contemporaries for the breadth, depth, and openness of their theological vision — a theological vision that encompasses the best of both East and West. And this is surely the kind of vision we desperately need today. Thank you."

https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.c...nd-thomas-aquinas-between-east-and-west/

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: ajk] #419491 09/27/19 02:21 AM
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 11
K
Kyrie Eleison Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by ajk


Catholic trumps Eastern and Western. Seriously consider a clarification, although I believe a formal retraction is in order.


Thank you, I personally did not want to start a debate. From the standpoint of the Catholic Church saint canonizations are infallible and submission to the Roman Pontiff, that is, the successor to St. Peter is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. The Roman Pontiff is the visible point of unity for the ENTIRETY of the Catholic Church, east and west. I do not care about Orthodox polemics against this, nor do I care about what they have to say about papal primacy. I was addressing Catholics and Catholics alone. The question of papal primacy is a different subject and I think this thread was taken away from its main point by anti-catholic rhetoric.

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419494 09/27/19 11:52 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,518
Administrator Offline
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,518
Kyrie Eleison,

Your posts are unclear. They read as if you are stating that full membership in the Catholic Church itself is necessary for salvation. You might consider the following from the Catholic Catechism:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." 322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." 323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." 324

That last quote is of Pope Paul VI. St. Pope John Paul II had also stated that the only thing necessary for communion with the Orthodox is communion. Your posts seem to be ignoring teachings that don't match your personal opinion.

As to the the validity of saints, note that the Catholic Church recognizes numerous saints from the Orthodox Church that it never formally canonized. You appear to be taking a very black-and-white approach to theology in an area where there is a lot of nuance.

Best wishes,
John

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419496 09/27/19 03:26 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
Originally Posted by ajk


Catholic trumps Eastern and Western. Seriously consider a clarification, although I believe a formal retraction is in order.


Thank you, I personally did not want to start a debate.
You're welcome. Nor did I. Still it happens on forums as night follows day.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
From the standpoint of the Catholic Church saint canonizations are infallible...
As I said, I'm not fond of dogmatic-forum language. This (above quote) is a case in point. Here (following) is an example of the question having to be asked --so not a given -- and answered: Are canonizations infallible? Reasoned arguments and specific facts that inform ...

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
...and submission to the Roman Pontiff,
...and no submit, submission language, the "say uncle" approach to theological discourse, having to be used.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
...that is, the successor to St. Peter is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. The Roman Pontiff is the visible point of unity for the ENTIRETY of the Catholic Church, east and west.
There is a tendency when speaking to others in a language they do not understand to repeat what is said louder and louder until screaming. It doesn't help, probably hinders understanding. The Christian East has its own ethos. Without discarding the historical record and past language and even embracing it, I think the full understanding of the Pope's relation to the Church is now better contained within the framework of communion, the Eucharist, catholic, the "Church of churches".

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I do not care about Orthodox polemics against this, nor do I care about what they have to say about papal primacy.
You should, we should, I do. As I've posted several times on this forum, Eastern Catholics especially should articulate to East and West, from the perspective of our spiritual heritage -- that ethos I mentioned -- why we are Catholic.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I was addressing Catholics and Catholics alone.
If unavoidable or necessary to do so always consider the Eastern Christian scope of this forum.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
The question of papal primacy is a different subject and I think this thread was taken away from its main point by anti-catholic rhetoric.
Just for my curiosity and not wanting to fan the fire, what is the --one only please -- most egregious example of the "anti-catholic rhetoric"?




Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Santiago Tarsicio] #419499 09/27/19 08:57 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by Santiago Tarsicio
I would like to share an excerpt from a post taken from an Orthodox website:

"My title is “St. Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas between East and West.”
...
"It’s been the main purpose of this lecture to suggest that Palamas is not as Eastern nor Aquinas as Western as had previously been widely supposed. Each has substantial interest in the other’s tradition. Each shares a complimentary approach to the theological endeavor and displays an unusually irenic approach to the Latin/Greek schism. In each case, they stand out among their contemporaries for the breadth, depth, and openness of their theological vision — a theological vision that encompasses the best of both East and West. And this is surely the kind of vision we desperately need today. Thank you."

https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.c...nd-thomas-aquinas-between-east-and-west/

Thank you for this link. It is an exceptional overview of the status of the East-West theological interface or border or no-man's land. It lacks footnotes but the absence of explicit documentation also makes it an easier, more fluid read; and he gives many names. He has me rethinking my neglect of Florovsky and echoes my impression of LaCugna (though I am more sympathetic to her criticisms of Palamas) and others. I'd like more from him on Zizioulas and to have him appraise Stăniloae.

Were I the Magister of the forum, it would be required reading.


Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: ajk] #419501 09/28/19 12:17 AM
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 11
K
Kyrie Eleison Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Administrator
Kyrie Eleison,

Your posts are unclear. They read as if you are stating that full membership in the Catholic Church itself is necessary for salvation. You might consider the following from the Catholic Catechism:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." 322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." 323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." 324

That last quote is of Pope Paul VI. St. Pope John Paul II had also stated that the only thing necessary for communion with the Orthodox is communion. Your posts seem to be ignoring teachings that don't match your personal opinion.

As to the the validity of saints, note that the Catholic Church recognizes numerous saints from the Orthodox Church that it never formally canonized. You appear to be taking a very black-and-white approach to theology in an area where there is a lot of nuance.

Best wishes,
John


I have little care as to what Vatican II or what its papal claimants have to say. The papal claimants after Vatican II are not popes they are antipopes. They have never been popes because they have apostatized from Catholic Faith namely they have professed heresies of modernism condemned by various popes. So because they espouse heresy publically they cannot be the successor to St. Peter because Christ prayed that St. Peters faith would not fail.

An example of "Pope" Francis contradicting the faith:

On Heaven and Earth2, pp. 12-13: “I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not."

Francis I response to open letter 3 published Sep 2013: “First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.”

Teaching of the Church:

"If any one deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible, let him be anathema" (Conc. Vatican., Sess. III, "De fide", can. i).

"If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema" (First Vatican Council, Sess III, can. 2/1: Denz. 1806; cf. D. 1785).

“And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power, in a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” II Thessalonians I: 7-9

Since Vatican II there has been a rise in marriage anullments and a drop in seminarians, monks, priests, and nuns.

"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" - Matthew 7:16



Originally Posted by ajk
There is a tendency when speaking to others in a language they do not understand to repeat what is said louder and louder until screaming. It doesn't help, probably hinders understanding. The Christian East has its own ethos. Without discarding the historical record and past language and even embracing it, I think the full understanding of the Pope's relation to the Church is now better contained within the framework of communion, the Eucharist, catholic, the "Church of churches".

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I do not care about Orthodox polemics against this, nor do I care about what they have to say about papal primacy.
You should, we should, I do. As I've posted several times on this forum, Eastern Catholics especially should articulate to East and West, from the perspective of our spiritual heritage -- that ethos I mentioned -- why we are Catholic.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I was addressing Catholics and Catholics alone.
If unavoidable or necessary to do so always consider the Eastern Christian scope of this forum.

Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
The question of papal primacy is a different subject and I think this thread was taken away from its main point by anti-catholic rhetoric.
Just for my curiosity and not wanting to fan the fire, what is the --one only please -- most egregious example of the "anti-catholic rhetoric"?

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419502 09/28/19 07:02 AM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison

I came here to learn more about byzantine Catholicism although I was and am struck by the amount of modernism that has encroached the eastern churches and its sad to see. I have a great love for the east and the Eastern Rites. I also like some of the resources here. However, you cannot call yourself a Catholic and accept the east as "okay" or have some false ecumenism with the Eastern churches who clearly are wrong in their rejection of the Roman Pontiff.

I reject Vatican II and the papal claimants after Pope Pius XII. Vatican II and its papal claimants show clear cut contradictions of the faith in its doctrines and it cannot possibly be the church that Christ established. Heres a list of quotes from "Pope" Francis: http://francisquotes.com/

"Saint" "Pope" JPII ordered "communicatio in sacris" (shared prayer) with Non-Catholics, sihks, hindus, muslims and the like.

these people are not the Popes


I think the Orthodox saints were already venerated by Eastern Catholics before the Second Vatican Council. Answering the thread, the best answer I found (was in a discussion in portuguese language) is that post-schism eastern saints received recognition through the process of equipollent canonization. Or at least there was a equipollent beatification (in this case they would be called saints for convenience, just like Blessed Gundisalvus of Amarante, called Saint Gundisalvus).

OFF:

In the Latin Church there is the rather curious case of Emperor Charlemagne (Charles the Great), he was "canonized" by an antipope, Paschal III. The canonization was obviously invalid, but the cult was tolerated by the subsequent legitimate popes, there is a discussion whether it was canonized or if at the very least there was a equipollent beatification (maybe nothing).


Originally Posted by Santiago Tarsicio

Right, but there have been cases of 'saints' who had their names taken from the Roman Martyrology, such as Clement of Alexandria

*removed from the Roman Martyrology

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419505 09/29/19 11:15 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,520
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,520
Quote
I have little care as to what Vatican II or what its papal claimants have to say. The papal claimants after Vatican II are not popes they are antipopes.


Christ is in our midst!!

Kyrie Eleison, I have to ask-- Why are you here? What is your purpose in joining this forum?

You have obviously not read "Who We Are" in Town Hall to know that we are not specifically a "Catholic" forum, if by Catholic you mean in communion with the Bishop of Rome. We have grown to be an inclusive forum whose members include Byzantine Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, as well as many Latin Catholics and Protestants. You aren't asking about the Eastern Churches; you seem to want to preach about Latin Catholic past positions. Many of the Eastern Christian members are from Churches that have been harmed by Latin Catholic attitudes and pronouncements in the past and are not interested in hearing them anew. Additionally, you are not helping build up this community with these posts.

We also have a policy here of not making negative statements about clergy with whom we may disagree, especially bishops. Your comments about post-Vatican II popes are not in line with our policy. I am asking you to refrain from continuing in this vein.

Bob
Moderator

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419509 09/30/19 02:02 AM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison

I have little care as to what Vatican II or what its papal claimants have to say. The papal claimants after Vatican II are not popes they are antipopes. They have never been popes because they have apostatized from Catholic Faith namely they have professed heresies of modernism condemned by various popes. So because they espouse heresy publically they cannot be the successor to St. Peter because Christ prayed that St. Peters faith would not fail.

An example of "Pope" Francis contradicting the faith:

On Heaven and Earth2, pp. 12-13: “I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not."

Francis I response to open letter 3 published Sep 2013: “First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.”

Teaching of the Church:

"If any one deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible, let him be anathema" (Conc. Vatican., Sess. III, "De fide", can. i).

"If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema" (First Vatican Council, Sess III, can. 2/1: Denz. 1806; cf. D. 1785).

“And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power, in a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” II Thessalonians I: 7-9


It is not so simple to show that someone has incurred the canonical crime of heresy. Currently the crime of heresy is more technically understood, occurs when a person after baptism obstinately refuses to believe in a dogma. Attempts to demonstrate that the current Pope of Rome is a heretic have failed, there are good canonists able to demonstrate that the accusations are unfounded, because there are subtleties and nuances.


Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison

Since Vatican II there has been a rise in marriage anullments and a drop in seminarians, monks, priests, and nuns.

"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" - Matthew 7:16




This says more about people and civilization than the church itself. Of course the church also faces the crisis ("the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God" St. Paul VI). Revolutions have occurred in sexual morality, it is difficult to demonstrate that an Ecumenical Council is the cause. Pope St. Paul VI suffered writing Humanae Vitae, a martyr. In my opinion the sacred Council begins to be understood only now (however, it is well known that post-conciliar terminology has been misused to spread relativism and confusion, it is necessary to do a work of clarification, a "hermeneutic of continuity " as said Benedict XVI).

Re: Acceptance of Eastern Orthodox saints [Re: Kyrie Eleison] #419510 09/30/19 12:58 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
I have little care as to what Vatican II or what its papal claimants have to say. The papal claimants after Vatican II are not popes they are antipopes. They have never been popes because they have apostatized from Catholic Faith namely they have professed heresies of modernism condemned by various popes. So because they espouse heresy publically they cannot be the successor to St. Peter because Christ prayed that St. Peters faith would not fail.

Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Kyrie Eleison
The question of papal primacy is a different subject and I think this thread was taken away from its main point by anti-catholic rhetoric.
Just for my curiosity and not wanting to fan the fire, what is the --one only please -- most egregious example of the "anti-catholic rhetoric"?
When I asked for an example of the "anti-catholic rhetoric" you bemoaned, I wasn't expecting you to respond by providing the example with your own words. Blinded by a ludicrous ecclesiology, you have shown yourself here to be the rabid anti-Catholic. I have some issues with Pope Francis too but he has opened the debate to include that a Pope can -- and should at times -- be critiqued.

The lunacy of you folks who have deluded yourselves into believing that you can declare who's (not) pope is the hubris school of theology. Sedevacantists belong to a cult. Sedevacantism in the order of ecclesiology is a sin against the Holy Spirit. Your words are repugnant. What ever may be said of Francis, the one thing for sure is that he is the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

To give proper breadth to my criticism, consider that you and for instance -- looking at posts in this thread -- Irish_Ruthenian are two sides of the same coin and neither of you realize it.


Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3