Fatima goes Satanic...

[Danieel_N]

I am brand new here, a Byzantine Catholic, raised Roman Catholic, a former Roman seminarian and an iconographer. Boy, is this a fascinating site. I always wondered what happened to SSPX types when they burnt out on that whole strange scene. Now I know...
Fatima has its extemists, like any religious phenomenon, but Satanic? Spare me.
As one who loves the Russian tradition, who is devoted to St Seraphim, I find Russian anti-Catholicism heartbreaking, somewhat endearing and altogether frustrating, especially coming from non-Russian, former RC schismatics.
I think the best strategy at this point is to honor one another's saints, for there is no division in Heaven. But then again I read on another ROCOR site that St Francis [!] is also Satanic...
In an age of intense animosity to Our Lord Jesus Christ I'm sure the REAL Satan is chuckling at our foolishness.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Daniel,

Fatima has its extemists, like any religious phenomenon, but Satanic? Spare me.
As one who loves the Russian tradition, who is devoted to St Seraphim, I find Russian anti-Catholicism heartbreaking, somewhat endearing and altogether frustrating, especially coming from non-Russian, former RC schismatics.
I think the best strategy at this point is to honor one another's saints, for there is no division in Heaven. But then again I read on another ROCOR site that St Francis [!] is also Satanic...

While there is a certain appeal (at least sentimentally... perhaps something unavoidably conditioned into most of us here, being raised in basically the same pluralistic context) to the above advice, it is very misguided.

"Venerate each other's saints"...ok, so venerate "Bl.Pius IX" alongside St.Photios the Great? Or perhaps go practice the "spiritual excercises of St.Ignatius Loyolla" one week, then go follow the advise of the Philokalia and the Hesychast Fathers the next?

We're talking about oil and water here...pseudo-mysticism on one hand, and a doctrinal mess of truth and falsehood, and the Orthodox Faith on the other. I doubt you'll see it that way, but that is my unavoidable conclusion, and that of men infinitely my betters.

Venerate "Latin saints" (post-schism) whose "visions" told them to take advantage of "indulgences" and bolstered the prestige of a fundamentally errant papacy...but also venerate the likes of St.Mark of Ephesus, and great Saints who in turn recognized their own faith in his stand against Papism?

Now that I think about it, besides the obvious problems with such a scenario, is the tremendous amount of contempt such a thing pours upon both parties, if only on a purely human level. "Oh, you struggeled for nothing", says the comfortable, early 21st century ecumenist from his comfortable computer chair - "it was all for naught, you sillies; we're really all the same. Oh yes, you're also terrible sinners for pretending that any of this mattered, even to the point of suspending relations with the other party over such 'trifles'."

I don't think my holding your view, would show much respect to either the great Saints of the Orthodox Church, or even the apologists, (pseudo) mystics, and philosophers of the post-schism Latins.

Seraphim

[Danieel_N]

Yes, Jesuit spirituality differs from Hesachysm. It also differs from Franciscan, Carmelite, Carthusian and Dominican spiritualities. The Church is Catholic, with room for different ethnic and personal approaches to God.
Sanctity does not imply that one is totally without error in one's opinions, nor immune from human foibles. There have been saints who have disagreed with each other on many issues, and they haven't even always been polite about it.
Every Sunday we celebrate the same Liturgy, recite the same Creed and receive the same Eucharist. Of course I know that you don't recognize this , but as you no doubt also do not recognize the Sacraments of many Orthodox jurisdictions I won't take it too hard. Do you really believe that throughout history, holiness has existed exclusively within one Communion, that there has never been a holy Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist or Mennonite? Sanctity results from love, not inerrant doctrine.
I was surprised when I first stumbled across this forum to see the presence of former SSPX folks but now it makes sense: you went from being the only true Catholics to being the only true Orthodox, changing your opinions without changing your hearts; the few, the proud, the deluded...

[Seraphim Reeves]

Daniel,

Yes, Jesuit spirituality differs from Hesachysm. It also differs from Franciscan, Carmelite, Carthusian and Dominican spiritualities. The Church is Catholic, with room for different ethnic and personal approaches to God.

Interestingly, I only find one Christ in the Scriptures, and His way - the status of anyone being a "teacher of the Church" then, would have to do with their transmission of that way. Hence, the "plurality of spiritualities" you're describing, doesn't ring true to Orthodox sensibilities.

There's a great anachronism in how the "east-west" situation is often discussed...as if one would find in the pre-schism west, genuine "spiritualities" which were at odds with that of the "eastern church". Yet, interestingly enough, this great anachronism (and that is precisely what it is) is not born out by reading the words of the great Latin Fathers - like a St. Ambrose, John Cassian, Vincent, or Gregory. Taken with the likes of Sts. John Chrysostomos, or John of Damascus, or Basil the Great, we read a common mindset, and not the plurality you speak of.

Sanctity does not imply that one is totally without error in one's opinions, nor immune from human foibles. There have been saints who have disagreed with each other on many issues, and they haven't even always been polite about it.

This is for the most part, a Latin phenomenon, after the schism (ex. Thomists disagreeing with Fransiscans over the "Immaculate Conception", which is odd if this was really part of the Apostolic Tradition, let alone a dogma of faith). The patristic examples of such are few, and quite minor in comparison, rarely even having a doctrinal air to them (for example, the most well known being the argument between St.Jerome and Augustine of Hippo, over the prudential question of whether St.Jerome's Vulgate translation was ill advised or not).

I do not see the equivelence here. Of course, the matter might be confused by the fact that the Latins now falsely include men as "fathers" who in fact are not, like Tertulian, Origen, or Clement of Alexandria.

Every Sunday we celebrate the same Liturgy, recite the same Creed and receive the same Eucharist.

I know that's how you see it, but that is not how the Orthodox Church see's it - whether one's reference is the Scriptures, the Holy Canons, or Fathers themselves. The celebration of the Holy Mysteries, cannot be divorced from the Church - such would transform them into magic, acts where God can be compelled by rebels, rather than the prayers beseeching Him which they in fact are.

Of course I know that you don't recognize this , but as you no doubt also do not recognize the Sacraments of many Orthodox jurisdictions I won't take it too hard.

Well, "taking it too hard" would imply my opinion (or that of great Saints and modern confessors, who I am only unworthily immitating in possesing such views myself) exists for the sole reason of "putting you down" or otherwise making you feel bad. That's a very misguided way of looking at the situation. If I tell you that you are in the wrong place, it's genuinely out of charity, not an attempt to raise myself up. I'd hope that, if nothing else, would be understood by yourself.

Do you really believe that throughout history, holiness has existed exclusively within one Communion, that there has never been a holy Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist or Mennonite?

The way you speak here, seems to confuse the practice of virtues with holiness - and these are two very different things. Not totally unrelated, but not to be confused either.

Holiness is something which comes from God, because it is a participation in His Nature (though not His Essence, which is unknowable - we in fact know precious little about this, as God's self-revelation is energetic, a revelation of His acts and deeds, His "energies" as great Fathers like St.Basil the Great and St.Gregory Palamas taught, among others), like St.Peter taught. This is something which occurs in the Ark of Salvation, the Church of Christ, whose main charisteristic is apostolicity and truth.

Schisms, heresies, by their own initiative, seperate themselves from this. They attempt to build another, "better" Ark, than the one God built to weather the storms of satan, and the kingdom of darkness he has established in this world (this is "the world" the Apostles and Saints speak of). As St.Basil the Great taught in his Canons (which were accepted by the Church in toto, even the Latins when they still persevered in truth), schisms cannot communicate the grace of the Holy Spirit, even if established by those who at one time were Priests in the Church of Christ - for their ministry as such, is dependent upon the Body of Christ of which they were members, and not some magical power they have been irrevocably bestowed, with no conditions whatsoever.

Holiness is given by God - and God accomplishes this through His Church, which is His Body - one cannot pit the two at odds with one another, for this is the economy of salvation as God has established it.

Virtue, within the Church, is a stepping stone to opening one's self to attain this "holiness", which is God Himself. But virtues practiced outside of Her, besides being incomplete, lay no claim upon God (nor do they in the Church for that matter - they are preperatory, not the meritorious acts of labourers which demand payment; such is pelagianism, and anathema.) Thus, to expect an Orthodox mind to accept the "holiness" of anyone or anything outside of the Church of Christ, is to ask him to affirm something he has no reason to, for it is something totally outside of God's revelation. If such has existed (and it's a big "if"), mankind would have no knowledge of it. It would be sheer presumption to claim such knowledge in the least.

Sanctity results from love, not inerrant doctrine.

Sanctity ultimatly results from God's grace, not human efforts.

I was surprised when I first stumbled across this forum to see the presence of former SSPX folks but now it makes sense: you went from being the only true Catholics to being the only true Orthodox, changing your opinions without changing your hearts; the few, the proud, the deluded...

Of course, you're ignoring the former Novus Ordo folks, the former Protestants, the former Uniates, the former new-calendar/ecumenist "Orthodox", and cradle born Orthodox who populate this forum, in making such a statement, all holding the exact same "true Orthodox", intolerant views you disagree with... and it's a very convienient ignorance on your part, serving an obvious end - it allows you to be dismissive, and a-doctrinal to boot, all at once.

Of course, I think if you look at the relative few "former traditional Latins" to be found in the genuine Orthodox milieu (up until very recently, I was the only one I was aware of period, let alone on a single Orthodox list - not saying I was the only one out there, simply the only one I had peronally come in contact with in all of my discussions on the internet, on various lists and forums), which does seem to be growing however, there is an explanation for this, and a very sensible one at that...

Generally, people find themselves in "traditional Latin" settings, whether it be the FSSP, SSPX, or even more "extreme" groups (the spectrum going onto sedevecantist groups like the CMRI or SSPV, etc.) because they sense something very wrong with what is going on doctrinally and liturgically in the "mainstream" Roman Catholic church ("RCC" for short). Perhaps they grew up being told "the Catholic Church never changes", only to find out hey, it does, and in no small way, almost overnight. Perhaps it was because they found the "new Catholic Church" to be far from what they read being taught in times past, and only recently.

However, the digging doesn't stop here for some. Some, become acquainted with the Church Fathers...at first, perhaps, to see how fallen the modern RCC is in it's schenanegans. But soon, a revelation occurs - they're finding things in there, which even put their "latin traditionalism" into question, and in no small way. The utlimate revelation is this - that the current "aggioramento" in the RCC, is only the most recent. Such innovations, such revolutions, have been ongoing for centuries in the RCC.

The very thing which motivated these "trad Lats" to join certain more "traditionalistic" groups, a desire for truth, a desire for the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church, is what would ultimatly lead them right out of Papism in general, and towards the real "traditional Catholicism" so to speak - the Orthodox Church of Christ, which even a cursory reading of the Fathers, and ecclessiastical history, will reveal the Latins themselves were once a part of.

If such persons completly bypass (by the grace of God) the new-calendarists, and the ecumenist "Orthodox" in general, it is because they've probably already "been there, done that" - they already know the fundamentally anti-Christian nature of such a wishy-washy mindset, in particular in it's overtures to completly un-Christian infidelities and paganisms. Why jump out of the frying pan, into the fire, after all?

Seraphim