Fatima goes Satanic...

[Seraphim Reeves]

Serge,

Fátima, ISTM, is beyond the scope of Eastern Orthodoxy's judgement as it took place outside the context of the EO Church, but again ISTM (not that I claim to speak for any Orthodox church) it's fine - it condemned Communism, not Russian Orthodoxy.

I think that is a very modern spin on the matter. I think it's pretty obvious that up until the necessary "ecumenicalizing" it went under after the "new springtime" of Vatican II, the universal understanding of the "Fatima messages" was that the Russian people were to be converted to Catholicism - arguably some form of Uniate Catholicism, but undoubtedly Catholicism (in the old school RC ecclessiology - a subject of the Pope.)

On this basis alone, I think at least a prudential judgement could be made by Orthodox believers on the origin of these apparitions (either demonic, human delusion, or both.)

That would be reading too much into it. What I mean is EOxy won't waste time dogmatizing about things outside itself - you'll never see a dogmatic council bother to condemn Hinduism, for example. Of course that doesn't mean you can't say Hinduism is wrong.

I would agree that it's highly unlikely an outright foreign religion, of itself, would receive some kind of treatment by an Ecumenical Council (some imagined, hypothetical Council of the future...which may or may not happen before the Lord returns, who can say?).

However, the lack of such a treatment has in large part to do with there being a lack of any need for such condemnations. It is a given, that all that is outside of the Orthodox Church is anathema. Concilliar anathemas exist, because there was a need for them. Why? Because there was genuine confusion as to what the true confession of faith on a particular topic was. Councils are witnesses to the truth - they underline it, and hopefully make things unambiguous for everyone. At least this is how I've come to understand the matter.

Now that I think about it, maybe such a Concilliar declaration is necessary - since there is profound confusion in our times about just what the Church of Christ is - more moderate (but incorrect) folks saying it exists in the seperated communions of heterodox Christianities... more out to lunch folks (very much in line with modern RC ecumenistics) saying it somehow exists even in infidelic and paganistic religions.

Seraphim

[Serge]

I think that is a very modern spin on the matter. I think it's pretty obvious that up until the necessary "ecumenicalizing" it went under after the "new springtime" of Vatican II, the universal understanding of the "Fatima messages" was that the Russian people were to be converted to Catholicism - arguably some form of Uniate Catholicism, but undoubtedly Catholicism (in the old school RC ecclessiology - a subject of the Pope.)

Good point. I agree. Now as you probably know, Catholics didn't see this as the destruction of the Russian Orthodox tradition but rather its fulfilment. (What happened in practice with Byzantine Catholics is quite another matter as the historical record shows.) Of course Russian and other Eastern Orthodox don't agree with that.

The understanding today is slightly different while maintaining the dogma of one true church (only logical): born Orthodox aren't seen as targets for proselytism but the goal of one visible church remains.

[Joe Zollars]

when I was a roman, we did indeed view it as a duty to convert the Orthodox. This was the way it was seen in the conservative NO, Indult, SSPX, CMRI, etc churches I attended. Serge the only people I know of that think that way are the archliberal Novus Ordo's.

Nicholas Zollars

[Serge]

Mr Zollars,

when I was a roman, we did indeed view it as a duty to convert the Orthodox. This was the way it was seen in the conservative NO, Indult, SSPX, CMRI, etc churches I attended.

I don't doubt that the rank and file in all those places think that way.

Serge the only people I know of that think that way are the archliberal Novus Ordo's.

But the Vatican itself teaches this, at least at the level of the ordinary magisterium - while it has its problems, it certainly is not 'archliberal' - and some good unliberal Byzantine Catholics (some of whom I've known in person), whose ecumenical interest zeroes in on the Orthodox, think that way.

The 'archliberal Novus Ordos' who've crossed my path over the past 20 years largely have been unaware that the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches exist.

Am looking forward to your answering my question regarding which church you attend, since you often explicitly identify yourself with a certain church group.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Serge,

Good point. I agree. Now as you probably know, Catholics didn't see this as the destruction of the Russian Orthodox tradition but rather its fulfilment. (What happened in practice with Byzantine Catholics is quite another matter as the historical record shows.) Of course Russian and other Eastern Orthodox don't agree with that.

The understanding today is slightly different while maintaining the dogma of one true church (only logical): born Orthodox aren't seen as targets for proselytism but the goal of one visible church remains.

Well, we could have a very interesting discussion of just what the Vatican is up to these days, though I do agree with you that officially, the EO are more or less viewed as "members of the Catholic Church in imperfect communion with Rome", the "other lung", etc.

However, my main reason for responding had to do with the import of the Fatima apparitions themselves. Contextually, I think it's pretty obvious that they are not from God.

Seraphim

[Joe Zollars]

The vatican teaches this? not surprising. I did say the archliberal Novus Ordo's teach this.

hmm seems the knowledge of the Novus Ordites depends upon their agenda. they seem very aware of it when pushing towards married clergy, etc.

As for what Church I attend, that is knowledge known to many here and said in many posts. Given past experience with you however, I must, with all due respect, say none of your business.

Nicholas Zollars

[Serge]

However, my main reason for responding had to do with the import of the Fatima apparitions themselves. Contextually, I think it's pretty obvious that they are not from God.

Sounds like you're acting in good conscience since that is an allowable opinion in the Eastern Orthodox churches and I'm guessing in the church you now identify with.

hmm seems the knowledge of the Novus Ordites depends upon their agenda. they seem very aware of it when pushing towards married clergy, etc.

Like I said, most don't know the Eastern Churches exist but some do 'use' (misrepresent) them when pushing for certain things. Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV complained that they did the same thing around the time of Vatican II - pretended to be interested in the Christian East to convince Rome to give them certain things out of their traditional contexts, like the vernacular or Communion under both kinds. Then when they got what they wanted they forgot about the East again.

As for what Church I attend, that is knowledge known to many here and said in many posts. Given past experience with you however, I must, with all due respect, say none of your business.

Then post a link here to at least one of these posts in which you are so candid. Because as far as I can tell you've never been to a ROAC church, even to visit. Prove me wrong.