OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:Serge,
If I am not mistaken, since you believe that Orthodoxy and Papism are part of the "One Church", because they are "Apostolic Churches", then would it not, in your opinion, be within the scope of Orthodoxy's judgement?
I would be interested in the answer to this too if it is true that Reader Serge believes in such a branch theory.
I would be interested in the answer to this too if it is true that Reader Serge believes in such a branch theory.
I don't represent myself as a reader online.
I don't believe in a branch theory exactly as some Anglicans do (problem with it: several churches with contradictory claims about each other would equal no church at all, and that can't be) but agree, as an opinion, with both the Catholic Church and some Russian Orthodox theologians such as the late Fr Georges Florovsky about grace in the sacraments of all the ancient 'apostolic' churches. I don't claim that this represents Eastern Orthodoxy but also note that the EOx Church is officially agnostic on this point dogmatically.
It's outside Eastern Orthodoxy's judgement.
Rdr. Serge,
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.
"Allowable"? How exactly could the contrary (conversion of Russia to Papism) also be "allowable" in Orthodoxy (which seems to be what you're implying)?
This is besides the fact that the cult surrounding the Fatima messages, and the content of the messages themselves, are wrapped up in the pseudo-spirituality and abbherations of popular Latin piety (like the worship/veneration of the "hearts" of our Lord and our Lady: which even many Latins themselves, at one time, had a problem with - like the much maligned/misrepresented Jansenists of old France, and many other post-schism Latins).
2. I don't believe in a branch theory exactly as some Anglicans do (problem with it: several churches with contradictory claims about each other would equal no church at all, and that can't be) but agree, as an opinion, with both the Catholic Church and some Russian Orthodox theologians such as the late Fr Georges Florovsky about grace in the sacraments of all the ancient 'apostolic' churches. I don't claim that this represents Eastern Orthodoxy but also note that the EOx Church is officially agnostic on this point dogmatically.
Do you believe the Church Fathers, or the Canons, imply or explicitly support such an idea (the grace of the mysteries existing in heterodox and schismatical groups)?
If say, the Roman Catholics, have genuine mysteries, that means by default they are members of Christ, and hence, members of the Church. That is the inescapable conclusion, as far as I can tell. In spite of their heresies, in spite of their on again, off again abuse of Orthodox Christians and work to destroy the Orthodox Church, they are in fact members of the Orthodox Church, without realizing it (!!).
Orthodox Christianity, without Orthodoxy. I do not comprehend. In which case, what is to say pagans and infidels are also somehow "members of Christ", if a heterodox confession is irrelevent to one's ecclessial status (and more significantly, the official confession of entire, visible, organized bodies).
I'm also curious as to what you think this does to the Sacraments themselves. If indeed you do not believe the RC's, or whoever else can "do sacraments" besides the Orthodox Church, are not really members of the Church, but can still validly perform mysteries, doesn't this reduce them to magical rites, rather than prayers? Do this and that, have these ingriedients, and you'll produce Christ upon an altar? This sounds very foreign to what I've absorbed thus far from the Church regarding the mysteries of Christ.
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.
Please drop this subject. You're welcome to post here, just not on this subject any longer. Thanks.
Seraphim
LatinTrad,
Do you guys identify with every group that opposes Rome in some way?
No. You'll find I'm no big fan of either the Protestants or the Cathari/Albigensians, or any number of break aways from the Latin schism. I also doubt most Orthodox have much knowledge of groups like the Jansenists.
The real crime for which the Jansenists were hounded, was their spirit of independence from Rome, and their minimalization of the then increasing reach of Papal perogatives - their doctrinal variances were only so important as they were a poke at Rome. No surprise, given their geographical placement, in the heart of a land that was traditionally Gallican, even after following Rome into schism. 
There are also some regards, in which Jansenist positions on issues like sin and repentence (while still distorted) are closer to Orthodox views on these subjects, than later RC minimalizations on these topics, both in terms of praxis, and actual doctrinal content.
Seraphim
WhatEVER.
The Jansenists started out as zelanti for the prerogatives of the Papacy. Then came Unigenitus. Next thing you know, they're all about collegiality. Then their nonsense was condemned by the French bishops. Then, it's all about the parochial clergy. Then the laity. Then the "enlightened" laity, etc.
If you believe that abstinence from the Sacraments is a great way to come to God, or that John 6 reads something like "unless you are perfect you must not eat my body or drink my blood," or that mystical convulsions are a sign of God's favor, then the Jansenists are your cup of tea.
I find that some EO's and "Old Catholics" like to identify with the Jansenists merely because of their opposition to Rome. That is about as misguided as the Protestants who identify with the Cathars.
LatinTrad
Daniel wrote:This does not surprise me at all. Some years ago I saw video foot age of a pan-relgious meeting in Rome (I beleive) which allowed pagan to going in to the chruches of the city remove the crosses, set their various idols and prey to their demonic 'gods'. You all will have to forgive me, I don't remember the name of the video. It was in greek and was from a seminar or some thing about the odvious evils of the WCC (if memory serves).
Hi Daniel....
I myself have seen this Video and certainly do not agree with the whole idea of worshipping in pagan rituals...
The video you talk about is the World Council Of Churches...which was held in Australia ....many faiths took part......
I do not have a problem with other faiths...as long as I dont worship with them!
The Lord Jesus Christ is my only God......and Him alone will I worship.....whether someone wants to judge me on that..it is their own choice to do so.......Just because something looks good and may seem to be all good ......does not make it TRUTH!
helen...
