Posted on 05/24/2010 9:12:53 AM PDT by GonzoII
Never quit posting or get zotted.
As to the question of “are they legitimate popes”, they were elected like all the other legitimate popes, so they are legitimate. It is not for us to decide whether they are in heresy or not (Pope Honorius I, was excommunicated 40+ years AFTER he died, excommunicated by another pope. Excommunicated for not opposing heresy and “seeming” to side with it.), that is left to the proper authorities.
It is our duty to follow ALL the popes, when one pope teaches contrary to, or sets a bad example contrary to ALL the popes before him, then we do not follow. We would not have followed Honorius in his error, but, other than that error, his pontificate was in order with tradition.
The Vatican II popes are another story, they don't act or think like the prior popes. We don't follow them when they go against what has always been taught, tradition, and we follow them when they follow tradition.
That is where we demonstrate to the Protestants and the Orthodox, that the pope is not a personality cult, we don't follow whatever one pope says, we follow what ALL the popes have always taught and passed on to us unchanged. Not unchanged like an oak acorn passed on as an oak acorn for 2000 years, but, as an oak acorn passed on as a naturally developing oak tree, always an oak tree from the acorn phase till the final tree phase. Not passed on as an oak acorn from the beginning turned into a fig tree, or an elephant over time.
Pardon me for using my own analogy, you can look to Vatican I for the legal description.
I posted the material. I stated clearly that the Orthodox have valid orders and apostolic succession. What I added though, is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART: their sacraments are of no efficacy, they are useless to the recipient, if he is in the sin of heresy and schism. It is like a Catholic receiving communion while in a state of mortal sin, it is useless, not efficacious.
Re: It condemns the Orthodox Churches not for their doctrines — which are indeed orthodox
They are condemned for schism AND heresy. Thy have always been in heresy, that means some of their doctrines are not orthodox, they are heretical.
That fact puts a damper the rest of your speculations, as to why the Russian Orthodox are doing this.
That said, the NORM OF FAITH AS NORM OF LIFE,by Kirill I, patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, is 100% dead on accurate. There is not a pope since the death of Pius XII, that has written anything as clear and accurate as that writing. On the contrary, what has been written by those popes from John XXIII till present, have been in favor of the principles of the French revolution. The only fault i find with the article is where he presumes to be following tradition in being a Russian Orthodox, and presumes that he is part of The Church.
Only willfully is one guilty of anything.
You should be supporting this diologue as it is Christ's will that we be one..how else is that going to come about without talking to one another?
Regards.
The Russian Orthodox are not trusted because they were controlled and totally infiltrated by the KGB. The Catholic Church lost it's people because the Bishops and priests became irrelevent to real life, effeminate Progressivists liberals, and changed the mass to a gutted of all the supernatural, effeminate, meeting of the feelings oriented. They lost ALL the real men.
Fulton Sheen wrote in his book The Life of Christ, that he did not know who would prevail, "the crossless Christ of the West, or the Christ-less cross of the East".
The cross-less Christ of the West, is the Christ that does not suffer, the effeminate hippie Church of the USA that knows no suffering.
The Christ-less cross is the Russian people and all the people oppressed by communism, they are brainwashed atheists (Christ-less), but they have a heavy cross upon them every day, great sufferings for now almost 100 years.
Who will triumph?
In my opinion, NOT the crossless Christ of the West, which are the bishops that have been gutting the Catholic Church of Catholicism since the time of John XXIII. Reading what this Kirill I, patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, writes, it looks to me like it will come from the West, but first the Russian Orthodox Church must convert, and return from it's heresy and schism. Till they convert and return, do not follow them.
Hopefully, God is setting up, the conversion of Russia, promised at Fatima.
By the way, what you wrote(Only willfully is one guilty of anything) is a cliche that is repeated over and over. The way you've written it, it is not accurate, or complete. We can't read a man's mind. God can. We can only judge by what they say. If a person says that he does not recognize the authority of the pope, that he does not believe nor accept dogmas, say the immaculate conception, and he does not accept the fact that you can't divorce and remarry three times, THEN they are heretics, and schismatics. Do you think that God does not appeal to their reasoning all the time?
You should be supporting this diologue as it is Christ's will that we be one..how else is that going to come about without talking to one another?
The "dialogue" is a lie, there is no dialogue when one side is hiding the truth. The Catholic Church's side is hiding truths, hiding is a form of a lie Honorius I was excommunicated for doing the same thing) You can't lie, even to save the world.
What I'm highlighting is the fact that there is scarcely a Catholic that thinks that the Orthodox are still heretics, schismatic, their sacraments are not efficacious to salvation for the heretic and schismatic, and the Russian Orthodox church is loaded with KGB agents. They are not to be trusted, and anything that they do and say, are to be taken with suspicion.
That's irrelevant. I said that the Orthodox sacraments would not be efficacious to a person in the state of sin of heresy, schism and other mortal sins. Naturally, if they are not "willfully guilty" of heresy, schism, or sin, the sacraments would be efficacious.
By the way, what you wrote (Only willfully is one guilty of anything) is a cliché that is repeated over and over. The way you've written it, it is not accurate, or complete. We can't read a man's mind. God can. We can only judge by what they say. If a person says that he does not recognize the authority of the pope, that he does not believe nor accept dogmas, say the immaculate conception, and he does not accept the fact that you can't divorce and remarry three times, THEN they are heretics, and schismatics. Do you think that God does not appeal to their reasoning all the time?
Re: You should be supporting this dialogue as it is Christ's will that we be one..how else is that going to come about without talking to one another?
The "dialogue" is a lie, there is no dialogue when one side is hiding the truth. The Catholic Church's side is hiding truths, hiding is a form of a lie (Honorius I was excommunicated for doing the same thing) You can't lie, even to save the world.
What I'm highlighting is the fact that there is scarcely a Catholic that thinks that the Orthodox are still heretics, schismatic, their sacraments are not efficacious to salvation for the heretic and schismatic, and the Russian Orthodox church is loaded with KGB agents. They are not to be trusted, and anything that they do and say, are to be taken with suspicion.
Again, so long as the desire for schism remained in the Orthodox Church, that was ipso facto heretical. Note, too, that the persistence in schism was the guilt of the Orthodox bishops and never the flock as a whole, who simply followed their bishops.
Once the Orthodox profess their desire to find a way to unity, they become in the Catholic Church by desire, and therefore obtain sacraments that ar enot only valid as they always have been but also efficacious.
It is fine to remain sceptical of what will come of all this, as you clearly are, but you cannot say the the teaching of the Catholic Church as regards the Orthodox changed.
Very poetic, but no such doctrine in the Church as "in the Church by desire for unity". Whatever you got that idea from, has no basis in dogma, doctrine, or tradition, it is a novelty.
All an Orthodox has to do to have efficacious sacraments is to become a Catholic, or as many Orthodox likely do in places where no Catholic mass is available, they accept the authority of the pope and have a willingness to submit to anything required to be called a Catholic. It's that simple. There is no need to invent another path.
Desire for unity is sufficient to bring individual people in the Church as we see in the doctrine of baptism by desire, for example. But in this case, since the only heresy in Orthodoxy is persistence in schism, desire for unity removes the heresy. It is not a dogmatic novelty.
It is true that individuals may convert now, and some do (I did). Still, it would please God Who prayed for unity so fervently (John 14), for the Churches to unite corporally.
Marra used this analogy: an archer must not only intend for his arrow to strike the target, but must also intend (or allow) the arrow to pass through every intermediate point in space that comes between the archer and the target.
To hit the bulls-eye, the arrow has to traverse a very large number of points as it makes its approach. To the observer it may be uncertain as to whether it is more-or-less inaccurately approaching the "overal area" of its destination, or destined to hit only the general target (which might be 3 feet wide!), or whether it will fly perfectly true, and hit --- perhaps just a fraction of an inch in diameter --- the actual point of the bull's eye.
If you see the arrow flying toward the mark, it makes little sense to complain that a freeze-frame video shows it not (yet) perfectly zeroed in. A gust of wind could blow it wide, or make it fall short. That same gust of wind could take it to precisely the right spot! But if the intention is to hit the bull's-eye, it has the "right" to pass through every intermediary point.
So I think we should look with hope and charity toward the growing goodwill and cooperation between the Orthodox and the Catholics. If it's aimed toward the Lord Jesus Christ, it's aimed at the bulls-eye.
I like to think of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (or you could call it the Parable of the Prodigal's Father.) The father didn't spend his time mentally listing all the faults of his erratic estranged son. He apparently spend his time watching the road.
"But while [the son] was still a long way off,
his father saw him
and was filled with compassion for him;
he ran to his son,
threw his arms around him
and kissed him.'
I'm for that.
With respect, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
We are indeed going through intermediate points in the process. I don’t think reunification is possible till the Roman Church becomes more orthodox — not in liturgical form but in essence — and the Eastern Orthodox become more catholic, again not in form but in lessening of their ethnic character.
One test is the reintegration of SSPX. If that succeeds, as I pray it will, then we could possibly see clear to reunification with the East in a generation or two.
I do, however, think that before the formal unification takes place, a lot of collaboration in the cultural arena shoudl take place, as we have common enemies on the left.
With all due respect, your ONE source has no basis in tradition. You’re “tradition” dates back to Vatican II. That is not Catholic.
Here’s a test for you, you can’t quote Vatican II, any Progressive Periti from Vatican II, or Vatican II pope, now, show me your teaching from a council, pope, Father of the Church or saint? If you can’t, then it’s a novelty. Very simple.
Nowhere does even Vatican II teach that. You just made it up. You are winging it.
Re: But in this case, since the only heresy in Orthodoxy is persistence in schism,
They have many heresies, look it up for yourself. You are wrong again. AND winging it.
Re: desire for unity removes the heresy. It is not a dogmatic novelty.
1) It is not dogmatic anything. It's not even a theory by anyone in history.
2) It is a novelty
You didn't answer my question. Are you a Catholic?
The problem with this "dialogue" is that it's a lie, there is no dialogue when one side is hiding the truth. The Catholic Church's side is hiding truths, hiding is a form of a lie (Honorius I, was excommunicated for doing the same thing. The only pope ever excommunicated.)
You can't lie, even to save the world.
What I'm highlighting is the fact that there is scarcely a Catholic that believes anymore that the Orthodox are still heretics, schismatic, their sacraments are not efficacious to salvation for the heretic and schismatic, and that the Russian Orthodox church is loaded with KGB agents. The Vatican "dialoguers" look past all that, just like they look past all the crimes agaist the Chinese Catholics, just to have relations with Communist China.
You can't lie, even to save the world.
You can't lie, even to save the world.
READ THAT VERY CAREFULLY.
O ye atheists who do not believe in ?God, what fools you are ! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.