Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

Is attending and engaging in their liturgy via bowing, kneeling, kissing icons, etc., permissible?

No, this is called "communicatio in sacris" i.e. Participating in non-Catholic worship; this is strictly forbidden by Divine Law. If you want to take part in an Eastern Liturgy, try one of the various Eastern Catholic rites, such as the Ukranians; Ruthenians; Russian; Maronite; Melkite etc. Same rites, but are united to the Catholic Church. 

It's fine, don't listen to Michael (with all due respect to him)

They have valid sacraments....if the priest walks out with a chalice of consecrated hosts, you better bow, that's Christ in his hands.

Catholic antagonism towards the Orthodox (and vice versa) is born of political ideologies and mars the truth of what is really behind our differences. A lack of nuance, coupled with tribalism, is why we're never going to solve our differences on a human level - it will take Christ's direct intervention to get things back as they were.

The Catholics and Orthodox are like the two brothers of a mob boss. They come from the same father but set up their own factions and have blood lust for the other brother, but both still love their father.

It's ridiculous for Catholics to say it's a mortal sin to attend an Orthodox liturgy, then turn around and say it's ok to receive their sacraments on your death bed.

So at the one time in your life your soul is most vulnerable, when the devil is working his hardest to snatch you from grace, you're suddenly allowed to commit what would otherwise be a mortal sin? Give me a break.


Bowing, kneeling and kissing icons is fine - most, I'd wager 90%, of their icons are of saints from pre-schism, so no issues there. What - we can kiss an icon of St Nicholas if it says Catholic on the door, but if it says Orthodox suddenly it's a sin? Nonsense.

I would not commune (they wouldn't let you anyways) because while valid their sacraments are illicit.

But it's murky waters - APPARENTLY St Pius X allowed communicatio in sacris for Russian Catholics under certain circumstances. I have yet to come across anything confirming this though, so take it with a grain of salt (though if I ever do, I'm singing it from the hilltops).

L.T.B.
It isn't "fine" at all. The differences between us are essential and not due to tribalism. Christ only founded one Church with Peter at its head, not a series of "autocephalus" national "churches" based on one's country of origin or ethnic group.
Catholics and Orthos are not two brothers, but two different species; one belonging to the Mystical Body and one belonging to a man made organization, that apes the true Church.
It is not ridiculous at all to hold that those who actively participate in the religious services of a false religion, are by that very fact, making a public manifestation and avowal that this religion is the one true Church.
The bowing and kissing of icons during a non-Catholic religious service is in fact manifesting one's adherence to this non-Catholic sect. The very same icon can be venerated outside of said religious service, as long as it is a saint of the Catholic Church. If one were to venerate an icon say of "St. Pothius" who was the originator of the Greek schism, even outside of a religious service, would be the equivalent of honoring him for his sinful actions and it would be participating in his sin. 
The receiving absolution from a non-Catholic minister one one's death bed, is a merciful provision by the Catholic Church for its children who have no other certain means to obtain forgiveness of their sins and peace of souls in their final moments.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 19, 2024, 09:39:44 AMIt's ridiculous for Catholics to say it's a mortal sin to attend an Orthodox liturgy, then turn around and say it's ok to receive their sacraments on your death bed.

So at the one time in your life your soul is most vulnerable, when the devil is working his hardest to snatch you from grace, you're suddenly allowed to commit what would otherwise be a mortal sin? Give me a break.

But it is a mortal sin and it's not ridiculous:

Council of Trent
CHAPTER VII.
On the Reservation of Cases:
"...Neither is it to be doubted, seeing that all things, that are from God, are well ordered but that this same may be lawfully done by all bishops, each in his own diocese, unto edification, however, not unto destruction, in virtue of the authority, above (that of) other inferior priests, delivered to them over their subjects, especially as regards those crimes to which the censure of excommunication is annexed. But it is consonant to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."

Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical "Mortalium Animus" (1928), condemned the modern Ecumenical heresy, and explained the true doctrine of the Catholic Church on the uniqueness, of the Catholic Church. This doctrine can not just be applied to Orthodoxy, but to any other non-Catholic denomination that claims to believe in Christ.
1.Christ founded a Church, only one.
2.The Church must be visible and apparent.
3. Composed of a body of faithful, under one government; teaching authority; agreeing and confessing one and the same doctrine.
4. Not a heterogeneous collection of individuals professing different doctrines; under different leaders.
5. This Church, by our Lord's solemn promise, would endure to the end of the World.
The whole Encyclical, which is very short, is worthwhile reading. 

QuoteWe believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head,[4] with an authority teaching by word of mouth,[5] and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace;[6] for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom,[7] to a house,[8] to a sheepfold,[9] and to a flock.[10] This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations."[11] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?"[12] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[13]

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 19, 2024, 09:39:44 AMIt's fine, don't listen to Michael (with all due respect to him)

They have valid sacraments....if the priest walks out with a chalice of consecrated hosts, you better bow, that's Christ in his hands.

Catholic antagonism towards the Orthodox (and vice versa) is born of political ideologies and mars the truth of what is really behind our differences. A lack of nuance, coupled with tribalism, is why we're never going to solve our differences on a human level - it will take Christ's direct intervention to get things back as they were.

The Catholics and Orthodox are like the two brothers of a mob boss. They come from the same father but set up their own factions and have blood lust for the other brother, but both still love their father.

It's ridiculous for Catholics to say it's a mortal sin to attend an Orthodox liturgy, then turn around and say it's ok to receive their sacraments on your death bed.

So at the one time in your life your soul is most vulnerable, when the devil is working his hardest to snatch you from grace, you're suddenly allowed to commit what would otherwise be a mortal sin? Give me a break.


Bowing, kneeling and kissing icons is fine - most, I'd wager 90%, of their icons are of saints from pre-schism, so no issues there. What - we can kiss an icon of St Nicholas if it says Catholic on the door, but if it says Orthodox suddenly it's a sin? Nonsense.

I would not commune (they wouldn't let you anyways) because while valid their sacraments are illicit.

But it's murky waters - APPARENTLY St Pius X allowed communicatio in sacris for Russian Catholics under certain circumstances. I have yet to come across anything confirming this though, so take it with a grain of salt (though if I ever do, I'm singing it from the hilltops).

Aren't they okay with divorce and contraception?

Yes, they are.

https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/some-orthodox-voices-on-contraception/

Quote from: queen.saints on April 21, 2024, 07:54:33 PMYes, they are.

https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/some-orthodox-voices-on-contraception/

IMO, this is a smoking gun.

No true religion was ever wrong on bedroom issues.

It's irrelevant to the conversation.

Do they teach it? Some do, yes, and is it wrong? Absolutely. It's a far greater reason for me never switching sides than the Papacy is.

The question was about kneeling, kissing icons etc, within an Orthodox Church.

It depends on the context. If you're doing your own reverences yourself apart from the Divine Liturgy and just merely while it happens to be in progress I don't see the problem. Actively following along with actions that are customary during an EO Divine Liturgy is what is forbidden.

The difference is in the intent to unite with non-Catholic worship.

Here is a couple of excerpts from an article on Communicatio in Sacris by a Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.
might help to clear up some questions:
Praying With Non-Catholics — Is it Possible?
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm

By Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.

QuoteFr. D. Prummer OP, writing in 1910, affirms in his Manuale Theologiæ Moralis that it is never licit for a Catholic to take part in a non-Catholic cult with the intention of worshipping God in the manner of non-Catholics, more acatholicorum. Such an act, he declares, is nothing other than a denial of the Catholic faith.2 In the same year, writing an article on 'Heresy' for the Catholic Encyclopœdia, Fr. J. Wilhelm SJ affirms that a Catholic may attend non-Catholic services, but only 'provided no active part be taken in them'. In an article on the same subject, the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique reiterates, in 1920, that active participation in non-Catholic rites is toujours interdite (always prohibited) – the reason being that it is 'equivalent to a denial of the Catholic faith'. In 1930, Fr. B. Merkelbach OP in his Summa Theologiæ Moralis writes that 'active participation in the sacred things of a [non-Catholic] public cult is illicit, since it implies approval of the worship and a recognition of the sect.'3 Using a slightly different terminology but teaching the same doctrine, Fr. L. Fanfani OP writes, in 1950, 'material communicatio in sacris ['material' in the sense that the person in question does not mean to renounce his Catholic faith], if it is active and immediate, is never permissible for Catholics.'4 The reason for this, he explains, is that such behaviour necessarily manifests a commitment to a heretical or at least an illegitimate cultus.

And from the same article:

QuoteThe traditional teaching of Catholic theology on whether Catholics may participate in non-Catholic religious services is summed up by St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, 'It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them'.1 The reason for this teaching is clear: religious commitments are naturally manifested by outward acts; and to perform an outward act expressive of a false religious commitment is a sin against the true faith. This is true even if the man in question retains the true faith in his heart. So to take the classic example, Christians in the Roman Empire realised that they must not throw incense before a statue of the Emperor, even if they had no belief at all in his divinity – for the act was of itself, in their context, expressive of such a belief, and hence sinful.

The Orthodox also have a false theology on the divine nature, positing that God is divided between His essence and His energies; therefore positing that there are two eternal beings in God.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 22, 2024, 05:07:27 PMHere is a couple of excerpts from an article on Communicatio in Sacris by a Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.
might help to clear up some questions:
Praying With Non-Catholics — Is it Possible?
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm

By Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.

QuoteFr. D. Prummer OP, writing in 1910, affirms in his Manuale Theologiæ Moralis that it is never licit for a Catholic to take part in a non-Catholic cult with the intention of worshipping God in the manner of non-Catholics, more acatholicorum. Such an act, he declares, is nothing other than a denial of the Catholic faith.2 In the same year, writing an article on 'Heresy' for the Catholic Encyclopœdia, Fr. J. Wilhelm SJ affirms that a Catholic may attend non-Catholic services, but only 'provided no active part be taken in them'. In an article on the same subject, the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique reiterates, in 1920, that active participation in non-Catholic rites is toujours interdite (always prohibited) – the reason being that it is 'equivalent to a denial of the Catholic faith'. In 1930, Fr. B. Merkelbach OP in his Summa Theologiæ Moralis writes that 'active participation in the sacred things of a [non-Catholic] public cult is illicit, since it implies approval of the worship and a recognition of the sect.'3 Using a slightly different terminology but teaching the same doctrine, Fr. L. Fanfani OP writes, in 1950, 'material communicatio in sacris ['material' in the sense that the person in question does not mean to renounce his Catholic faith], if it is active and immediate, is never permissible for Catholics.'4 The reason for this, he explains, is that such behaviour necessarily manifests a commitment to a heretical or at least an illegitimate cultus.

And from the same article:

QuoteThe traditional teaching of Catholic theology on whether Catholics may participate in non-Catholic religious services is summed up by St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, 'It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them'.1 The reason for this teaching is clear: religious commitments are naturally manifested by outward acts; and to perform an outward act expressive of a false religious commitment is a sin against the true faith. This is true even if the man in question retains the true faith in his heart. So to take the classic example, Christians in the Roman Empire realised that they must not throw incense before a statue of the Emperor, even if they had no belief at all in his divinity – for the act was of itself, in their context, expressive of such a belief, and hence sinful.

The Orthodox also have a false theology on the divine nature, positing that God is divided between His essence and His energies; therefore positing that there are two eternal beings in God.

Hello Michael,
Respectfully, the comment on the Orthodox Church's teaching on God's essence and energies is not correct. The divine nature is not divided. 
The teaching is that God essence is unknowable by mankind. What we are able to participate in however, is God's energies, ie., God's grace in our lives. Eg., the Mass and the sacraments.   

Relative to the Orthodox Church's teaching on God's essence and energies, for what it's worth there are several books that might be of interest to some:

In The Image and Likeness of God by Vladimir Lossky (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974)
The Mystical Theology of The Eastern Church (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976)
St Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality by Fr John Meyendorff (St Vladimir's Seminary, 1974)

Fr Meyendorff was my spiritual director and professor during my time at St Vladimir's, 1975-1983.

Quote from: EastWest7 on April 23, 2024, 10:17:52 AMFr Meyendorff was my spiritual director and professor during my time at St Vladimir's, 1975-1983.

Wow..what a blessing

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 23, 2024, 10:42:41 AM

Quote from: EastWest7 on April 23, 2024, 10:17:52 AMFr Meyendorff was my spiritual director and professor during my time at St Vladimir's, 1975-1983.

Wow..what a blessing

Amen, and thanks. I started in St Vladimir's undergraduate program as a freshman with nearby Iona College. I was 20 in 1975 and had gone there directly after playing in a bar band in NE Ohio. I had been raised in the Episcopal Church but left it at 17, 1972. Essentially, St Vladimir's (and my local Orthodox parish) made a Christian out of me. While there I studied under some brilliant, outstanding men who walked their talk - Frs. Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann, Thomas Hopko, Paul Tarazi. Also John Erickson (later ordained to the priesthood), and Sergius Verhovsky, Veselen Kesich. Also many of my classmates were solid brothers to have during early adulthood. Daily services were frequent and could be LONG, but I wouldn't trade those years of formation for anything. I'm still very grateful for what St. Vladimir's gave me.   

Quote from: EastWest7 on April 23, 2024, 10:55:07 AM

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 23, 2024, 10:42:41 AM

Quote from: EastWest7 on April 23, 2024, 10:17:52 AMFr Meyendorff was my spiritual director and professor during my time at St Vladimir's, 1975-1983.

Wow..what a blessing

Amen, and thanks. I started in St Vladimir's undergraduate program as a freshman with nearby Iona College. I was 20 in 1975 and had gone there directly after playing in a bar band in NE Ohio. I had been raised in the Episcopal Church but left it at 17, 1972. Essentially, St Vladimir's (and my local Orthodox parish) made a Christian out of me. While there I studied under some brilliant, outstanding men who walked their talk - Frs. Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann, Thomas Hopko, Paul Tarazi. Also John Erickson (later ordained to the priesthood), and Sergius Verhovsky, Veselen Kesich. Also many of my classmates were solid brothers to have during early adulthood. Daily services were frequent and could be LONG, but I wouldn't trade those years of formation for anything. I'm still very grateful for what St. Vladimir's gave me.   

Fr Hopko too? Wow.

Quote from: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on April 22, 2024, 07:43:47 AM

Quote from: queen.saints on April 21, 2024, 07:54:33 PMYes, they are.

https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/some-orthodox-voices-on-contraception/

IMO, this is a smoking gun.

No true religion was ever wrong on bedroom issues.

Even worse is the universalism.

It makes Bergoglio and "Infinite Dignity" look tame.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 23, 2024, 11:25:20 AM

Quote from: EastWest7 on April 23, 2024, 10:55:07 AM

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 23, 2024, 10:42:41 AM

Quote from: EastWest7 on April 23, 2024, 10:17:52 AMFr Meyendorff was my spiritual director and professor during my time at St Vladimir's, 1975-1983.

Wow..what a blessing

Amen, and thanks. I started in St Vladimir's undergraduate program as a freshman with nearby Iona College. I was 20 in 1975 and had gone there directly after playing in a bar band in NE Ohio. I had been raised in the Episcopal Church but left it at 17, 1972. Essentially, St Vladimir's (and my local Orthodox parish) made a Christian out of me. While there I studied under some brilliant, outstanding men who walked their talk - Frs. Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann, Thomas Hopko, Paul Tarazi. Also John Erickson (later ordained to the priesthood), and Sergius Verhovsky, Veselen Kesich. Also many of my classmates were solid brothers to have during early adulthood. Daily services were frequent and could be LONG, but I wouldn't trade those years of formation for anything. I'm still very grateful for what St. Vladimir's gave me. 

Fr Hopko too? Wow.

Yes, when I was a seminarian there in the undergraduate program he was our director of undergraduate studies program with Iona. And our undergrad philosophy, dogmatic theology and spirituality prof. In the MDiv program, our professor of dogmatic theology. A great, very personable and honest guy. Great sense of humor and compassionate. I took a leave halfway through the MDiv program to marry my Roman Catholic wife. I later took classes at the local RC seminary (St Mary's Cleveland) to get transfer credits for an MA from St Vlad's in May 1988. After the graduation Fr Hopko came up to me and said he wanted to meet the woman "Who would marry you...!"  ;D I introduced him to her and we three had a wonderful conversation.
When Fr Tom became seminary dean, I sent him congratulations and a card with photo of a statue of the Virgin Mary on it, from the high Episcopal parish I attended as a kid. I wrote that I would pay him $20 to put it on the stand of the respective day's veneration icon in the seminary chapel. He wrote back with a very funny, nice note. Another great priest who helped make me a Christian following several years playing bars in NE Ohio. May his memory be eternal.   

Quote from: Bonaventure on April 23, 2024, 01:37:58 PM

Quote from: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on April 22, 2024, 07:43:47 AM

Quote from: queen.saints on April 21, 2024, 07:54:33 PMYes, they are.

https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/some-orthodox-voices-on-contraception/

IMO, this is a smoking gun.

No true religion was ever wrong on bedroom issues.

Even worse is the universalism.

It makes Bergoglio and "Infinite Dignity" look tame.

For what it's worth. I was Orthodox for over 12 years before I came into the Catholic Church. I never heard universalism taught or preached. My dogmatic theology prof at St Vladimir's Seminary said several times in my years there that Origin was never accepted as a Church Father in Eastern patristics for one reason - his universalism. It was that heresy that hindered him. 

East-West,
thank you for your polite correction, but I have to disagree,
wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93energies_distinction

QuoteEastern Orthodox theologians generally regard this distinction as a real distinction, and not just a conceptual distinction......According to Fr. John Romanides, Palamas considers the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction", as distinguished from the Thomistic "virtual distinction" and the Scotist "formal distinction". Romanides suspects that Barlaam accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies.[11] Other writers agree that Palamas views the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as "real".[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]


According to Vladimir Lossky of the neopatristic school, if we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons (as existences and/or realities of God) and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of the divine nature (strictly uncreated from uncreated). The being and the action(s) of God then would appear identical, leading to the teaching of pantheism.[20]
According to Anna N. Williams's study of Palamas, which is more recent than the assessments of Hart and Philips, in only two passages does Palamas state explicitly that God's energies are "as constitutively and ontologically distinct from the essence as are the three Hypostases," and in one place he makes explicit his view, repeatedly implied elsewhere, that the essence and the energies are not the same; but Williams contends that not even in these passages did Palamas intend to argue for an "ontological or fully real distinction," and that the interpretation of his teaching by certain polemical modern disciples of his is false.[22]

If God's hypostases and energies are distinct from His essence, then there is a real difference between the three divine persons and God's essence, instead of identity.
Farther on in the same article, we have the Orthodox criticism of the Catholic view of God as "pure-act"
as confusing the distinction between His essence and energies:

QuoteEastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, especially the traditional scholastic claim that God is actus purus, for its alleged incompatibility with the essence–energies distinction. Christos Yannaras writes, "The West confuses God's essence with his energy, regarding the energy as a property of the divine essence and interpreting the latter as "pure energy" (actus purus)"[23] According to George C. Papademetriou, the essence–energies distinction "is contrary to the Western confusion of the uncreated essence with the uncreated energies and this is by the claim that God is Actus Purus".[24]

While in Catholic theology it is a dogma that God's essence and His attributes are identical.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 23, 2024, 03:37:20 PMEast-West,
thank you for your polite correction, but I have to disagree,
wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93energies_distinction

QuoteEastern Orthodox theologians generally regard this distinction as a real distinction, and not just a conceptual distinction......According to Fr. John Romanides, Palamas considers the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction", as distinguished from the Thomistic "virtual distinction" and the Scotist "formal distinction". Romanides suspects that Barlaam accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies.[11] Other writers agree that Palamas views the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as "real".[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]


According to Vladimir Lossky of the neopatristic school, if we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons (as existences and/or realities of God) and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of the divine nature (strictly uncreated from uncreated). The being and the action(s) of God then would appear identical, leading to the teaching of pantheism.[20]
According to Anna N. Williams's study of Palamas, which is more recent than the assessments of Hart and Philips, in only two passages does Palamas state explicitly that God's energies are "as constitutively and ontologically distinct from the essence as are the three Hypostases," and in one place he makes explicit his view, repeatedly implied elsewhere, that the essence and the energies are not the same; but Williams contends that not even in these passages did Palamas intend to argue for an "ontological or fully real distinction," and that the interpretation of his teaching by certain polemical modern disciples of his is false.[22]

If God's hypostases and energies are distinct from His essence, then there is a real difference between the three divine persons and God's essence, instead of identity.
Farther on in the same article, we have the Orthodox criticism of the Catholic view of God as "pure-act"
as confusing the distinction between His essence and energies:

QuoteEastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, especially the traditional scholastic claim that God is actus purus, for its alleged incompatibility with the essence–energies distinction. Christos Yannaras writes, "The West confuses God's essence with his energy, regarding the energy as a property of the divine essence and interpreting the latter as "pure energy" (actus purus)"[23] According to George C. Papademetriou, the essence–energies distinction "is contrary to the Western confusion of the uncreated essence with the uncreated energies and this is by the claim that God is Actus Purus".[24]

While in Catholic theology it is a dogma that God's essence and His attributes are identical.

Well, brother Michael, I stand corrected. I could understand the difference in the essence/energies definition coming from a Fr John Romanides...but the Vladimir Lossky (and Chris Yannaras and Fr George Papademetriou) analysis comes as a shock to me. Following these posts today I happened to be talking to a good friend and a priest and fellow SVS seminarian (who has a PhD) regarding these essence/energies discussions in our casual conversation and he seemed to readily agree with me. The trajectory of Lossky (pantheism) as described above is indeed disturbing.
 
Well, just another case where the teaching of the Orthodox Church on certain subjects is not monolithic. I still am quite surprised with the Lossky (etc.) quote!  :o Thank you.

I've been thinking about this discussion of Eastern Orthodoxy and its view of God (whether it truly teaches that God has one, undivided nature). I am coming to think that this minor "debate" may be a case (not uncommon in Christian East vs Christian West) of semantics.

I got out a few of my theology books and think (relative to the single nature of God) that we need to look at the works of theologians such as Lossky in a bit of a broader context than what was in the Wikipedia article. That's back to my perspective that the Orthodox Church does view God as entirely one in nature, undivided.

This, from Lossky's Mystical Theology of The Eastern Church, chapter 4, "Uncreated Energies" p.75:

 "...thus the unity within the Holy Trinity shines forth imperishable in its essential glory. God the Father is the Father of glory (Ephesians 1:17), the Son is the brightness of His glory (Hebrews 1:30), and He Himself has that glory which He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5); likewise, the Holy Spirit of God is the Spirit of glory (1 Peter 4:14). In this glory, uniquely proper to Himself, God dwells in perfect felicity above all glory without having need of any witness, without admitting of any division." Italics mine.

I also have a statement that may be helpful from the highly regarded theologian Dumitru Staniloae in his book The Experience of God (Holy Cross Press, 1994, chapter 7, The Being of God and His Uncreated Operations, p. 125),

"The Eastern Fathers have made a distinction between the being and operations of God. St Gregory Palamas did nothing more than hold fast to this distinction between the being of God and the uncreated operations flowing from it. Nevertheless, when speaking of the variety of the divine works, we can sometimes forget to observe that, through each of these operations, it is the God, who is one in being, who is at work. Italics mine.



 

       

E.W.&,
Thanks for both of your responses, I will concentrate on the second for now:

Quote"The Eastern Fathers have made a distinction between the being and operations of God. St Gregory Palamas did nothing more than hold fast to this distinction between the being of God and the uncreated operations flowing from it. Nevertheless, when speaking of the variety of the divine works, we can sometimes forget to observe that, through each of these operations, it is the God, who is one in being, who is at work. Italics mine.

If I understood this correctly, the above quote appears to be saying that there are "uncreated operations" that flow outside of God i.e. "ad extra" or is He saying that the "ad-intra" processions of the Blessed Trinity (Father begets the Son, both beget the Holy Ghost) are the 'uncreated energies'?

Also, would you mind watching this video  by Holy Family Monastery on Palamism; they quote several E.O. Authorities supporting the view of the distinction between God's essence and His uncreated energies; also that the Blessed Trinity is not part of the essence of God, but is in the uncreated energies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g&t=854s

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 24, 2024, 04:30:17 PME.W.&,
Thanks for both of your responses, I will concentrate on the second for now:

Quote"The Eastern Fathers have made a distinction between the being and operations of God. St Gregory Palamas did nothing more than hold fast to this distinction between the being of God and the uncreated operations flowing from it. Nevertheless, when speaking of the variety of the divine works, we can sometimes forget to observe that, through each of these operations, it is the God, who is one in being, who is at work. Italics mine.

If I understood this correctly, the above quote appears to be saying that there are "uncreated operations" that flow outside of God i.e. "ad extra" or is He saying that the "ad-intra" processions of the Blessed Trinity (Father begets the Son, both beget the Holy Ghost) are the 'uncreated energies'?

Well, Michael, I've read your question on the sentence you highlighted several times, and I must return to the issue of human participation. The "uncreated energies" (ie, the light of Tabor in Matthew 17:3, the burning bush in Exodus 3:2, the blinding light on St Paul's trip to Damascus in Acts 9:3-4, etc.) would, I believe, be understood by the Eastern Orthodox as originating in God's essence (which the Orthodox consider unknowable by humans). The aforementioned energies are seen as that which originates from God's essence yet can be seen, participated in, by human persons.
See, here is where I think the Western vs. Eastern means of communications can occasionally be problematic. As per your "ad intra" expression, the East of course would not use such language, ie., the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son; because of the Eastern Church's never having adopted the Filioque ("and from the Son") based on its understanding of John 15:26 ("When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father - the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father - He will testify about Me."). Perhaps Kipling's "East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet" is appropriate here. 

Relative to this difficulty in language, I often recall what is considered to be the apophatic (negative) expressive nature of Eastern Orthodox theology. This is based on concerns regarding the fallible (and fallen) human mind and its inability to communicate adequately regarding God's essence. I assume the Scholastics would dismiss this.

LOL, or, perhaps your question is simply over my head.  :)
       

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 24, 2024, 04:46:05 PMAlso, would you mind watching this video  by Holy Family Monastery on Palamism; they quote several E.O. Authorities supporting the view of the distinction between God's essence and His uncreated energies; also that the Blessed Trinity is not part of the essence of God, but is in the uncreated energies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07mgLoOW8g&t=854s

I watched perhaps a third of the Dimond brothers' video very early this morning. I will attempt to watch more of it later and may respond if I find something particularly striking.

I would strongly disagree with their assertion that that the Holy Trinity "is not part of the essence of God". Rather, the EO, a per the first council of Nicea, believes God is three Persons (hypostases) sharing once essence (ousia). Does Palamas' essence and energies theology contradict Nicea? We can debate this all day but I would say it does not.

I understand the polemical nature of the Dimond brothers' videos as I have read/seen some of their work in years past but their discussion of hesychasm differs significantly from my perspective. Also, I would rather they would have not juxtaposed videos of the essentially Hindu denomination Self Realization Fellowship with those points made by Fr Lysack and Bishop Ware, but that's just me.

Relative to the discussion of hesychasm, in the summer of 1972 I read parts of the 19th century bishop, theologian Orthodox saint, Ignatius Brianchaninov's On The Prayer of Jesus. To the best of my recollection, Brianchaninov very ominously warned against attempting such hesychastic practices without having a seasoned, theologically grounded and pious spiritual director.
His warning included the risk of prelest and mental health problems. I had been praying the Jesus prayer since reading The Way of A Pilgrim earlier that year. Brianchaninov's statements shook me up so much that I quit saying the prayer for several months! Another recollection is that while at St Vladimir's Seminary, I remember sobriety of spiritual practice (especially in talks given by Fr Alexander Schmemann and from my own spiritual director, Fr John Meyendorff) was considered so important that I would say the institution was in alignment with Brianchaninov's perspective.

OK, that's where I am on the video so far, thanks Michael. Right now this ersatz theologian needs to go for my daily walk and then watch the Cleveland Guardians - Boston Red Sox game at 1:10 pm dst. Retirement is good.     

E.W.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond and trying to clear up some of the difficulties in the above issue; also watching the video and giving me your assessment.
You may be an ersatz theologian (not really), but you have a better grasp of this than I do.
B.T.W. We are exactly the same age. There is a saying in Spanish applicable to us: "El Diablo sabe mas por viejo, que por diablo";
Roughly: The devil knows more because he is old than because he is a devil. 

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 25, 2024, 04:40:33 PME.W.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond and trying to clear up some of the difficulties in the above issue; also watching the video and giving me your assessment.
You may be an ersatz theologian (not really), but you have a better grasp of this than I do.
B.T.W. We are exactly the same age. There is a saying in Spanish applicable to us: "El Diablo sabe mas por viejo, que por diablo";
Roughly: The devil knows more because he is old than because he is a devil. 

Michael, that Spanish saying is new to me...but, oh yeah, I can certainly relate!
I appreciate your irenic comments as navigating these East-West theological waters can be difficult. Speaking of age, I sometimes wonder where I got the energy to do so back in the 1970s and 1980s when I was a student.

If you don't mind, given all the comments I've seen of yours on SD over the years, may I ask what is your educational background? Seminary? Your erudition appears to be extensive.

I see you live in St Mary's, KS. I assume you've visited or attend the Immaculata parish. That church must be incredible.

Hey, if you're ever going to be in the Akron-Cleveland, Ohio area; let me know and I'll buy you an adult beverage at one of our local eating/drinking establishments.   
God be with you.

 

E.W.
Thank you once again for your kind words. I would love to get together with you some day; probably wont happen. Yes, I am open to adult beverages, as I love a good whisky, whether Bourbon or Scotch & Spanish brandy, beer etc.
I am mostly self educated on religious matters, as my formal catechism classed abruptly came to a close in the 5th grade; our Catholic school decided one day to stop teaching it???? Better than what came behind it, when they resumed teaching about it.
I love Catechisms, dogmatic manuals, and even just Church history.
On the Filioque topic, I just stumbled accross this video which sites an unbelievable number of both Western and Eastern Fathers on their views. Just the quote from St. Augustine on John 16. 13-15 will knock your socks off (3min 35 secs) "He will take what is mine": If he receives knowledge from the Son, He receives His essence also. Great stuff!

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 27, 2024, 08:48:00 AME.W.
Thank you once again for your kind words. I would love to get together with you some day; probably wont happen. Yes, I am open to adult beverages, as I love a good whisky, whether Bourbon or Scotch & Spanish brandy, beer etc.
I am mostly self educated on religious matters, as my formal catechism classed abruptly came to a close in the 5th grade; our Catholic school decided one day to stop teaching it???? Better than what came behind it, when they resumed teaching about it.
I love Catechisms, dogmatic manuals, and even just Church history.
On the Filioque topic, I just stumbled accross this video which sites an unbelievable number of both Western and Eastern Fathers on their views. Just the quote from St. Augustine on John 16. 13-15 will knock your socks off (3min 35 secs) "He will take what is mine": If he receives knowledge from the Son, He receives His essence also. Great stuff!

Michael,
Sounds like you have excellent taste in beverages. And your preferences as indicated above show a particularly catholic (universal, comprehensive) appreciation. I've never had Spanish brandy however I too, am a fan of good whiskies (usually prefer Scotch or Canadian), a vodka martini and beer - especially stouts and pilsners (of course native to the Greek-Catholic regions of the Czech Republic and Slovakia  :D  ).

Your being (generally) self-educated in theology is most impressive. Theology and music (IMO, anyway) seems to share something in common. That is, I think people with little or no formal education, yet who have a passion for the respective subject, often can run rings around those who have the "benefit" (?) of theological/musical training.

I appreciate the head's up on the Filioque video. And the mention of St Augustine on John 16:13-15. FYI, if you intended to post it here, I don't see it.

It's interesting about the varied opinions on it of both Eastern and Western Fathers. Myself, I am comfortable saying the Creed without it when I attend Eastern liturgies as well as saying the Creed with the Filioque at the TLMs (or my wife/children's very conservative novus ordo parish) that I sometimes attend.

Even back at St Vladimir's, Prof John Ericksen (Church history) was very careful to indicate that the Filioque was added in the West as a means of fighting the resurgence of Arianism in some regions of western Europe.

I think there is scriptural support for both views.

In the past week I saw a very interesting video on the essence-energies distinction by a Reformed Baptist theologian who I respect, Gavin Ortland, PhD. His YouTube channel is called Truth Unites. His discussion is rather supportive of the Eastern theology and it appears his thinking on the subject (as I think he openly states) has gradually changed over time. For me, it was interesting to hearing this - particularly as Dr Ortland is a firmly sola scriptura kind of guy. I'd post the vid however I still can't seem to figure out how to do that on the SD forum.
Thanks.         

E.W. Thanks again, and always a pleasure;
Yipes! I forgot to post the vid!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Hx-AK1KaI&t=94s

QuoteI think there is scriptural support for both views.

If you watch the video you will come away with the opposite view (2 hours worth!).
Secondly, if you mean that a Catholic is free to hold either view (maybe I misunderstood you), this is not possible as the Filoque is "de fide" at least since the Council of Lyons.
I attended the Ukranian Catholic services for many years, and they do not mention the "Filioque" except at specific times during the year; which is no problem as they accept the doctrine.   

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 19, 2024, 05:17:15 PMThe very same icon can be venerated outside of said religious service, as long as it is a saint of the Catholic Church.

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between saints only venerated in Eastern Rite Catholicism and vice versa in the Latin Church? For example the case of Gregory Palamas?

There should not be any saints that are venerated in one rite or the other; a saint in one rite is a saint in the whole Church. However there has been an "ecumenical" tendency in the Eastern rites towards Orthodoxy since Vatican II, corresponding to the ecumenical movement in the Western rites towards Protestantism. It results from the loss of the teaching that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and the necessity of belonging to the Church in order to be saved (understood as the Church has always understood this doctrine).
Palamas is not a saint, as he was never a Catholic and worse he rejected the Catholic doctrine on the simplicity/unity of the divine essence.
 

Ps. "Spanish Brandy": Locate a bottle of "Cardenal Mendoza" brandy in a liquor store near by; you are in for a rare treat. Spain has two different types of brandy, one from the Barcelona area (Torres Family) and another from Jerez; the second is the more "Spanish" of the two. Worth a try. 

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 28, 2024, 10:21:42 AME.W. Thanks again, and always a pleasure;
Yipes! I forgot to post the vid!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Hx-AK1KaI&t=94s

QuoteI think there is scriptural support for both views.

If you watch the video you will come away with the opposite view (2 hours worth!).
Secondly, if you mean that a Catholic is free to hold either view (maybe I misunderstood you), this is not possible as the Filoque is "de fide" at least since the Council of Lyons.
I attended the Ukranian Catholic services for many years, and they do not mention the "Filioque" except at specific times during the year; which is no problem as they accept the doctrine. 

Well, Michael, I still haven't finished the previous Dimond brothers video you posted so will also attempt to take a stab at this one.

Regarding the Filioque issue at hand (ie., a Catholic holding either view), it is indeed problematic as (with the exception of the Melkites, the Byzantine Catholic jurisdiction which I joined the Church in 1986), I never heard the Filique omitted in Byzantine Ruthenian and Ukrainian parish liturgies until after Pope John Paul II's Orientale Lumen in May 1995 which, as perhaps you're aware, his apostolic letter basically said that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be true to their eastern patrimony (eg., ordain married men to the priesthood, say the Nicene Creed as it was said prior to  a western Council of Toledo, etc).
Although as I believe you are a sede, that letter probably won't matter.

I realize this is my subjective view, but I'm comfortable saying the Nicene Creed in Eastern Catholic parishes because of the East's historical understanding of John 15:26.
Now, having said that, I do accept the Filioque. I came to accept it (although I said it growing up in the Episcopal Church) shortly before I came into the Catholic Church in 1986 and eventually came to see it as superior to the older expression, "from the Father". Romans 8:9 was helpful. Also, as per an online comment I have read, that theologically speaking, the economy (oikonomia) of the Trinity should reflect the immanence of the Trinity.


As a humorous aside, I read a Reformed (generally Calvinist, "classic" protestant) online forum occasionally. A few years ago, there was a discussion of its well-educated, informed Reformed lay and clergy members. It was regarding the Filioque. The vast majority supported its use in the Nicene Creed. I think there may have been a few who did not - but some seemed to have been a somewhat knee-jerk, "anti-papist" mentality.
Anyway, LOL, one of its members (and a very bright guy, with whom I've occasionally had email discussions) made a comment saying that basically, protestants don't deal with the subject of the Filioque. And that, "The only ones who really deal with it are Catholics and EO, and that's usually when they tear each other apart."
True, that. Cracked me up!
         

     

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 28, 2024, 04:27:16 PMPs. "Spanish Brandy": Locate a bottle of "Cardenal Mendoza" brandy in a liquor store near by; you are in for a rare treat. Spain has two different types of brandy, one from the Barcelona area (Torres Family) and another from Jerez; the second is the more "Spanish" of the two. Worth a try. 

Well, Michael the brandies you mention above certainly sound delicious. My mother and grandmother occasionally drank sherry, something of which I only developed a taste for during college...sherries and ports.

Does Cardenal Mendoza brandy resemble sherry or port in its taste?

Also, is Cardinal Mendoza a sede? SSPX? Novus ordo?  ;)   

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJJOK3NdIEs2LyjjFxxGAjfy0tLTkiIP-_YU3AMaUCQrBMkNYVRO01ECuX5qR17ExWESOzyN9BZZ5NMpYUx3l-i57u-x8492KpCK4pOnqUEzRE2kzxXZy_1uIY6rl_0CF-wIO19PmPoL6z/s1600/1+Document+St+Pius+X.jpg)

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 29, 2024, 12:29:57 PM(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJJOK3NdIEs2LyjjFxxGAjfy0tLTkiIP-_YU3AMaUCQrBMkNYVRO01ECuX5qR17ExWESOzyN9BZZ5NMpYUx3l-i57u-x8492KpCK4pOnqUEzRE2kzxXZy_1uIY6rl_0CF-wIO19PmPoL6z/s1600/1+Document+St+Pius+X.jpg)

LTC, OK, I picked up some of the Latin in this document from Rome.

Would you kindly provide a basic translation?

Rome 17.02.1908

Most Blessed Father!
Andrey Szeptycki, Metropolitan of Halycz, Metropolitan of Kiev and Administrator of all Russia at the feet of His Holiness most humbly asks that faculties may be granted to him and also to confessors in communion with him for dispensing secular faithful from the law that forbids communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox, as many times as they will judge it in conscience to be opportune.


This document written by me Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X deigned to sign with his hand the words "may be tolerated."

Quote from: Bonaventure on April 29, 2024, 01:39:05 PMRome 17.02.1908

Most Blessed Father!
Andrey Szeptycki, Metropolitan of Halycz, Metropolitan of Kiev and Administrator of all Russia at the feet of His Holiness most humbly asks that faculties may be granted to him and also to confessors in communion with him for dispensing secular faithful from the law that forbids communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox, as many times as they will judge it in conscience to be opportune.


This document written by me Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X deigned to sign with his hand the words "may be tolerated."

Very interesting, and thanks Bonaventure(and LTC).

Very good; but what are the circumstances? The Pope cannot dispense people from committing mortal sin; c.i.s. Is not an ecclesiastical law, but a divine one.

E.W.

QuoteDoes Cardenal Mendoza brandy resemble sherry or port in its taste?

Also, is Cardinal Mendoza a sede? SSPX? Novus ordo?  ;)   

Its from the Sherry region, but not sweet; one can find the hints of sherry in the taste. Hard to describe, except it isn't dry like the French Cognacs;
I'm a big Porto man myself, and I usually buy a bottle for family get together's its a big hit
with my female relatives.
Here are the tasting notes of C.M.

QuoteCardenal Mendoza Clásico – Solera Gran Reserva (40%, Sánchez Romate, Brandy de Jerez)

Nose: one of the more punchy brandies, with wood spice and deep Pedro Ximénez aromas giving it extra character. Caramel, cinnamon pastry, prunes, hints of roasted coffee beans and mocha sweets. Some peppery oak and vanilla. Just a hint of orange peels.

Mouth: still punchy but nicely integrated. A mix of heavy raisin and fig sweetness, herbal notes (dark tea), vanilla pastry and dry nutty notes (hazelnut, walnut). Hints of dark chocolate. Medium finish, with herbal notes (light peppermint even).

Availability: good. As often, pricing shows significant differences between markets, from € 25 in Spain up to € 60 in other countries. Check The Whisky Exchange or Master of Malt for international shipping.

Here is more information on the Brandy and on the real Cardinal Mendoza
https://www.sherrynotes.com/2019/reviews/brandy-jerez/cardenal-mendoza-clasico-romate/

QuoteCardenal Mendoza Brandy (Romate)

    Cardenal Mendoza is one of the best-known Brandy de Jerez brands

Cardenal Mendoza is one of the leading brands when it comes to Brandy de Jerez. Produced by bodegas Sánchez Romate, is was named after Pedro Gonzales de Mendoza, who was a cardinal and archbishop of Spain in the 15th century and a key political figure to lobby for Columbus' first voyage to the Americas and the unification of Spain. In 1887 the Romate family decided to create a brandy for private consumption, but it quickly gained a reputation and was brought to the market. Nowadays brandy production is responsible for most of the profits of the bodega.

Cardenal Mendoza is produced from Airén grapes grown in the La Mancha region (South of Madrid), distilled in pot stills or alquitara
Brandy Cardenal Mendoza Clásico

Even this entry-level Cardenal Mendoza Clásico is already a Solera Gran Reserva brandy, the highest category which requires an average age of three years in oak. In fact Cardenal Mendoza is 15 years old on average, matured in a solera system with casks that have previously been seasoned with Oloroso and Pedro Ximénez sherry. The solera of Cardenal Mendoza is one of the largest in the sherry region and takes up a huge bodega area between the Calle Lealas and Calle Pizarro in the city centre of Jerez.

A parcel of Cardenal Mendoza barrels was set aside in 1981, in celebration of the bi-centenary of the bodega, and matured further to become the Cardenal Mendoza Carta Real.

On the Brandy Cardenal Mendoza website you'll find an overview of the house's sherry brandy, as well as many cocktail recipes with brandy or innovative pairings of brandy with chocolate or cigars.

I looked up his biography on wiki hoping to find some information on his relationship with the various Popes during the Western Schism, to see if he was a sede with at least one of the lines  :laugh:  but the schism  unfortunately had ended before he was born.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 29, 2024, 04:44:42 PME.W.

QuoteDoes Cardenal Mendoza brandy resemble sherry or port in its taste?

Also, is Cardinal Mendoza a sede? SSPX? Novus ordo?  ;) 

Its from the Sherry region, but not sweet; one can find the hints of sherry in the taste. Hard to describe, except it isn't dry like the French Cognacs;
I'm a big Porto man myself, and I usually buy a bottle for family get together's its a big hit
with my female relatives.
Here are the tasting notes of C.M.

QuoteCardenal Mendoza Clásico – Solera Gran Reserva (40%, Sánchez Romate, Brandy de Jerez)

Nose: one of the more punchy brandies, with wood spice and deep Pedro Ximénez aromas giving it extra character. Caramel, cinnamon pastry, prunes, hints of roasted coffee beans and mocha sweets. Some peppery oak and vanilla. Just a hint of orange peels.

Mouth: still punchy but nicely integrated. A mix of heavy raisin and fig sweetness, herbal notes (dark tea), vanilla pastry and dry nutty notes (hazelnut, walnut). Hints of dark chocolate. Medium finish, with herbal notes (light peppermint even).

Availability: good. As often, pricing shows significant differences between markets, from € 25 in Spain up to € 60 in other countries. Check The Whisky Exchange or Master of Malt for international shipping.

I appreciate the Mendoza Clasico tasting notes, MW.

Hillbilly beer guy that I am, I must say that in reading about the Nose ("prunes", "roasted coffee") also Mouth ("raisin", "hazelnut, walnut), and ("dark chocolate") description of the brandy reminded me immediately of Komes Russian Imperial Stout, made in Poland (Hmmm...sounds like a true uniate product).
It's certainly a lot cheaper than Mendoza...for the last two winters I've been occasionally buying their bomber bottles (22oz?) for $3.95 each at an eastern European market, south of Akron, Ohio. It sure beats the $10 and up bottles I buy of other Russian Imperial Stout products.
Delicious - all that good taste plus the added bonus of a Byzantine Rite pedigree! Just the drink for barroom theologians.   
:beer:

Michael,

If it is a matter of Divine Law then why have Catholics been permitted to receive Orthodox sacraments on their deathbed if necessity dictates? Is the Church thus allowing mortal sin to take place?

If St Pius X really wrote that - is he thus giving his nod to mortal sin?

Here are a bunch of other instances of "communicatio in sacris" which I pulled from the blog of the monks at Papa Stronsay. Feel free to cross reference their references, I am too lazy to do so and will take their word for it:

---

1
Pope Benedict XIV
(A Pope universally considered to have been
a great authority in Canon Law.)

We have a further clarification to hand:

The judgment
on Communicatio in sacris
given by Pope Benedict XIV
in the 24 February, 1752,
session of the Holy Office
was precisely:

"Communicationem in divinis cum haereticis non posse nec debere tam facile ac tam generaliter pronuntiari in omni penitus circumstantia de iure vetitam."

Which is to say:
"Communicatio in divinis with heretics cannot and should not be so readily and so generally pronounced forbidden in absolutely every circumstance."

The reference for the quote is:
De Martinis, luris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide, Pars II (Rome, 1909), p. 324.

---

2
Pope Benedict XIV
(31 March 1675 – 3 May 1758)
Benedict XIV is best known to history as a student and a scholar.

258 years ago, in 1752,
Pope Benedict XIV concluded that communicatio in sacris
with schismatics and heretics
is not always contrary to the divine law:
for example in a marriage between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic.

---

3
In 1244
Pope Innocent IV
permitted the Dominican missionaries
among the (Non-Catholic) Jacobites and Nestorians
to share with them
"in verbis, officio et cibo"
(literally in words, offices and food;
better english: in speech, in offices, in meals).

In 1245 he gave the same permission to Franciscan Missionaries.
From the context it is obvious that the words
"in officio" is are equivalent to "in sacris"
(in sacred things).

The following Popes,
Nicholas IV (1288),
John XXII (1316-34), and
Benedict XII (1334-42)
gave the missionaries
the same permission many times
as can be verified in the books of the
Sources of the Codification of Oriental Canon Law
published by the Vatican in 1943.

[Reference: Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti, Serie III, Vol. IV, 1, p. 11, nn. 25- 27; p. 37, n. 72; Vol. V, 2, p. 142, n. 300; VII, 1, p. 26, n. 69; VII, 2, p. 22, n. 27, p. 95, n. 155, p. 151, n. 252, p. 173, n. 289; VIII, p. 62, n. 154; etc].

---

4
An example of Communicatio in sacris permitted
to those who lived under tyranny in the Ottoman Empire
is the Instruction of 6 August, 1764,
from the Congregation of the Propaganda of the Faith.

The Instruction authorised the Apostolic Vicar of Aleppo,
in Northern Syria,
to allow the faithful, if in danger of persecution,
to have their children baptized by schismatic or heretical priests,
to marry before a non-Catholic minister,
and to have him bury their dead.

The reason for this was that the Ottoman Empire
recognised only certain Non-Catholic communities of Christians.
There was no protection for a minority of newly converted Catholics.

If they were not to be forced to become Muslims
they had to have recognised certificates of Baptism and Marriage.
Valid death certificates were also issued by the recognised religious leaders.

Therefore, these isolated Catholics were permitted
Baptism, Marriage and Burial by Non-Catholics.

(Source: R. De Martinis, luris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide, Pars 11 (Rome, 1909), p. 342, n. 615.)

---

5
Blessed Urban V's cultus
was approved by
Blessed Pope Pius IX (1846–78)
in 1870.

Blessed Urban V gave his legate in the East,
St Peter Thomas, Latin Patriarch of Constantinople,
permission to share with non-Catholics "in divinis",
with this limitation,
that the permission did not extend
to those excommunicated by name.

(No reference for this so take it as you will)

---

6
Pope Clement VI
gave a very general permission
to Armenian priests
who had returned to the Catholic Church
to administer the sacraments among the schismatics,
not in approval of their schism,
- this is stated -
but to lead them back to obedience to the true Church.

(Source: Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti, Serie III, Vol., IX, p. 150, n. 309).

E.W. That Russian Imperial Stout sounds like a real great beer!
Back to the "minor issue" of the Filioque.
Here is the Duay Rheims' note on this passage:

Quote26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.  27 And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.

Quote[26] "Whom I will send": This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son.

This stands out so clear; The Son will send the Holy Ghost; therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
I have these quotes from "Catholic Answers" citing both Latin and Greek Fathers on the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son (or through the Son)

QuoteTertullian
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
Gregory the Wonderworker

"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).
Gregory of Nyssa

"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
The Athanasian Creed

"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Cyril of Alexandria

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).
John Damascene

"Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son" (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).

"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (ibid., 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).
Council of Nicaea II

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

Charles Coulombe raised an interesting point (even more so considering he's a Feeneyite):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPYMj1OZJQQ

The interesting part starts at 2:25.

I'm sure both of you would find it interesting.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 30, 2024, 04:45:03 PME.W. That Russian Imperial Stout sounds like a real great beer!
Back to the "minor issue" of the Filioque.
Here is the Duay Rheims' note on this passage:

Quote26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.  27 And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.

Quote[26] "Whom I will send": This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son.

This stands out so clear; The Son will send the Holy Ghost; therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
I have these quotes from "Catholic Answers" citing both Latin and Greek Fathers on the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son (or through the Son)

QuoteTertullian
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
Gregory the Wonderworker

"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).
Gregory of Nyssa

"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
The Athanasian Creed

"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Cyril of Alexandria

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).
John Damascene

"Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son" (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).

"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (ibid., 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).
Council of Nicaea II

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

Yes, my quote the other day of John 15:26 was from a Douay, but the Douay - Confraternity translation.

Yes, the Eastern father St Cyril of Alexandria apparently supported the theology of the filioque. I noticed in the Catholic Answers quotes of some of the eastern Fathers (and as you indeed did mention) the formula of the procession of the Holy Spirit "from the Father through the Son" is used. (eg., St John of Damascus, St Basil the Great, St Gregory of Nyssa, perhaps more.)

As far as I can recall from my seminary studies, many or most Eastern fathers supported "and through the Son" but not all. I seem to recall efforts were made in the disagreements between East and West over the addition of the filioque that an unsuccessful attempt was made to heal the breach with the language "and through the Son". And again, if memory serves, the opinion from professors at my seminary was that "and through the Son" was; well, orthodox. 

One thing I've come to learn only later in life was that there is plenty of variation in opinion of the Church Fathers. Sometimes even among differing written works of the same father. I have a book that I bought (used) a few years ago that has many quotations of the Church Fathers in support of sola scriptura. The book is Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume 3, "The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura by David King and William Webster (both protestants, of course). In Chapter 2, entitled The Ultimate Authority of Scripture, there are quotations of St Basil the Great, St Cyril of Jerusalem, St John Chrysostom, St Jerome, St Augustine, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Gregory the Great and one name I had never heard of, Bishop Optatus of Milevus. From everything I can tell the quotes are valid and are well documented. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say these patristic sources absolutely support sola scriptura, I would say that they support a high view of scripture. No issue there.
(BTW, "Sola scriptura" is often misunderstood to mean that if I read my Bible that the Holy Spirit will guide me to understand its meaning. At least, that's what I once mistakenly believed. As I understand it, the term correctly means that scripture is to be exegeted by other scriptures within the Bible. Not simply "personal interpretation." But I have digressed enough.
Thanks...     

Quote from: Bonaventure on April 30, 2024, 05:37:04 PMCharles Coulombe raised an interesting point (even more so considering he's a Feeneyite):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPYMj1OZJQQ

The interesting part starts at 2:25.

I'm sure both of you would find it interesting.

Thank you Bonaventure. I listened to some of this and will try to respond later...I have a late lunch planned in the Pittsburgh area tomorrow with a fellow retiree and former boss, a longtime business friend and colleague. Discussing composite/plastics materials, manufacturing and market fluctuations will provide a nice respite from the finer points of online theology! :rofl:   
Relative to CC's comment on the schismatic nature of the Orthodox - RC divide, I think that discussion is very important. I often read opinions from trads on Orthodoxy who don't differentiate between schism and heresy. I have experienced the same thing among the Orthodox toward Roman Catholicism as well. As far as I can tell, even the very definitions of schism and heresy differ between Orthodox and Catholic theologians.

Ah oh! I gotta go! My wife just told me the game I was going to watch (Guardians - Astros) has started and Josh Naylor just hit a home run with two people on bases!

     

E.W.
On the "sola scriptura" quotes from the Fathers; yes, I have seen many of those, and of course the Protestants take the quotes from the Fathers on the authority of S.S. As being equivalent to their novel idea of "Scriptura w.o. Church authority".
The Protestants take their erroneous theological principle and try to mine the Fathers for quotes that may support their position; which can easily be proved false.
But this has no relationship with the "Filioque" controversy; the two positions are mutually exclusive and incompatible; either the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from one principle or He only proceeds from the Father and not the Son. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox have affirmed their respective position as the true one and anathematized the contrary one. For both sides it is a matter of faith and heresy. The truth or falsehood of both Catholicism or Orthodoxy rests on the truth or falsehood of one or the other of the positions. If a Church or a group of churches (Orthodoxy) can teach a major falsehood about the nature of God, then it cannot be the true Church.
Any attempt to attenuate the doctrine in the name of a perceived charity, is very misguided. 

Here is a quote from St. Augustine of Hippo, considered a saint in the Orthodox Church

QuoteAugustine

"t must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term 'principally' because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

There is no way to interpret this where one would have St. Augustine teaching that the Holy Ghost only proceeds from the Father and not from the Father and the Son.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 01, 2024, 05:07:38 PME.W.
On the "sola scriptura" quotes from the Fathers; yes, I have seen many of those, and of course the Protestants take the quotes from the Fathers on the authority of S.S. As being equivalent to their novel idea of "Scriptura w.o. Church authority".
The Protestants take their erroneous theological principle and try to mine the Fathers for quotes that may support their position; which can easily be proved false.
But this has no relationship with the "Filioque" controversy; the two positions are mutually exclusive and incompatible; either the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from one principle or He only proceeds from the Father and not the Son. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox have affirmed their respective position as the true one and anathematized the contrary one. For both sides it is a matter of faith and heresy. The truth or falsehood of both Catholicism or Orthodoxy rests on the truth or falsehood of one or the other of the positions. If a Church or a group of churches (Orthodoxy) can teach a major falsehood about the nature of God, then it cannot be the true Church.
Any attempt to attenuate the doctrine in the name of a perceived charity, is very misguided. 

Yes, "perceived charity" is a good way to put it. And such misplaced "understanding" flies in the face of dogmatic precision. 

Bonaventure,
I was just listening to the video that you posted; and while I tend to agree that being a schismatic in the formal sense of the word involves an act of the will; what that gentleman was describing viz: "an Orthodox person who accepted the Pope as the head of the Church"; was probably not a schismatic; I would have to disagree. To accept the Pope as head of the Church in the Orthodox sense, is to empty the office of its essence. Secondly he states that if a person is a member of an Orthodox Church, is he a schismatic? He responds: "Probably not"; there is no way of knowing this, since it involves the interior disposition of the soul, known only to God. Then he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II; while the Church has never said that everyone who does not die as an "actual" member of the Church will go to Hell; neither does she ever encourage people to have the idea that its O.K. To die outside the Church; in fact the contrary is the case (EENS). He admits that "before 1964 things were simpler"; right, both sides agree that there were two different religions and one was false and the other true; only one could be right.
The gentleman even goes on to state that an "Orthodox that does not hate the Church, has as much chance to save his soul and a Catholic does". So why try to convert the Orthodox to the true faith? The response from the Vatican since the Council is: "We don't try to convert them; in fact we prohibit any attempt to convert them (Treaty of Balamand). He goes on to practically say that both sides are equally guilty of the current state of affairs; which the Popes in the Past have condemned such statements, such as Pius XI in Mortalium Animus.
This gentleman is in good faith, but he has imbibed the "indiferentist" and "latitudinarian" spirit which the Council and the Conciliar Church are filled with and no longer has a firm grasp on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole custodian of truth and salvation.   

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 02, 2024, 05:08:28 PMThen he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II;

Wrong again.

Ven. Sheptytsky petitioned Rome in the early 20th century (I think 1905 but could be mistaken) to have all Orthodox saints included on their calendar. This was granted by the Vatican with some exceptions (St Mark of Ephesus being one of them).

On top of that, Pius XII approved the liturgical calendar for Russian Catholics (still trying to get my hands on one) that included numerous post-schism saints, including St Sergius of Radonezh (A personal favourite of mine).


It's no wonder the Orthodox have no interest in swimming the river when you have people who wax lyrical about the papacy but also think it's been vacant for 60 years, then start making stuff up about the praxis of those Easterns who've decided to stay loyal to Rome.

It's also hardly surprising as to why so many Eastern Catholics feel abused and abandoned by Romans and would love to return home, as it were.

Latins should get their own shitty house in order first and foremost.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 02, 2024, 05:08:28 PMBonaventure,
I was just listening to the video that you posted; and while I tend to agree that being a schismatic in the formal sense of the word involves an act of the will; what that gentleman was describing viz: "an Orthodox person who accepted the Pope as the head of the Church"; was probably not a schismatic; I would have to disagree. To accept the Pope as head of the Church in the Orthodox sense, is to empty the office of its essence. Secondly he states that if a person is a member of an Orthodox Church, is he a schismatic? He responds: "Probably not"; there is no way of knowing this, since it involves the interior disposition of the soul, known only to God. Then he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II; while the Church has never said that everyone who does not die as an "actual" member of the Church will go to Hell; neither does she ever encourage people to have the idea that its O.K. To die outside the Church; in fact the contrary is the case (EENS). He admits that "before 1964 things were simpler"; right, both sides agree that there were two different religions and one was false and the other true; only one could be right.
The gentleman even goes on to state that an "Orthodox that does not hate the Church, has as much chance to save his soul and a Catholic does". So why try to convert the Orthodox to the true faith? The response from the Vatican since the Council is: "We don't try to convert them; in fact we prohibit any attempt to convert them (Treaty of Balamand). He goes on to practically say that both sides are equally guilty of the current state of affairs; which the Popes in the Past have condemned such statements, such as Pius XI in Mortalium Animus.
This gentleman is in good faith, but he has imbibed the "indiferentist" and "latitudinarian" spirit which the Council and the Conciliar Church are filled with and no longer has a firm grasp on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole custodian of truth and salvation.   

Interesting perspective and I would love to present to him for a response. He is a traditionalist feeneyite , so it would be an interesting one indeed.

QuoteIt's no wonder the Orthodox have no interest in swimming the river when you have people who wax lyrical about the papacy but also think it's been vacant for 60 years, then start making stuff up about the praxis of those Easterns who've decided to stay loyal to Rome.

It is certainly a river of shite.

We will both have to, rather soon, explain to our young children that:

There has been what appears to be a great apostasy of the faith. In 99.999999% of supposed Catholic Churches, a liturgy is celebrated which has been aptly described as a bastard rite or a striking departure from Trent, religious indifferentism masquerading as ecumenical endeavors reign supreme, Christ the King has been uncrowned in favor of religious liberty, and the supposed hierarchy and popes allegedly obtruding this on the faithful have either:

1. Professed heresies and have thus lost their offices. There appears to be no human means in sight for how these sees will be filled again (Arian Crisis did not entail the Petrine See being vacant).
2. Cannot be hierarchy/popes as this would contradict indefectibility.
3. Are somehow still popes/hierarchs (Fr. Cekada's "cardboard, cutout pope" analogy).

It's a shit sandwich.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 02, 2024, 05:50:12 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 02, 2024, 05:08:28 PMThen he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II;

Wrong again.

Ven. Sheptytsky petitioned Rome in the early 20th century (I think 1905 but could be mistaken) to have all Orthodox saints included on their calendar. This was granted by the Vatican with some exceptions (St Mark of Ephesus being one of them).

This is impossible; as only Catholics can be canonized as saints.

QuoteOn top of that, Pius XII approved the liturgical calendar for Russian Catholics (still trying to get my hands on one) that included numerous post-schism saints, including St Sergius of Radonezh (A personal favourite of mine).

See above.

QuoteIt's no wonder the Orthodox have no interest in swimming the river when you have people who wax lyrical about the papacy but also think it's been vacant for 60 years, then start making stuff up about the praxis of those Easterns who've decided to stay loyal to Rome.

The Eastern schism has been going on for about 1000 years; their reluctance to cross the Tiber has nothing to do with yours truly posting on a small trad forum with only a few readers. 

QuoteIt's also hardly surprising as to why so many Eastern Catholics feel abused and abandoned by Romans and would love to return home, as it were.

How about the numberless Easterners that preferred martyrdom, to embracing Orthodoxy? Were they crazy? Or did they know their faith better than many modern Catholics?

QuoteLatins should get their own shitty house in order first and foremost.

Absolutely; but you have to realize that the current situation in the Church is something that has not happened in  its history; there is no "blueprint" for getting out of it, except waiting for a true Pope to occupy the See of Peter. Meanwhile the situation in Orthodoxy i.e. disunity, is the very essence of their rejection of a central supreme authority. There is a cure for our situation in the very constitution of the Church; their only solution is to convert to the Faith.

Michael Wilson is absolutely correct that only Catholics can be recognized as Saints. That schismatics like the heretic Palamas are recognized today (even by the Ukrainian Catholics) is a post Vatican-II novelty.

The following quote is from Professor Michael Petrowycz's (presently at Ukrainian Catholic University, L'viv Ukraine] dissertation "Bringing Back the Saints: The Contribution of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1940-1952) to the Commemoration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, p.363.

URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OKxWD8l4mTnnpPQtyBp-cOsULWh_DvKY/view?usp=drivesdk

Quote...As mentioned above, even when the moral evaluation of a candidate was positive (even eminently so, as in the case of Metropolitan Phillip), the candidate was nonetheless disqualified when it was accepted beyond doubt that he or she had been out of communion with Rome. This means that the Commission accepted into the RR only saints that it believed to be, or presumed to be, in communion with Rome. The category of a "material schismatic, who did not provoke, but inherited the schism in good faith, and therefore, according to Jugie and St. Augustine, carried no responsibility for the schism, was not considered by the Commissions as a candidate for the RR and RV sanctorale.

RR = Recensio Ruthena (Ukrainian Catholic sanctorale)
RV = Recensio Vulgata (Russian Catholic sanctorale)

The above quote from Petrowycz's dissertation is quite clear. The Russian saints approved during the pontificate of Pius XII had to be in communion with Rome. Even hose who inherited the schism and were of good faith were not considered for sainthood in either the Russian or Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

QuoteAbsolutely; but you have to realize that the current situation in the Church is something that has not happened in  its history; there is no "blueprint" for getting out of it, except waiting for a true Pope to occupy the See of Peter. Meanwhile the situation in Orthodoxy i.e. disunity, is the very essence of their rejection of a central supreme authority. There is a cure for our situation in the very constitution of the Church; their only solution is to convert to the Faith.

Indeed.

As Erick Ybarra tells people who feel tempted to go 'Dox, do it. Be a catechumen for a year.

You'll soon see it doesn't solve the "problem."

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 03, 2024, 06:52:06 PM

QuoteAbsolutely; but you have to realize that the current situation in the Church is something that has not happened in  its history; there is no "blueprint" for getting out of it, except waiting for a true Pope to occupy the See of Peter. Meanwhile the situation in Orthodoxy i.e. disunity, is the very essence of their rejection of a central supreme authority. There is a cure for our situation in the very constitution of the Church; their only solution is to convert to the Faith.

Indeed.

As Erick Ybarra tells people who feel tempted to go 'Dox, do it. Be a catechumen for a year.

You'll soon see it doesn't solve the "problem."

If you're jumping ship or going to the sui iuris rites as a "response" (ie. a negative) to the current issues in the Latin Church, you're going to have a bad time.

If you're going because of a genuine love of the East then go for it (Eastern Catholic, not Orthodox, of course).

Agreed. Kind of like moving. Do it to gain something, not run away.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 03, 2024, 11:41:37 PMAgreed. Kind of like moving. Do it to gain something, not run away.

Chances are if you move because you don't like the way the Latin life is treating you, the Easterns aren't going to be rolling out the red carpet for your arrival. You're a liturgical refugee and will be treated as such.

Chances too are if you have no real love for the East, you'll be back in a Latin church in no time (a la Matt Fradd).

Quote from: Wenceslav on May 03, 2024, 05:47:41 PMMichael Wilson is absolutely correct that only Catholics can be recognized as Saints. That schismatics like the heretic Palamas are recognized today (even by the Ukrainian Catholics) is a post Vatican-II novelty.

The following quote is from Professor Michael Petrowycz's (presently at Ukrainian Catholic University, L'viv Ukraine] dissertation "Bringing Back the Saints: The Contribution of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1940-1952) to the Commemoration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, p.363.

URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OKxWD8l4mTnnpPQtyBp-cOsULWh_DvKY/view?usp=drivesdk

Quote...As mentioned above, even when the moral evaluation of a candidate was positive (even eminently so, as in the case of Metropolitan Phillip), the candidate was nonetheless disqualified when it was accepted beyond doubt that he or she had been out of communion with Rome. This means that the Commission accepted into the RR only saints that it believed to be, or presumed to be, in communion with Rome. The category of a "material schismatic, who did not provoke, but inherited the schism in good faith, and therefore, according to Jugie and St. Augustine, carried no responsibility for the schism, was not considered by the Commissions as a candidate for the RR and RV sanctorale.

RR = Recensio Ruthena (Ukrainian Catholic sanctorale)
RV = Recensio Vulgata (Russian Catholic sanctorale)

The above quote from Petrowycz's dissertation is quite clear. The Russian saints approved during the pontificate of Pius XII had to be in communion with Rome. Even hose who inherited the schism and were of good faith were not considered for sainthood in either the Russian or Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

That's all fine and well for saints who died in the 11-12th century, but how do you justify it for saints such as Sergius or Stephen of Perm, but of whom died at the very end of the 14th c? There is nothing to justify their adherence to Rome at the stage.

Of course, for those of us who are not sede this is a pointless argument as the East has been given way more leeway in venerating Orthodox saints. Allowing the East to be more authentically Eastern was the only silver lining of V2 in my humble opinion.
 

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 03, 2024, 11:46:35 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 03, 2024, 11:41:37 PMAgreed. Kind of like moving. Do it to gain something, not run away.

Chances are if you move because you don't like the way the Latin life is treating you, the Easterns aren't going to be rolling out the red carpet for your arrival. They're liturgical refugees and will be treated as such.

Chances too are if you have no real love for the East, you'll be back in a Latin church in no time (a la Matt Fradd).

Well said, LTC. And I have seen such situations first-hand.

I didn't realize that Matt Fradd had returned to a parish of the Latin Rite. Although it's been a while since I've watched any of his videos.

Quote from: EastWest7 on May 04, 2024, 12:12:28 AM

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 03, 2024, 11:46:35 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 03, 2024, 11:41:37 PMAgreed. Kind of like moving. Do it to gain something, not run away.

Chances are if you move because you don't like the way the Latin life is treating you, the Easterns aren't going to be rolling out the red carpet for your arrival. They're liturgical refugees and will be treated as such.

Chances too are if you have no real love for the East, you'll be back in a Latin church in no time (a la Matt Fradd).

Well said, TLC. And I have seen such situations first-hand.

I didn't realize that Matt Fradd had returned to a parish of the Latin Rite. Although it's been a while since I've watched any of his videos.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he did. I don't listen to much of his tripe anymore except the odd interview.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 03, 2024, 11:57:27 PM

Quote from: Wenceslav on May 03, 2024, 05:47:41 PMMichael Wilson is absolutely correct that only Catholics can be recognized as Saints. That schismatics like the heretic Palamas are recognized today (even by the Ukrainian Catholics) is a post Vatican-II novelty.

The following quote is from Professor Michael Petrowycz's (presently at Ukrainian Catholic University, L'viv Ukraine] dissertation "Bringing Back the Saints: The Contribution of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1940-1952) to the Commemoration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, p.363.

URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OKxWD8l4mTnnpPQtyBp-cOsULWh_DvKY/view?usp=drivesdk

Quote...As mentioned above, even when the moral evaluation of a candidate was positive (even eminently so, as in the case of Metropolitan Phillip), the candidate was nonetheless disqualified when it was accepted beyond doubt that he or she had been out of communion with Rome. This means that the Commission accepted into the RR only saints that it believed to be, or presumed to be, in communion with Rome. The category of a "material schismatic, who did not provoke, but inherited the schism in good faith, and therefore, according to Jugie and St. Augustine, carried no responsibility for the schism, was not considered by the Commissions as a candidate for the RR and RV sanctorale.

RR = Recensio Ruthena (Ukrainian Catholic sanctorale)
RV = Recensio Vulgata (Russian Catholic sanctorale)

The above quote from Petrowycz's dissertation is quite clear. The Russian saints approved during the pontificate of Pius XII had to be in communion with Rome. Even hose who inherited the schism and were of good faith were not considered for sainthood in either the Russian or Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

That's all fine and well for saints who died in the 11-12th century, but how do you justify it for saints such as Sergius or Stephen of Perm, but of whom died at the very end of the 14th c? There is nothing to justify their adherence to Rome at the stage.

Of course, for those of us who are not sede this is a pointless argument as the East has been given way more leeway in venerating Orthodox saints. Allowing the East to be more authentically Eastern was the only silver lining of V2 in my humble opinion.
 

I agree with your assessment regarding V2, LTC (its perspective of the Christian East). I've actually run into TLM-only folks who thought that the removal of such Latinizations in the Eastern Catholic parishes as Stations of The Cross, congregational recitation of the rosary prior to liturgy, use of statues and confessionals, etc in recent years was a result of some sort of liberalization process created by V2.

In my experience it took most Byzantine and Maronite parishes until shortly after Pope John Paul II's Orientale Lumen Apostolic Letter of 1995 to begin comprehensive implementation of Eastern liturgical art and worship structure. Although there are a couple of Byzantine parishes near me who, because of their respective pastors, started the process in the early 1970s.     

Sorry, a dupe.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 03, 2024, 11:57:27 PMThat's all fine and well for saints who died in the 11-12th century, but how do you justify it for saints such as Sergius or Stephen of Perm, but of whom died at the very end of the 14th c? There is nothing to justify their adherence to Rome at the stage.

Of course, for those of us who are not sede this is a pointless argument as the East has been given way more leeway in venerating Orthodox saints. Allowing the East to be more authentically Eastern was the only silver lining of V2 in my humble opinion.

The document that Wenceslav posted is from at least the 1950's and therefore would include the saints of the 14C.So the cases that you are alluding to had to be in communion with Rome. When the Church holds up a person to be venerated by the faithful, it is for faithful as an example that they may imitate them in the practice of their virtues; how is it possible to hold up to imitation a person who objectively died outside the Church, and therefore did not save their soul? 

Here is a group of Ukrainian Byzantine priests that are opposed to the "de-Latinazation" of the Bizantine rites (at least the forcible de-Latinization);

QuotePriestly Society of Saint Josaphat
   
Josaphat Kuncevyc, patron saint of the society

The Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych (SSJK) is a society of traditionalist priests and seminarians originating from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church which is led by the excommunicated priest Basil Kovpak. It is based in Riasne, Lviv, Western Ukraine.[1] In Lviv, the society maintains a seminary, at which currently thirty students reside, and takes care of a small convent of Basilian sisters.[2] The SSJK is affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X and Holy Orders are conferred by the latter society's bishops in the Roman Rite. The SSJK clergymen, however, exclusively follow a version of Slavonic Byzantine Rite in the Ruthenian recension.
Seminary

The seminary of the SSJK is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady and currently is attended by thirty seminarians. The seminary, the society says, is intended to be a modest support in the conversion to Catholicism not only of Ukraine, but of Russia as well. Devotion to Our Lady of Fatima and fidelity to traditional Catholic theology (with an emphasis on pre-conciliar theological emphases) are considered important.
Relations with the sui iuris Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Holy See
Opposition to de-Latinization
See also: Eastern Catholic liturgy

The SSJK rejects the de-Latinization reforms currently being strongly enforced within the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which is in full communion with Rome. These reforms began with the 1930s corrections of the liturgical books by Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky. According to his biographer Cyril Korolevsky, however, Metropolitan Andrey opposed the use of force against liturgical Latinizers. He expressed fear that any attempt to do so would lead to a Greek Catholic equivalent of the 1666 Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.[3]

The de-Latinisation of the UGCC gained further momentum with the 1964 decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum of the Second Vatican Council) and several subsequent documents. This resulted in the Latinisations being discarded within the Ukrainian diaspora. The Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine had meanwhile forced Byzantine Catholics into a clandestine existence and the Latinizations continued to be used in the underground. After the prescription against the UGCC was lifted in 1989, numerous UGCC priests and hierarchs arrive from the diaspora and attempted to enforce liturgical conformity.

In his memoir Persecuted Tradition, Basil Kovpak has accused the UGCC hierarchy of using intense psychological pressure against priests who are reluctant or unwilling to de-Latinize. He alleges that numerous laity, who have been attached to the Latinizations since the days of the underground, would prefer to stay home on Sunday rather than attend a de-Latinized liturgy.

The SSJK for instance opposes the removal of the stations of the cross, the rosary, and the monstrance from the liturgy and parishes of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. In rejecting these reforms, they also reject the right of the Church authorities to make these reforms; thus who controls the formate of liturgy becomes an important point of debate.

Critics[who?] of the SSJK point out that their liturgical practice favours severely abbreviated services and imported Roman Rite devotions over the traditional and authentic practices and ancient devotions of Eastern Tradition and particularly the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Proponents counter that these "Latin" symbols and rituals, borrowed from the Latin liturgical practices of their Latin Catholic Polish neighbours, have long been practised by Ukrainian Greek Catholics, in some cases for centuries, and that to suppress them is to deprive the Ukrainian Catholic faithful of a part of their own sacred heritage. The central point in the dispute is over what constitutes 'organic development'.

The Holy See, however, has argued since before the Second Vatican Council that Latinization was not an organic development. Frequently cited examples of this are Pope Leo XIII's 1894 encyclical Orientalium dignitas[4] and Saint Pius X's instructions that the priests of the Russian Catholic Church should offer the liturgy "no more, no less, and no different" (nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter) than the Orthodox and Old Ritualist clergy.
Church Slavonic
Vladimir the Great. The society declares that one of its main goals is conversion of Russia and Ukraine to unity with the Catholic Church.

The SSJK also opposes the abandonment of Church Slavonic, the traditional liturgical language of the Slavic Churches (both Orthodox and Greek-Catholic) in favour of the modern Ukrainian in the Liturgy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The society holds that Church Slavonic is essential to stress necessary Catholic unity among all Slavic peoples, and to avoid nationalism which has for a long time divided Slavic Christians.

However, critics[who?] claim that the essence of Eastern liturgical practice is to pray in a language which is understood by the people, and that Church Slavonic has ceased to be such a language, becoming a pale imitation of the Western practice of using Latin to promote unity. The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church has a large presence in many non-Slavic countries, with numerous eparchies and parishes in the diaspora, exacerbating the problem of parishioners not understanding what is being celebrated as well as raising issues of assimilation.
Ecumenism

The Society of Saint Josaphat condemns ecumenism with the Orthodox currently practised by both the Holy See and the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Instead the society promotes Catholic missionary activities among the Orthodox, who are not in communion with the Holy See. In Persecuted Tradition, Basil Kovpak cites numerous examples of the UGCC turning away Orthodox clergy and laity who wish to convert. In many cases, he alleges, this is because the converts are not ethnically Ukrainian.
Attempted excommunication

In 2003, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar excommunicated SSJK superior Kovpak from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Kovpak appealed this punishment at the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota in Vatican City and the excommunication was declared null and void by reason of a lack of canonical form.
Ordinations in 2006

On 22 November 2006, Bishop Richard Williamson who was then a member of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), ordained two priests and seven deacons in Warsaw, Poland, for the SSJK, in violation of canon 1015 §2, and of canons 1021 and 1331 §2 of the Code of Canon Law, and the corresponding canons of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. An SSPX priest who was present remarked, "We were all very edified by their piety, and I myself was astonished by the resemblance of the atmosphere amongst the seminarians with that which I knew in the seminary – this in spite of the difference of language, nationality and even rite."[5]

Archbishop Ihor Vozniak of Lviv (the archdiocese in which Kovpak is incardinated) denounced Williamson's action as a "criminal act" and condemned Kovpak's participation in the ceremony. He stressed that the two priests that Williamson had ordained would not receive faculties within the archeparchy.[6] Officials of the Lviv archdiocese said that Kovpak could face excommunication, and that "'he deceives the church by declaring that he is a Greek (Byzantine) Catholic priest,' while supporting a group [SSPX] that uses the old Latin liturgy exclusively, eschewing the Byzantine tradition, and does not maintain allegiance to the Holy See."[7] Accordingly, Kovpak's excommunication process was restarted by the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 23 November 2007.[8]

Father John Jenkins, a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, said in 2006 that the new archbishop of Lviv declared that his main task for the following year was to eradicate the "Lefebvrists" from his territory.[9]
Position of the society

Although the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, with the backing of the Holy See, had thus declared Kovpak excommunicated and the Society of St. Josaphat lacking faculties for a ministry within the Catholic Church, they themselves maintain that, though they are in dispute with Lubomyr and, presumably, with his successor, Sviatoslav Shevchuk, and through their association with the Society of St Pius X, indirectly in dispute with the church hierarchy, they are loyal to the Pope and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and are merely resisting what they consider to be modernism, indifferentism, and liberalism.[citation needed]

Yes one of them is a priest in Moscow.

If you want Latinization just go Latin.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 04, 2024, 02:19:33 PMYes one of them is a priest in Moscow.

If you want Latinization just go Latin.

An understatement, LTC.

As the article states, some of the "Latinizations" such as the stations of the Cross, are centuries old; the same for the Rosary. Plus these priests have not lost the missionary spirit. Finally the use of the Old Slavonic as an antidote to the nationalism that plagues the Eastern Rites and to a greater extent the Orthodox is probably a good idea.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 04, 2024, 02:19:33 PMYes one of them is a priest in Moscow.

If you want Latinization just go Latin.

It depends.

Some of the arguments of the "de-Latinization" promoters are the same things the Novus Ordo Cranmerites pushed. The Bugnini Holy Week, etc.

Liturgical archaeologism is almost never good.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 04, 2024, 09:42:15 PM

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 04, 2024, 02:19:33 PMYes one of them is a priest in Moscow.

If you want Latinization just go Latin.

It depends.

Some of the arguments of the "de-Latinization" promoters are the same things the Novus Ordo Cranmerites pushed. The Bugnini Holy Week, etc.

Liturgical archaeologism is almost never good.

Not the same at all.

And I agree, liturgical archeaologism is terrible

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 04, 2024, 04:14:08 PMAs the article states, some of the "Latinizations" such as the stations of the Cross, are centuries old; the same for the Rosary. Plus these priests have not lost the missionary spirit. Finally the use of the Old Slavonic as an antidote to the nationalism that plagues the Eastern Rites and to a greater extent the Orthodox is probably a good idea.

Rosary is a personal devotion which some Easterns practice but many do not.

Stations of the Cross sure, but what you're not getting is that these practices are alien to Easterns and while they would readily admit there's nothing wrong with them it's not for them.

Almost all liturgies outside the West said by Easterns are Old Slavonic.

You can't impose on Easterns, that's not how they work (here I'm talking in particular about Russians)...if the Church realized this in the early 20th century, and listened to Bl. Leonid and Ven. Sheptysky, we might even have had some sort of Union by now. Until those filthy Polish Jesuits got their greasy Polish Jesuit fingers over everything.

This isn't trying to evangelize a culture that is foreign to Christianity, you're talking about a Church with venerable traditions, some of which are older than ours. You can't impose.

Luckily the Church is a lot more nuanced than manual thumping Latin laymen.

The West trying to impose it's way on Russia is precisely why there's a war going on. It's no different in the liturgical realm.

You can't impose Western praxis on them. It won't work and will drive them away. And if it drives them away, we should bear some responsibility for that.

If Salvation is coming from the East then maybe we adopt their ways.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 20, 2024, 08:19:30 AM1.Christ founded a Church, only one.
2.The Church must be visible and apparent.
3. Composed of a body of faithful, under one government; teaching authority; agreeing and confessing one and the same doctrine.
4. Not a heterogeneous collection of individuals professing different doctrines; under different leaders.

How does that apply to the Catholic Church of today?

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 01, 2024, 05:22:07 PMHere is a quote from St. Augustine of Hippo, considered a saint in the Orthodox Church

Can you provide a reference for this? I heard that at least some Orthodox Christians do not consider Augustine of Hippo to be a Saint? And according to the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, I read that the Creed adopted there did not contain the filioque, but contains the phrase: "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;..."

Quote from: Greg on May 05, 2024, 12:57:26 AMIf Salvation is coming from the East then maybe we adopt their ways.

Trads who think the conversion of Russia means that they're going to adopt the TLM are in for a big surprise

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 05, 2024, 12:19:52 AM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 04, 2024, 04:14:08 PMAs the article states, some of the "Latinizations" such as the stations of the Cross, are centuries old; the same for the Rosary. Plus these priests have not lost the missionary spirit. Finally the use of the Old Slavonic as an antidote to the nationalism that plagues the Eastern Rites and to a greater extent the Orthodox is probably a good idea.

Rosary is a personal devotion which some Easterns practice but many do not.

Stations of the Cross sure, but what you're not getting is that these practices are alien to Easterns and while they would readily admit there's nothing wrong with them it's not for them.

Almost all liturgies outside the West said by Easterns are Old Slavonic.

You can't impose on Easterns, that's not how they work (here I'm talking in particular about Russians)...if the Church realized this in the early 20th century, and listened to Bl. Leonid and Ven. Sheptysky, we might even have had some sort of Union by now. Until those filthy Polish Jesuits got their greasy Polish Jesuit fingers over everything.

This isn't trying to evangelize a culture that is foreign to Christianity, you're talking about a Church with venerable traditions, some of which are older than ours. You can't impose.

Luckily the Church is a lot more nuanced than manual thumping Latin laymen.

The West trying to impose it's way on Russia is precisely why there's a war going on. It's no different in the liturgical realm.

You can't impose Western praxis on them. It won't work and will drive them away. And if it drives them away, we should bear some responsibility for that.

Yes, LTC; I understand that the rosary is not liturgical. And as I've tried to explain to my Orthodox friends (and even a few Catholics who attend a Byzantine parish), said Latinizations are hundreds of years old (eg., in Slovakia, and Ukraine, some of course, brought to America over a hundred years ago).

So, from a pastoral perspective, it's unwise in my opinion for a newly ordained priest to go into his first parish and immediately start ripping the Stations off the walls, etc).
I am all for Eastern Catholics saying the rosary as a private devotion. The Ruthenian Byzantine priest I met back in early 1975 seemed pleased that he was able to end the practice of it being said in the congregation (had been done just prior to the start of Sunday Divine Liturgy). He also got the first iconostasis installed there. He was an older guy who had the wisdom to do such things slowly.

I do agree with your analogy of the Latinizations made on Eastern Catholics as being akin to what has been going on with Russia for a number of years now. They don't want our/EU culture and I can't blame them. Lord have mercy on my grandchildren. 

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 05, 2024, 04:59:43 AM

Quote from: Greg on May 05, 2024, 12:57:26 AMIf Salvation is coming from the East then maybe we adopt their ways.

Trads who think the conversion of Russia means that they're going to adopt the TLM are in for a big surprise

Indeed.

Quote from: EastWest7 on May 05, 2024, 05:44:34 AMYes, LTC; I understand that the rosary is not liturgical. And as I've tried to explain to my Orthodox friends (and even a few Catholics who attend a Byzantine parish), said Latinizations are hundreds of years old (eg., in Slovakia, and Ukraine, some of course, brought to America over a hundred years ago).

So, from a pastoral perspective, it's unwise in my opinion for a newly ordained priest to go into his first parish and immediately start ripping the Stations off the walls, etc).

I agree completely. Prudence should guide our actions at all times, especially when implementing changes.

I have noticed a contrast between Easterns in the Old World vs. New - maybe you haven't, but I am heavily influenced by the Russian Rite and except with perhaps the Melkites, they are the most "Orthodox" in my experience. From what I've seen, the Easterns in the New World (and parts of Western EU) are far more ready to accept Latinizations.

My Ruthenian parish back in Europe isn't very Western from what I've seen...I see chotkis not Rosaries, and the only reason they have the stations of the cross is because it's an old Baroque Jesuit church lol.

Quote from: AlNg on May 05, 2024, 01:13:58 AMCan you provide a reference for this? I heard that at least some Orthodox Christians do not consider Augustine of Hippo to be a Saint? And according to the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, I read that the Creed adopted there did not contain the filioque, but contains the phrase: "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;..."

Aing,
If you mean do I have 'any evidence of St. Augustine being considered a saint by the Orthodox?" This is from the website of the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America"
https://www.goarch.org/-/saint-augustine-greek-orthodox-tradition

QuoteIn order to clarify where Augustine stands in regard to Greek Orthodoxy, my thesis in this paper is that he has been a "saint" of the Church and has never been erased from the list of saints. It is true that some of his teachings were highly criticized and branded as heretical, but this occurred after his death. The most important doctrinal controversy surrounding his name is the filioque. Other doctrines that were unacceptable to the Church are his view of original sin, the doctrine of grace, and predestination. My intention in this paper is to present the Orthodox writings, both ancient and modern, on the person and theology of Augustine.

If you mean where does St. Augustine teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son?"
Here is a site on youtube where dwong in refuting an Orthodox apologist, gives several quotes from the works of St. Augustine on this double procession:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdjPwM0pLiU&t=1644s

Aing:
On the First Council of Constantinople declaring that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father:
The Creed was countering the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian heresy, that denied that the Holy Ghost was true God:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Pneumatomachian-Macedonianism.html

QuoteAccording to the Pneumatomachians (Macedonians), the Holy Spirit was a created entity, subject to the Father and Son, in something of a servant role. This error was addressed and soundly refuted at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. As a reaction against the growing heresy of Macedonianism, church leaders at this council voted to expand the Nicene Creed to more accurately defend the Holy Spirit as fully God and worthy of worship. With that addition, the creed now reads, "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets." The Council of Constantinople sought to make it clear that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial (homoousious) with the Father and the Son.

Aing:

Quote1.Christ founded a Church, only one.
2.The Church must be visible and apparent.
3. Composed of a body of faithful, under one government; teaching authority; agreeing and confessing one and the same doctrine.
4. Not a heterogeneous collection of individuals professing different doctrines; under different leaders.

How does this apply to the Church today? If you believe that Christ is truly God and therefore He cannot lie or be mistaken, then we have to believe that when He stated that He would be with His Church until the end of times; and that He would send the Holy Ghost to the Apostles to teach them all truth; and that He gave to Peter the care over His whole flock; that this would always be true, that somehow even in the midst of the greatest crisis of the Church, that Our Lord was with His Church, such as the Arian crisis; the Western Schism; the Protestant revolution; and even today in the middle of an almost complete apostasy in both the laity and hierarchy, that the Church still exists, that it will emerge triumphant over its adversaries, and will once more shine forth in luster with its four marks of unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity; even if for a time these may seem to have been greatly reduced or almost completely obliterated.
James posted this article on another thread about the resurgence of Catholic traditionalist in the Church:
https://apnews.com/article/catholic-church-shift-orthodoxy-tradition-7638fa2013a593f8cb07483ffc8ed487
This is like the flowering of a desert after a rainstorm; in another article that I have not been able to locate yet, Cardinal Burke stated that the efforts to suppress the TLM have backfired and that it is flourishing now more than ever.

LTC

QuoteRosary is a personal devotion which some Easterns practice but many do not.

Stations of the Cross sure, but what you're not getting is that these practices are alien to Easterns and while they would readily admit there's nothing wrong with them it's not for them.

No argument here; therefore their suppression makes no sense; it doesn't affect the Byzantine rites. If you want to argue that they should be suppressed because they are not in accord with Byzantine spirituality"; I would disagree, I've read an account of  the History of Christian i.e. Catholic spirituality by Fr. Pierre Pourrat, and there is really no difference between Eastern and Western spirituality; they both come from one original source and the imitation of the Life of Our Lord through the meditation of His life, Passion and death, is a fundamental practice of all true spirituality. The Rosary and stations are an aid for us to do this. Also, the stations were practiced in Jerusalem by pilgrims coming from all over the world, from the earliest days of Christianity; they were latter indulgenced, and Catholics who wanted to gain the indulgences attached to these were enabled to do so wherever they were canonically erected without having to travel to the Holy Land, especially when such travel was largely impossible.

QuoteAlmost all liturgies outside the West said by Easterns are Old Slavonic.

Great.

QuoteYou can't impose on Easterns, that's not how they work (here I'm talking in particular about Russians)...if the Church realized this in the early 20th century, and listened to Bl. Leonid and Ven. Sheptysky, we might even have had some sort of Union by now.

I agree. There will be a union with the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

QuoteUntil those filthy Polish Jesuits got their greasy Polish Jesuit fingers over everything.

This is just you venting your anger.

QuoteThis isn't trying to evangelize a culture that is foreign to Christianity, you're talking about a Church with venerable traditions, some of which are older than ours. You can't impose.

Not really, the Russian Church is of relatively recent origin as compared to that of Rome which was founded by the Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul.

QuoteLuckily the Church is a lot more nuanced than manual thumping Latin laymen.

Wait till I get a hold of that #@%^% guy! I will give him a piece of my mind and a good thrashing!

QuoteThe West trying to impose it's way on Russia is precisely why there's a war going on. It's no different in the liturgical realm.

True for the first; not institutionally true for the second; if there has been impositions, its unfortunate.

QuoteYou can't impose Western praxis on them. It won't work and will drive them away. And if it drives them away, we should bear some responsibility for that.

I agree. It is counter productive.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 05, 2024, 06:46:22 AM

Quote from: EastWest7 on May 05, 2024, 05:44:34 AMYes, LTC; I understand that the rosary is not liturgical. And as I've tried to explain to my Orthodox friends (and even a few Catholics who attend a Byzantine parish), said Latinizations are hundreds of years old (eg., in Slovakia, and Ukraine, some of course, brought to America over a hundred years ago).

So, from a pastoral perspective, it's unwise in my opinion for a newly ordained priest to go into his first parish and immediately start ripping the Stations off the walls, etc).

I agree completely. Prudence should guide our actions at all times, especially when implementing changes.

I have noticed a contrast between Easterns in the Old World vs. New - maybe you haven't, but I am heavily influenced by the Russian Rite and except with perhaps the Melkites, they are the most "Orthodox" in my experience. From what I've seen, the Easterns in the New World (and parts of Western EU) are far more ready to accept Latinizations.

My Ruthenian parish back in Europe isn't very Western from what I've seen...I see chotkis not Rosaries, and the only reason they have the stations of the cross is because it's an old Baroque Jesuit church lol.

Yes, I agree with you on these points, LTC. I think many Eastern Catholics in the New World accept the Latinizations because they simply want to go along to get along.
As for me, had the Melkite Catholic parish in my town not been so authentically Orthodox in their liturgy, services; I am not sure I would have decided to join the Catholic Church. At least not back in 1986, anyway.
(And thank you Fr Theophane Wakim, Fr Philip Khairallah, MD, Fr Jim Babcock)

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 03, 2024, 11:57:27 PM

Quote from: Wenceslav on May 03, 2024, 05:47:41 PMMichael Wilson is absolutely correct that only Catholics can be recognized as Saints. That schismatics like the heretic Palamas are recognized today (even by the Ukrainian Catholics) is a post Vatican-II novelty.

The following quote is from Professor Michael Petrowycz's (presently at Ukrainian Catholic University, L'viv Ukraine] dissertation "Bringing Back the Saints: The Contribution of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1940-1952) to the Commemoration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, p.363.

URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OKxWD8l4mTnnpPQtyBp-cOsULWh_DvKY/view?usp=drivesdk

Quote...As mentioned above, even when the moral evaluation of a candidate was positive (even eminently so, as in the case of Metropolitan Phillip), the candidate was nonetheless disqualified when it was accepted beyond doubt that he or she had been out of communion with Rome. This means that the Commission accepted into the RR only saints that it believed to be, or presumed to be, in communion with Rome. The category of a "material schismatic, who did not provoke, but inherited the schism in good faith, and therefore, according to Jugie and St. Augustine, carried no responsibility for the schism, was not considered by the Commissions as a candidate for the RR and RV sanctorale.

RR = Recensio Ruthena (Ukrainian Catholic sanctorale)
RV = Recensio Vulgata (Russian Catholic sanctorale)

The above quote from Petrowycz's dissertation is quite clear. The Russian saints approved during the pontificate of Pius XII had to be in communion with Rome. Even hose who inherited the schism and were of good faith were not considered for sainthood in either the Russian or Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

That's all fine and well for saints who died in the 11-12th century, but how do you justify it for saints such as Sergius or Stephen of Perm, but of whom died at the very end of the 14th c? There is nothing to justify their adherence to Rome at the stage.

Of course, for those of us who are not sede this is a pointless argument as the East has been given way more leeway in venerating Orthodox saints. Allowing the East to be more authentically Eastern was the only silver lining of V2 in my humble opinion.
 

Hi LTC,

For the record, Petrowycz's thesis is corroborated by the well known author (pre-VII), Donald Attwater, in Butler's lives of the saints.

From Butler's Lives of the Saints. First Supplementary Volume. By Donald Attwater. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne. 1949.

Entry for St. Sergius of Radonezh (Feast day : September 25)

QuoteWHEN in 1940 the Holy See authorized a liturgical calendar for the use of the few Russian Catholics it included, among other Slav modifications of the Byzantine calendar, the feasts of some thirty Russian saints, twenty-one of whom had not previously figured in any calendar in use today among Catholics. These last all lived after the trouble between Rome and Constantinople in 1054. Their admission to Catholic recognition is a further example of the Holy See's practical judgement that the separation of the Eastern Orthodox Church was not fully consummated till long after the excommunication of the patriarch Cerularius of Constantinople in that year, and in any case the consummation became complete in different places at different times. The choice of these saints, as Father Cyril Korolevsky has remarked (in Eastern Churches Quarterly, July 1946, p. 394), " based upon impartial judgement, does not exclude the possibility of still other Russian saints being admitted when more progress has been made in the study of Slav hagiography ".

Emphasis mine.

As Michael explained above "the  Church holds up a person to be venerated by the faithful, it is for faithful as an example that they may imitate them in the practice of their virtues; how is it possible to hold up to imitation a person who objectively died outside the Church, and therefore did not save their soul? ". The above cannot change for sedes or non-sedes.

With respect to so-called Latinizations, the heroes of the Faith like Gojdic, Hopko, Shepticky, Khomyshyn all had great devotion to the Sacred Heart, Eucharistic Benediction and Scholastic philosophy inter Alia.

It is the post-VII period that is the modernist novelty! i.e. false ecumenism, Eucharistic hospitality to schismatics, "sister churches" and Balamand etc.

If TLM is not available on that day, or just for the novelty and beauty of it, I sometimes attend Mass at a Greek Catholic Church of Croatia, one of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches which are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (and this one has been for centuries). I believe this is the only proper way to experience the Eastern Rite.

If I didn't have an SSPX chapel nearby, this is where I would go every week.

When done properly, with reverence, the Eastern Liturgy is a beautiful treasure of tradition. The Old Church Slavonic language is as beautiful as Latin, and the chant is lovely, just as dignified as the Gregorian chant. This church in my vicinity also has access to incense of superior quality, and they burn a lot of it during Mass. Since they are just as Catholic as we are, they have the correct prayers (for example, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed contains the Filioque part). This is very much unlike the "orthodox" churches where one can hear heresy preached.

---

In Croatia, before Vatican II, one could attend a Glagolitic Mass. This is a Roman Rite, pretty much identical to TLM, but in the Old Church Slavonic language, written in a special script called glagolitic. This was a special privilege issued to Croatian lands by the Pope Innocent IV in 1248, and this practice continued until Vatican II (alongside Latin). Here is an example of a Roman Missal in Old Church Slavonic, written in glagolitic script: https://archive.org/details/misal-kneza-novaka-2

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 05, 2024, 10:04:02 AMAing:

Quote1.Christ founded a Church, only one.
2.The Church must be visible and apparent.
3. Composed of a body of faithful, under one government; teaching authority; agreeing and confessing one and the same doctrine.
4. Not a heterogeneous collection of individuals professing different doctrines; under different leaders.

How does this apply to the Church today? If you believe that Christ is truly God and therefore He cannot lie or be mistaken, then we have to believe that when He stated that He would be with His Church until the end of times; and that He would send the Holy Ghost to the Apostles to teach them all truth; and that He gave to Peter the care over His whole flock; that this would always be true, that somehow even in the midst of the greatest crisis of the Church, that Our Lord was with His Church, such as the Arian crisis; the Western Schism; the Protestant revolution; and even today in the middle of an almost complete apostasy in both the laity and hierarchy, that the Church still exists, that it will emerge triumphant over its adversaries, and will once more shine forth in luster with its four marks of unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity; even if for a time these may seem to have been greatly reduced or almost completely obliterated.
James posted this article on another thread about the resurgence of Catholic traditionalist in the Church:
https://apnews.com/article/catholic-church-shift-orthodoxy-tradition-7638fa2013a593f8cb07483ffc8ed487
This is like the flowering of a desert after a rainstorm; in another article that I have not been able to locate yet, Cardinal Burke stated that the efforts to suppress the TLM have backfired and that it is flourishing now more than ever.

Sedevacantists are divided under different leaders today.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 05, 2024, 09:47:37 AMAing:
On the First Council of Constantinople declaring that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father:
The Creed was countering the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian heresy, that denied that the Holy Ghost was true God:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Pneumatomachian-Macedonianism.html

QuoteAccording to the Pneumatomachians (Macedonians), the Holy Spirit was a created entity, subject to the Father and Son, in something of a servant role. This error was addressed and soundly refuted at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. As a reaction against the growing heresy of Macedonianism, church leaders at this council voted to expand the Nicene Creed to more accurately defend the Holy Spirit as fully God and worthy of worship. With that addition, the creed now reads, "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets." The Council of Constantinople sought to make it clear that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial (homoousious) with the Father and the Son.

The Eastern Orthodox accept the creed as given by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. The contention is that the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed was not done by an Ecumenical Council, but was added later. Is it not true that for many years the West and the East said the same Creed without the filioque?

A lot of Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the filioque.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 07, 2024, 02:33:08 AMA lot of Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the filioque.

I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out. I only went to Mass to one of them, the Greek Catholic Episcopacy of Križevci, Croatia. Every time I was there, the priest and the choir did say Filioque, it could be heard clearly.

When attending a Mass which is different from the Tridentine Mass, it is wise to be on guard for any severe errors. This was one of the reasons I stopped attending the Novus Ordo.

Quote from: KreKre on May 07, 2024, 03:00:54 AM

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 07, 2024, 02:33:08 AMA lot of Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the filioque.

I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out. I only went to Mass to one of them, the Greek Catholic Episcopacy of Križevci, Croatia. Every time I was there, the priest and the choir did say Filioque, it could be heard clearly.

When attending a Mass which is different from the Tridentine Mass, it is wise to be on guard for any severe errors. This was one of the reasons I stopped attending the Novus Ordo.

Are you in Croatia now? Great country, fantastic people.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 07, 2024, 02:33:08 AMA lot of Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the filioque.

I haven't heard the Filioque said in any Melkite Catholic parish since the 1980s. And in none of the Ruthenian, Ukrainian or Romanian Catholic parishes since the mid-late 1990s.

I am trying to recall if I've heard it at any of the Maronite liturgies I've attended since the 1990s. I just don't recall. (I attend a Maronite shrine parish an hour from my home a few times a year). Maronite parishes may use the Filioque currently as that jurisdiction in my estimation is by far the most Latinized.
Although there has been some work to return its parishes to its Syriac liturgical roots in the last 25 years (ie., Maronites are Syriac, not Byzantine Rite).

Was the Eastern Catholic practice of omitting the Filioque allowed pre V2?

New Church allows almost anything and everything. The Baskin Robbins Church, as I termed it years ago.

Blacks can have their gospel church. There's the Korean church, the Hispanic, the sign language, even the Feeneyites can have their little corner in New Hampshire.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 07, 2024, 02:15:54 PMWas the Eastern Catholic practice of omitting the Filioque allowed pre V2?

I can only speak for Russian Catholics, and I'm open to correction, but they did everything as was done in Russia (and still do to this day), so I highly doubt they said it.

Very highly doubt the Melkites did as well.

I will look into it though, it's a good question.

Quote from: AlNg on May 06, 2024, 03:48:19 PMThe Eastern Orthodox accept the creed as given by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. The contention is that the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed was not done by an Ecumenical Council, but was added later. Is it not true that for many years the West and the East said the same Creed without the filioque?

Yes, both the East and West did not say the "filioque"; it was added in the West latter in order to combat the Arians there. It only became obligatory when the Greeks denied this doctrine and their error was condemned by several Popes and then by the II Council of Lyon.

166. Are all obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved?
All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." (John 14:6)

167. What do we mean when we say, "Outside the Church there is no salvation?"
When we say, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.

168. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?
Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own, they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.





Cultural differences are not a valid reason for rejecting the Catholic Church.


Literally every country that has ever been evangelized has had to struggle with this issue and most are still struggling with it.


I was just reading a biography of St. Patrick and he offended people all the time, even though he had the literal guardian Angel of Ireland advising him. Because it's simply impossible to understand a culture you're not born into and perfectly navigate it, even when you're trying your best. But God was still on his side and the people of goodwill didn't let it get in the way of their eternal life.


Then of course there were the people not trying their best at all, but actively attacking their culture- fellow Catholics like the Normans, the English, plus then the Protestants, for hundreds of years, "Centuries of Trial"

https://www.centuriesoftrial.ie/


But none of it could ever be a valid reason to reject the Church and it only made them more Catholic, not less.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 03, 2024, 04:40:45 PMtheir only solution is to convert to the Faith.

There is a problem with that.
Which Catholic church should they convert to? SSPX for example is one with (una cum) the counterfeit Catholic Church of Pope Francis which is supposedly not the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists are not united except to say that Pope Francis is not the Pope. For example, some accept baptism of desire. Another example is that some accept the una cum Mass, while others don't.  Attendance at una cum Masses is a mortal sin at least according to Fr. Nicolás Despósito who has written that " One single 'una cum Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. Yet there are Sedevacantists who attend SSPX which is una cum Pope Francis.  Depending on who you talk to, Sedevacantists are teaching different things, but the true Catholic Church has the mark of unity.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 04, 2024, 08:03:52 AMWhen the Church holds up a person to be venerated by the faithful, it is for faithful as an example that they may imitate them in the practice of their virtues; how is it possible to hold up to imitation a person who objectively died outside the Church, and therefore did not save their soul? 

I am not sure if this was before or after VII, but some Melkite Caholics venerate St. Gregory of Palamas as a saint. And after Vatican II,there is Gregory of Narek. Using Wikipedia, I found the following:
St. Gregory of Narek lived and died as a member of Armenian Apostolic Church, making him the only Doctor who was not in communion with the Catholic Church during his lifetime. 
https://news.stthomas.edu/theology-matters-new-doctor-church-st-gregory-narek/

Article 2678 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by John Paul II in 1992, mentions him.

Gregory of Narek was recognized officially as a saint in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in the revised 2001 Roman Martyrology and its updated 2004 edition.
https://liturgico.chiesacattolica.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/09/21/Martirologio-Romano.pdf

Quote from: AlNg on May 08, 2024, 09:31:23 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 04, 2024, 08:03:52 AMWhen the Church holds up a person to be venerated by the faithful, it is for faithful as an example that they may imitate them in the practice of their virtues; how is it possible to hold up to imitation a person who objectively died outside the Church, and therefore did not save their soul? 

I am not sure if this was before or after VII, but some Melkite Caholics venerate St. Gregory of Palamas as a saint. And after Vatican II,there is Gregory of Narek. Using Wikipedia, I found the following:
St. Gregory of Narek lived and died as a member of Armenian Apostolic Church, making him the only Doctor who was not in communion with the Catholic Church during his lifetime. 
https://news.stthomas.edu/theology-matters-new-doctor-church-st-gregory-narek/

Article 2678 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by John Paul II in 1992, mentions him.

Gregory of Narek was recognized officially as a saint in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in the revised 2001 Roman Martyrology and its updated 2004 edition.
https://liturgico.chiesacattolica.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/09/21/Martirologio-Romano.pdf

Over the years, (since the mid 1990s), I've seen St Gregory Palamas commemorated in every Melkite, Ruthenian and Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic parish in which I've attended (either on the Second Sunday of Lent or November 14, both days of his commemoration on the Orthodox calendar).
By commemoration I mean by the chanting of his troparion on that day, also his icon is placed in the normal location for veneration in the church (usually in the church entrance area or the center just prior to the steps that go up to the iconostasis and altar). Also, as indicated for the day in the parish's weekly bulletin.   

Quote from: AlNg on May 08, 2024, 09:26:53 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 03, 2024, 04:40:45 PMtheir only solution is to convert to the Faith.

There is a problem with that.
Which Catholic church should they convert to? SSPX for example is one with (una cum) the counterfeit Catholic Church of Pope Francis which is supposedly not the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists are not united except to say that Pope Francis is not the Pope. For example, some accept baptism of desire. Another example is that some accept the una cum Mass, while others don't.  Attendance at una cum Masses is a mortal sin at least according to Fr. Nicolás Despósito who has written that " One single 'una cum Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. Yet there are Sedevacantists who attend SSPX which is una cum Pope Francis.  Depending on who you talk to, Sedevacantists are teaching different things, but the true Catholic Church has the mark of unity.

The mark of unity is the unity of faith.

All but Feeneyites accept Baptism of Desire.

The una cum question, the question of whether Bergoglio is a pope, the question of the status of the "Novus Ordo," these aren't articles of the faith.

It's no more an article of faith than the debate over the COVID vaccinations. Some clergy state they are licit, others state they are "mortal sin."

This lack of "unity of faith" that you are getting at, is also common amongst Eastern Orthodox not in union with the Apostolic See.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Moscow%E2%80%93Constantinople_schism

AINg,

Quote from: AlNg on May 08, 2024, 09:26:53 PMWhich Catholic church should they convert to? SSPX for example is one with (una cum) the counterfeit Catholic Church of Pope Francis which is supposedly not the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists are not united except to say that Pope Francis is not the Pope. For example, some accept baptism of desire. Another example is that some accept the una cum Mass, while others don't.  Attendance at una cum Masses is a mortal sin at least according to Fr. Nicolás Despósito who has written that " One single 'una cum Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. Yet there are Sedevacantists who attend SSPX which is una cum Pope Francis.  Depending on who you talk to, Sedevacantists are teaching different things, but the true Catholic Church has the mark of unity.

You have asked me this a number of times and I have answered it; obviously not to your satisfaction. I'm interested in hearing your ideas on the present situation in the Church.

Quote from: EastWest7 on May 09, 2024, 07:50:06 AMOver the years, (since the mid 1990s), I've seen St Gregory Palamas commemorated in every Melkite, Ruthenian and Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic parish in which I've attended (either on the Second Sunday of Lent or November 14, both days of his commemoration on the Orthodox calendar).
By commemoration I mean by the chanting of his troparion on that day, also his icon is placed in the normal location for veneration in the church (usually in the church entrance area or the center just prior to the steps that go up to the iconostasis and altar). Also, as indicated for the day in the parish's weekly bulletin.   

This is a major problem. Palamas was never a member of the Catholic Church, and was a herersiarch; his heterodox theory of the division of God into His essence and His energies, divides God and denies His simplicity. It wasn't that Palamas didn't know the Catholic doctrine of God, he knew it and denied and combated it. The commemoration of him in the various Eastern Catholic rites, shows the corruption of Vatican II has penetrated into the theology of these rites. It is a shame.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 09, 2024, 10:52:21 AMthe question of the status of the "Novus Ordo," these aren't articles of the faith.

That is interesting. I thought that it would be. For example, some Traditional Catholics say that the NO Mass is harmful to the faith. Considering that the Catholic Church is indefectible, can the Catholic Church promulgate a Mass as the official rite of the Church if it is harmful to the Catholic faith?

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 10, 2024, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: EastWest7 on May 09, 2024, 07:50:06 AMOver the years, (since the mid 1990s), I've seen St Gregory Palamas commemorated in every Melkite, Ruthenian and Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic parish in which I've attended (either on the Second Sunday of Lent or November 14, both days of his commemoration on the Orthodox calendar).
By commemoration I mean by the chanting of his troparion on that day, also his icon is placed in the normal location for veneration in the church (usually in the church entrance area or the center just prior to the steps that go up to the iconostasis and altar). Also, as indicated for the day in the parish's weekly bulletin.   

This is a major problem. Palamas was never a member of the Catholic Church, and was a herersiarch; his heterodox theory of the division of God into His essence and His energies, divides God and denies His simplicity. It wasn't that Palamas didn't know the Catholic doctrine of God, he knew it and denied and combated it. The commemoration of him in the various Eastern Catholic rites, shows the corruption of Vatican II has penetrated into the theology of these rites. It is a shame.

Stay in your lane, Michael. The East has no need of the pity of sedevacantists

Quote from: AlNg on May 10, 2024, 02:38:17 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 09, 2024, 10:52:21 AMthe question of the status of the "Novus Ordo," these aren't articles of the faith.

That is interesting. I thought that it would be. For example, some Traditional Catholics say that the NO Mass is harmful to the faith. Considering that the Catholic Church is indefectible, can the Catholic Church promulgate a Mass as the official rite of the Church if it is harmful to the Catholic faith?

Good question. We have plenty of threads explicitly discussing the ramifications of your question. The search function may help you.

I have examined becoming Russian Orthodox.

However, I read the following words from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew:

QuoteWith the end of the Soviet Union and the bankruptcy of the Communist ideology, pseudo-religion emerged. The old imperial strategies were then combined with the cynical techniques and mechanisms developed and inherited from the Soviet Union. The church and the state leadership in Russia cooperated in the crime of aggression, and share the responsibility for the resulting crimes, like the shocking abduction of Ukrainian children. They have provoked enormous suffering not only to the Ukrainian people, but also to the Russians, who count more than 100,000 casualties and the responsibility for terrible atrocities. Our interreligious dialogue has to focus not only on ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to undermine unity and to theologically legitimize criminal behavior. It is our common Christian duty to use our forces of dialogue to bring back our Russian brothers and sisters to our community of shared values.

Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Can the Orthodox Church become a pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior?

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PMCan the Orthodox Church become a pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior?

No less so than what the Vatican gets up to today

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 09, 2024, 05:04:52 PMI'm interested in hearing your ideas on the present situation in the Church.

Thank you for your interest in that. I am trying to digest and make sense some of the contradictory information coming out from various sources, including for example, Michael Lofton, Brother Dimond (whose videos some SV have posted here), Marshall Taylor, Anthony Stine, this suscipe domine forum, Trent Horn, and a few others including those who advocate dropping the filioque from the creed. I have had a few conversations with Traditional Catholics and one thing I mentioned was my opinion that easy annulments given for flimsy reasons was similar to Church approved divorces. Well, the person who gives every indication that he is a strict hardcore Traditional Catholic disagreed and said he thought that the present loose NO annulment regulations were a good idea. I found out later that he is currently separated from his wife and with another woman. I also read a page from the SSPX which says not to disturb those who have received a NO annulment, unless they ask for a clarification from the SSPX. " If someone comes to our parish, having had a church annulment and is now remarried, we say nothing to them at all about it, we leave them in peace. " I don't see how Traditional Catholics can support the SSPX when this is what they teach about marriage annulments? And of course, the SSPX says that they are una cum Pope Francis. It is not that easy to make sense of things when they are contradictory. for example, it is said that the Conciliary Church is not the Catholic Church but is a counterfeit church headed by an imposter who masquerades as a Pope but really he is not the Pope. It is also said that Catholics are not allowed to attend non-Catholc religious services. But the SSPX is una cum the counterfeit non-Catholic Church. they say that they are not excommunicated from the Church. So it seems that  SSPX is part of the non-Catholic Conciliar counterfeit Church. And since its religious services are held under the auspices of the non-Catholic conciliar counterfeit Church (which is not the Catholic Church)  why are Catholics allowed to attend them? The Latin mass is a Catholic service of course, but the TLM is said in the western rite E. Orthodox Churches and are Catholics allowed to attend such a TLM as said in the EO western rite Churches?

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PMConsidering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Presently there is a schism between Moscow and Constantinople. There is a dispute over who between the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Patriarchate of Constantinople has canonical jurisdiction over the territory of Ukraine.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PMWe have plenty of threads explicitly discussing the ramifications of your question.

The ramifications are that Traditional Catholics are divided on the issue. I don't see the unity there.

Quote from: AlNg on May 10, 2024, 03:23:51 PMwhy are Catholics allowed to attend them? The Latin mass is a Catholic service of course, but the TLM is said in the western rite E. Orthodox Churches and are Catholics allowed to attend such a TLM as said in the EO western rite Churches?

From everything that you wrote, it appears that you are a sede; which is quite surprising, given your past posting history.
The reason (in my opinion) that Catholics can attend a TLM offered "Una Cum" Pope Francis, is that there has not been any official declaration from a competent authority on the non-papacy of the Conciliar Popes.
All we have is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. On the other hand the E.O.'s have been excoed for centuries and since the split, have fallen into greater errors than just the rejection of the Filioque".
I myself attend "una cum" masses at the SSPX and Resistance chapels, and have no qualms about it. Even men like Bishops Sanborn and Dolan tolerated the practice for years after their split from the SSPX. I cannot suddenly become a Mortal sin, just because they have decreed otherwise.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 10, 2024, 02:56:00 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PMCan the Orthodox Church become a pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior?

No less so than what the Vatican gets up to today

And the reason why traditionalism exists.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 04:33:46 PM

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 10, 2024, 02:56:00 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PMCan the Orthodox Church become a pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior?

No less so than what the Vatican gets up to today

And the reason why traditionalism exists.

Indeed.

It just occurred to me that the reasons Traditionalists use for "separating" from Rome are eerily similar, at face value, as those used by EOs to separate from Rome. Particularly when it comes to the limits of Papal Authority.



Of course it's not that simple, just an observation.

L.T.B.
If a person dances around the edge of a cliff long enough, they will eventually fall off.
Advice from a friend.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 11, 2024, 02:00:34 AM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 04:33:46 PM

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 10, 2024, 02:56:00 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PMCan the Orthodox Church become a pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior?

No less so than what the Vatican gets up to today

And the reason why traditionalism exists.

Indeed.

It just occurred to me that the reasons Traditionalists use for "separating" from Rome are eerily similar, at face value, as those used by EOs to separate from Rome. Particularly when it comes to the limits of Papal Authority.



Of course it's not that simple, just an observation.

That's interesting LTC, as I have made the very same observation over the years.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PM<<... ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to... theologically legitimize criminal behavior. ...>>
Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Are you OK with getting involved in a Church which  currently legitimizes divorce and remarriage by a policy of easily granting  marriage annulments for flimsy reasons? 

Quote from: AlNg on May 11, 2024, 12:10:14 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PM<<... ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to... theologically legitimize criminal behavior. ...>>
Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Are you OK with getting involved in a Church which  currently legitimizes divorce and remarriage by a policy of easily granting  marriage annulments for flimsy reasons?

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed. Abusit non tollit usum.

As I've previously posted, your posts appear to me to be looking for a justification to become Orthodox. As I previously mentioned, be a catechumen for a year and see if that gets you anywhere.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 12:35:34 PM

Quote from: AlNg on May 11, 2024, 12:10:14 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PM<<... ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to... theologically legitimize criminal behavior. ...>>
Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Are you OK with getting involved in a Church which  currently legitimizes divorce and remarriage by a policy of easily granting  marriage annulments for flimsy reasons?

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed. Abusit non tollit usum.

As I've previously posted, your posts appear to me to be looking for a justification to become Orthodox. As I previously mentioned, be a catechumen for a year and see if that gets you anywhere.

They do not officially legitimize divorce. It is tolerated in some circumstances (VERY rare), by SOME jurisdictions, as a last resort. You have to jump through more hoops to get divorced than to get annulled in the Catholic Church. I would happily bet $20 that at an institutional level the Catholic Church ends more marriages than the Orthodox do percentage wise.

You have to keep in mind, right or wrong, that it comes down to their sacramental theology too. Generally, in Eastern theology, the Church marries the couple, so the Church, in their eyes, has the authority to undo what it has done up, as it were.

I'm not saying it's right.

Which brings me to my next point which I have constantly said

There is no nuance or true introspection/humility, whatever you want to call it when we deal with each other (Catholics & Orthodox)

Catholics: They allow divorce
Orthodox: They allow gay marriage

And on and on it goes. A millennium of antagonistic tropes that, at this point, can only be overcome by God's intervention.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 11, 2024, 08:03:11 AML.T.B.
If a person dances around the edge of a cliff long enough, they will eventually fall off.
Advice from a friend.

What's your point?

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 11, 2024, 12:48:31 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 12:35:34 PM

Quote from: AlNg on May 11, 2024, 12:10:14 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PM<<... ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to... theologically legitimize criminal behavior. ...>>
Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Are you OK with getting involved in a Church which  currently legitimizes divorce and remarriage by a policy of easily granting  marriage annulments for flimsy reasons?

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed. Abusit non tollit usum.

As I've previously posted, your posts appear to me to be looking for a justification to become Orthodox. As I previously mentioned, be a catechumen for a year and see if that gets you anywhere.

They do not officially legitimize divorce. It is tolerated by some under circumstances, by SOME jurisdictions, as a last resort. You have to jump through more hoops to get divorced than to get married. I would happily bet $20 that at an institutional level the Catholic Church ends more marriages than the Orthodox do percentage wise.

You have to keep in mind, right or wrong, that it comes down to their sacramental theology too. Generally, in Eastern theology, the Church marries the couple, so the Church, in their eyes, has the authority to undo what it has done up, as it were.

I'm not saying it's right.

Which brings me to my next point which I have constantly said (though not on this forum):

There is no nuance or true introspection/humility, whatever you want to call it when we deal with each other (Catholics & Orthodox)

Catholics: They allow divorce
Orthodox: They allow gay marriage

And on and on it goes. A millennium of antagonistic tropes that, at this point, can only be overcome by God's intervention.

Yes, in the Orthodox marriage, the couple do not marry each other, the Church marries them. My wife and I were married in the Orthodox Church (I did not want to excommunicate myself from it at the time). A priest from her (novus ordo) RC parish gave us his blessing, as per local diocesan protocol.   

Not that I spent much time on it, but I can clearly remember at seminary, whenever the subject came up, professors indicated that the services for both second and third marriages are of a definite "penitential nature." And there was no joy expressed about it. Not considered a good thing. The attitude apparently was that it was the Orthodox Church's attempt to provide mercy for fallen human nature.

I also don't support it.   

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 11, 2024, 01:02:47 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 11, 2024, 08:03:11 AML.T.B.
If a person dances around the edge of a cliff long enough, they will eventually fall off.
Advice from a friend.

What's your point?

I would say he was noticing Kasper-like ecumenism in the thread.

True Charity is to speak the truth, especially the truth that God has revealed; He revealed that marriages are indisoluble; but the Orthodox's erroneous position on sacramental theology, allows them to grant divorce at least three times. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Marriage

QuoteDivorce

Orthodoxy regards the marriage bond as indissoluble, and it condemns the breakdown of marriage as a sin and an evil. The Orthodox Church does permit remarriage after divorce in some cases, as an exception, a necessary concession to human sin. While condemning sin, the Church desires to help the sinners and to allow them another chance, with an act of economy. When a marriage has ceased to be a reality, the Orthodox Church faces the reality with philanthropia (loving kindness).
Second and third marriage

The Orthodox Church teaches that a second union "is tolerated only by condescension to human weakness (1 Corinthians 7:9). It may also be recognized as a second chance, given to a man or a woman, to enter into a real marriage in Christ when a first union was a mistake (for even Church blessing cannot always magically repair a human mistake!)."[3] In the service for a second marriage, some of the joyful ceremonies are omitted and replaced by penitential prayers, although the penitential prayers might be omitted if it is a first marriage for one of the spouses.[4]

The Church can also "allow a third marriage, but formally forbids a fourth."[5]

Valid marriages do not "cease to be a reality"; as Our Lord and St. Paul teach explicitly.
Next from the website of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada we read the following statement on the purpose of Holy Matrimony:https://www.uocc.ca/articles/an-orthodox-christian-perspective-on-the-mystery-of-marriage/

QuotePurposes of Christian Marriage

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to attain holiness. Ultimately, the spouses grow together in Christ, to realize their God-likeness [cf., Gen 1:27] and to actualize their salvation. The couple is called to continuously create and recreate a communion of mutual love, trust, personal fulfilment, and self-sacrifice. This is achieved by the couple inviting the active presence of God into their relationship. The Holy Spirit of God leads husband and wife to sanctification and glorification of God through, and with, their relationship.

Also, in the service of matrimony, one can identify numerous other secondary purposes for marriage: mutual assistance, interpersonal faithfulness, procreation and nurturing children, the realization of each spouse's sexuality, etc. In short, the purpose of marriage includes the entirety of human existence and experience. All that each spouse is, and experiences individually and together, may be lifted up to God and may become a means of realizing salvation.

The primary purpose of Holy Matrimony is the procreation and education of the children; the secondary purposes are subject to the primary. The above definition is why a valid marriage can be annulled in Orthodoxy and in the N.O.M. Because once there is no longer this "community of love and sanctification" then the primary (Orthodox) purpose of matrimony has ceased and the marriage can be dissolved.

QuoteDivorce

According to Orthodox teaching a marriage can be dissolved only through the "death" of one of the spouses. This death is understood either as physical death or the moral/religious death involved in denying the spiritual significance or moral foundation of the marital communion (e.g., adultery, chronic abuse, apostasy).

While marriage is to be used to realize heaven on earth, the Church understands that it also might be corrupted into an instrument of exploitation, oppression, destruction, even death. Thus, the harsh and disruptive nature of sin reaches even into this most hallowed of human relationships. In this case, when the relationship is not germane to the personal spiritual, emotional, or physical well-being of the spouses, the Church will recognize the civil divorce of the couple.

Always, though, divorce is viewed as "radical surgery" — an invasive and disruptive force, which contradicts the mystical: character of the marital union. For this reason, after a divorce the Church encourages a time of emotional and spiritual therapy: counsel and repentance, which allows a person to work through the grief of a lost relationship.

The main purpose of divorce is to overcome all that which is destructive in the relationship and to allow each spouse to travel the path of sanctification. Remarriage, as mentioned above, is not generally counselled. However, remarriage is allowed as a means of overcoming loneliness, alienation, abandonment, and difficulty in maintaining celibacy. Thus, the Church shows Her deep concern for the person, giving him/her another opportunity to enter into the mystery of love, holiness, and personhood in marital communion.

For the sake of order and internal integrity, though, the Church allows only two subsequent remarriages should a first (and possibly a second) marriage end. Moreover, the second and third marriage service takes on a more penitential character.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 01:16:14 PM

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 11, 2024, 01:02:47 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 11, 2024, 08:03:11 AML.T.B.
If a person dances around the edge of a cliff long enough, they will eventually fall off.
Advice from a friend.

What's your point?

I would say he was noticing Kasper-like ecumenism in the thread.

There is no Kasper like anything in here, and throwing around insults like that only serves to prove the point of some

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 11, 2024, 12:48:31 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 12:35:34 PM

Quote from: AlNg on May 11, 2024, 12:10:14 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 10, 2024, 02:49:27 PM<<... ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to... theologically legitimize criminal behavior. ...>>
Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Are you OK with getting involved in a Church which  currently legitimizes divorce and remarriage by a policy of easily granting  marriage annulments for flimsy reasons?

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed. Abusit non tollit usum.

As I've previously posted, your posts appear to me to be looking for a justification to become Orthodox. As I previously mentioned, be a catechumen for a year and see if that gets you anywhere.

They do not officially legitimize divorce. It is tolerated in some circumstances (VERY rare), by SOME jurisdictions, as a last resort. You have to jump through more hoops to get divorced than to get annulled in the Catholic Church. I would happily bet $20 that at an institutional level the Catholic Church ends more marriages than the Orthodox do percentage wise.

You have to keep in mind, right or wrong, that it comes down to their sacramental theology too. Generally, in Eastern theology, the Church marries the couple, so the Church, in their eyes, has the authority to undo what it has done up, as it were.

I'm not saying it's right.

Which brings me to my next point which I have constantly said

There is no nuance or true introspection/humility, whatever you want to call it when we deal with each other (Catholics & Orthodox)

Catholics: They allow divorce
Orthodox: They allow gay marriage

And on and on it goes. A millennium of antagonistic tropes that, at this point, can only be overcome by God's intervention.

Toleration as a last resort is different from something being forbidden.

I won't deny that the Conciliar Church has made a complete mockery of marriage with how they hand out annulments like Tootsie Rolls at planet fitness.

The entire conciliar church, especially under Bergoglio, is a huge fuckin joke.

What I am opposed to is what seems to be a creeping indifferentism. There are good hearted, sincere Novus Ordites, Trads Protestants, Orthos, etc. who likely pray and fast more than any of us here

However, knowing what the true Church and the true Faith is matters. Either the historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the role of the papacy is true, or it is not.

If it is true, then some form of traditionalism must be true, because Novus Ordo-ism isn't.

Either:

1. The Bishop Schneider/FSSP/diocesan V2 in light of tradition camp is right.
2. R&R
3. SV

One of those have to be right, for Catholicism to be true. 

If Catholicism is not true, then I have a motivation to find what the true Faith and the true Church is. I've opined that the "branch theorists," which are most EOs, serious High Church Anglicans, and Old Catholics hold.

5 minutes away from my house, a Ukrainian Rite former Abbot of an Eastern Monastery says a Divine Liturgy. Even sedes would accept him as valid as he was ordained in the Eastern Rite. This man has served as a confessor and director for me recently. My cousin and best man at my wedding, when I chose him to be my best man, was ROCOR. He has since become a trad Catholic. So trust me, I love and respect the East, especially Russian flavor of it. I've been to Russia. I actually had the privilege to sing a Divine Liturgy and it was a beautiful experience. Gospodiy Pomiluj. Tye bye, Gospodi. Etc.

So I have a tremendous amount of Respect for the East, and those easterners not formally members of the Catholic Church. That is why I posted that earlier video of Coulombe, as I think it presents an interesting thesis.

There is an absolutely beautiful ROCOR cathedral 20 minutes away from me. Being ROCOR would make it easier for my family and I, in a sense. I wouldn't need to have to tell my son that Bergoglio and his predecessors since 1958 have all either been antipope usurpers or heretics somehow possessing the See, and that 99.9999 of the bullshit we see in "Catholic churches" worldwide are confused people who aren't really Catholic. See:

https://www.sfsobor.com/

If Catholicism is false and Orthodoxy is true, I should get my ass down there asap, and become a catechumen. I would be obliged before almighty God to actually do so.

That's why I don't buy into the "charity," dialogue, etc.

Hope that explains my take.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 02:04:49 PMToleration as a last resort is different from something being forbidden.

And I'm not disagreeing with you on that point at all. Just pointing out the nuance.

I do not think Orthodoxy is the true path - it possibly couldn't be as small individual sects who hate each other... to say nothing of all the other issues.

Rome or death. (Though these days as we know, what it means to say "Rome" is not even certain).

But in the same vein, Latins, in particular Trads, have a very biased, often incorrect, understanding of EOs. Getting passed that and understanding what they actually think/teach is the first step in getting them to see the truth of Catholicism. That's my whole point.


At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that Novus Ordoism, in any form, is bullshit.

QuoteBut in the same vein, Latins, in particular Trads, have a very biased, often incorrect, understanding of EOs. Getting passed that and understanding what they actually think/teach is the first step in getting them to see the truth of Catholicism. That's my whole point.

It's the same, I'd say, that "full communion" types have of SSPXers, and non sedes have of most sedes.

It is part of a coping mechanism to create a boogeyman. Instead of focusing on what makes Catholicism true, it is easier (especially since 1958) to say "this is what makes X false."

The real boogeyman is Bergoglio and the Conciliar Authorities. Promoting their Bastard Faith, bastard rites, faggotry, etc.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 12:35:34 PMNo more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed.

There is a difference. In one Church, divorce is a sin. In another Church getting an easy annulment for flimsy reasons is not a sin AFAIK. And in order to get your annulment, you have to get a civil divorce first. And AFAIK even the SSPX will not disturb couples who are remarried after receiving an annulment in the conciliar Church (unless they ask for a review of their situation). So if that is so, then in SSPX you can receive Holy Communion in that situation (provided you do not ask SSPX for an inquiry of sorts). 
What if one Church has valid Sacraments but the validity of the Sacraments of the other Church have been called into question and are considered dubious by some Sedevacantists?
Where does one go to find the indefectible one, holy, catholic and apostolic church which has the mark of unity and oneness of belief?

Quote from: AlNg on May 11, 2024, 03:32:54 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 12:35:34 PMNo more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed.

There is a difference. In one Church, divorce is a sin. In another Church getting an easy annulment for flimsy reasons is not a sin AFAIK. And in order to get your annulment, you have to get a civil divorce first. And AFAIK even the SSPX will not disturb couples who are remarried after receiving an annulment in the conciliar Church (unless they ask for a review of their situation). So if that is so, then in SSPX you can receive Holy Communion in that situation (provided you do not ask SSPX for an inquiry of sorts). 
What if one Church has valid Sacraments but the validity of the Sacraments of the other Church have been called into question and are considered dubious by some Sedevacantists?
Where does one go to find the indefectible one, holy, catholic and apostolic church which has the mark of unity and oneness of belief?

Are you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

Or are you asking to "gotcha" folks and to show that EO is correct and not (traditional) Catholicism?

If the former I think at this point, prayer and talking to a priest would serve you better.

If the latter, that's risking a ban. 

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 03:44:36 PMAre you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

How else does one come to a decision with reference to the true Church except to reflect on answers given to one's questions? The sudden and catastrophic non-stop decline of the Roman Catholic Church coupled with the available statistics showing that an increasing number of Catholics reject the traditional teaching about divorce, contraception, same sex marriage, blessings of SS couples, serves to prompt asking questions.

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 03:44:36 PMAre you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

...
... I think at this point, prayer and talking to a priest would serve you better.

 

At Berkeley CA, there is a Jesuit School of theology. When I was there, from time to time a priest from the Jesuit community would come by to the UC Newman Center and present talks there. They were give and take talks where we could ask questions and give comments on issues relevant to his talk. Father said that he thought that it was conceivable that the Church had been wrong on many of these issues. I then asked the question as to how the Holy Spirit could be guiding the Church if the Church had be so wrong on so many of these issues. His answer was that the Church is composed of men who are doing the best they can, but being human,  men can make mistakes.

Quote from: AlNg on May 11, 2024, 04:52:05 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 03:44:36 PMAre you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

...
... I think at this point, prayer and talking to a priest would serve you better.

 

At Berkeley CA, there is a Jesuit School of theology. When I was there, from time to time a priest from the Jesuit community would come by to the UC Newman Center and present talks there. They were give and take talks where we could ask questions and give comments on issues relevant to his talk. Father said that he thought that it was conceivable that the Church had been wrong on many of these issues. I then asked the question as to how the Holy Spirit could be guiding the Church if the Church had be so wrong on so many of these issues. His answer was that the Church is composed of men who are doing the best they can, but being human,  men can make mistakes.

Anyone who believes that has no faith.

Quote from: AlNg on May 11, 2024, 04:18:49 PM

Quote from: Bonaventure on May 11, 2024, 03:44:36 PMAre you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

How else does one come to a decision with reference to the true Church except to reflect on answers given to one's questions? The sudden and catastrophic non-stop decline of the Roman Catholic Church coupled with the available statistics showing that an increasing number of Catholics reject the traditional teaching about divorce, contraception, same sex marriage, blessings of SS couples, serves to prompt asking questions.

It depends if the questions are seeking an answer and are asked in good faith.

@AlNg

I have reviewed your posting history and I am no dummy.

From the first day you have posted here, your posts have consisted in attempts to subtlety undermine belief in Roman Catholicism.

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=26222.msg545338#msg545338

The above is one example.

Numerous users such as @ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez and @Michael Wilson have called you out on this.

You have deflected and not answered.

As such, I am permanently banning you for trolling and posting in mala fide.[/ysize]

I have thought the same for a long  time; I couldn't put my finger on why the repeated questions on the same subject; why this obsession? He was anxious for me to engage him, and when I would stop, he would come back with some easy questions to get the dialogue going again in order to return to the real topic he was interested in promoting, just as it happened on this thread.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 12, 2024, 09:57:25 AMI have thought the same for a long  time; I couldn't put my finger on why the repeated questions on the same subject; why this obsession? He was anxious for me to engage him, and when I would stop, he would come back with some easy questions to get the dialogue going again in order to return to the real topic he was interested in promoting, just as it happened on this thread.

I think that these types are also hoping that someone can answer them to their satisfaction so that they can "figure it out."

It's not 100% malicious, not always.

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on May 11, 2024, 12:48:31 PMThey do not officially legitimize divorce. It is tolerated in some circumstances (VERY rare), by SOME jurisdictions, as a last resort. You have to jump through more hoops to get divorced than to get annulled in the Catholic Church. I would happily bet $20 that at an institutional level the Catholic Church ends more marriages than the Orthodox do percentage wise.

You have to keep in mind, right or wrong, that it comes down to their sacramental theology too. Generally, in Eastern theology, the Church marries the couple, so the Church, in their eyes, has the authority to undo what it has done up, as it were.

I'm not saying it's right.

Which brings me to my next point which I have constantly said

There is no nuance or true introspection/humility, whatever you want to call it when we deal with each other (Catholics & Orthodox)

Catholics: They allow divorce
Orthodox: They allow gay marriage

And on and on it goes. A millennium of antagonistic tropes that, at this point, can only be overcome by God's intervention.

This is what I used to think as well, but it was actually not true, it was a lie from the devil.



Because when you cut back all the arguments about abuse to the system or East/West politics or the different understandings of who confers the sacrament etc etc, at the root of it all there is a fundamental and extremely important difference between a marriage actually being

"indissoluble" or


"not" even if you still call it that.


It changes literally everything.




Even if there were never a single divorce "permitted" among the Orthodox

(when in reality we see that Russia and other orthodox countries have some of the highest divorce rates in the world https://divorce.com/blog/divorce-rates-in-the-world/)

And even if they taught that divorce is extremely difficult to "obtain" and a "last resort"

(which they don't, they teach that sin itself is what breaks the bond and ends the marriage, making it a "legal fiction"

https://www.thyateira.org.uk/chapel/theorthodoxfaith/divorces/. And this same teaching is present in Orthodox writings going back to the start of the Schism- I will try to refind the source on that I found a few months ago. Just to say this is not intended as an unfair, biased, or modern misrepresentation of their actual belief, but an honest look at it from a fair angle.)


the fact that they teach that a sacramental marriage can ever be ended by anything but death is a destructive lie designed by the devil to ruin your life and your marriage.






What are the implications?



The thing that makes a marriage indissoluble is the sacramental aspect, the God element, not the human.


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Matrimony.shtml



So what they're really saying is that God can fail.

That God makes promises He doesn't keep.

That when people trust God on their wedding day, their trust is unfounded.



And that's a lie.



God never fails.

God promised He will be with a marriage for life and He always keeps His promise.

And it's not being antagonist towards others to uphold our belief in God and the teachings of the Catholic Church, it's the only real compassion anyone can give. Because, as Catholics, we know that they can only be completely miserable in this life and the next otherwise and we don't wish that on our worst enemies.

 To be extra fair:


Look at the devastating effects of lies and heresies on Catholics as well when they lose sight of the true teachings of God and His Church. The only difference is that as Catholics we at least have the Truth and it's just a question of accepting it.

This article is from a conservative staunch Catholic site and yet the quotes from actual Church teaching are pointedly scarce and it's full of outright heresy:

https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/why-faithful-catholics-get-divorced


We see lines like:


"Catholic couples have very few options when things get really, really tough."

"Catholics can sometimes convince themselves that they aren't part of the same culture as the rest of the world. But we're all part of the culture."

[This one was particularly shocking and (of course probably accidentally) heretical]


"But what about the Faith? Shouldn't faith steel the assenting Catholic against the culture? In fact, it's the other way around. Faith needs a culture to stay strong. Worse, a self-righteous faith can lull Catholics into a false sense of security, a new Phariseeism convinced that intellectual assent to the right doctrines—not our humility and God's mercy—is what saves us."


And this one:

"Catholic couples "think that if you're punching your time clock, doing your duties to your faith, God promises to take care of your marriage. But your marriage has a life of its own, and if you don't do something about it, it's going to fester and it's going to explode."


"They expected marriage to be exalted, like the Book of Revelation, like the wedding feast of the Lamb."


"He said that priests fall into the trap in one of two ways. "On one extreme there's a sort of hyper-pastoralism, which becomes a constant placating of persons in distress. Here the priest will avoid doing anything that will make him the bad guy. Even, perhaps, at the expense of the Church's authentic teaching on marriage," he said. "On the other extreme is a doctrinaire spirit that can seem to be unaware of the real pain people experience in their day-to-day struggles with sin and failure and the fallen state of humanity."

"Dissenting Catholics often won't teach the doctrines that protect and guide marriage. Assenting Catholics, on the other hand, often won't address the real pitfalls and messiness of marriage because they detract from the doctrines that are under such vicious attack."


[And this one by the author was the most sad]

"I must confess, I was surprised by the story assignment when I was asked to investigate reports that a surprising number of young, on-fire, faithful Catholics were divorcing.

But the more I looked into it, the more I realized that my surprise was part of the problem. After all, from the beginning, marriage has always been the center of a great battle. No one should blithely expect that he's in a special class that is somehow spiritually protected."


"How to fight back? The obvious answer is better marriage preparation.

'The Vatican is begging for eight sessions' of preparation, said Dr. Mango."


Oh boy.