Dear Nektarios:
I enjoyed your posts at byzcath.org.
At least some one did. Was I being a uncompassionate extremeist? or was I just ORthodox?
In Christ
Nektarios
Nektarios wrote:Dear Nektarios:
I enjoyed your posts at byzcath.org.
At least some one did. Was I being a uncompassionate extremeist? or was I just ORthodox?
In Christ
Nektarios
You said things that I dared not say. :ohvey: When you are in a Catholic forum you really have to walk on egg shells. That's the only Catholic forum to which I belong, as these Byzantine Catholics do understand our Eastern thought a little better than those Latin Catholics.
I started some threads there that were borderline (touching a sore point) - and they didn't get closed because I tried to use a combination of logic and sympathy. Some of the Byzantine Catholics are contemplating converting to Orthodoxy, so we have to be kind and pray for them. After all, Bishop Elya of the Melkites said that the Eastern Catholic Church is becoming like a bridge to Orthodoxy that a lot of Roman Catholics are using to cross over to Orthodoxy. He's right -- that is what I did.
Let's continue to pray that all may be led to the truth.
Lovingly in Christ,
Maria
After all, Bishop Elya of the Melkites said that the Eastern Catholic Church is becoming like a bridge to Orthodoxy that a lot of Roman Catholics are using to cross over to Orthodoxy. He's right -- that is what I did.
Thats the thing that confuses me, he is glad that the Eastern Catholics are a bridge for people to go to Orthodoxy but yet he is in the Unia? Thats that part I never could understand.
In Christ
Nektarios
Maria
I do not say that I disagree with any of your 12 points per se, but I did want to ask for clarification on some of them.
5 ) Rome adopted the distinction between venial and mortal sins, thus leading to toleration of sin, and a lack of repentance.
While I disagree with a sharp (and explicitly and rigidly held) distinction between sins, I don't think there is any problem with the idea that there are different levels of sin. Would you agree or disagree?
6) Rome adopted the distinction between imperfect and perfect contrition leading to an increase in indifference and a lack of repentance.
What exactly do the terms "imperfect" and "perfect" contrition mean?
Justin,
What exactly do the terms "imperfect" and "perfect" contrition mean?
Basically, someone who is "imperfectly" contrite is fearful of the consequences of their sin, in particular going to hell.
A "perfectly" contrite person, otoh, is sorry for their sins because they offend God.
IOW, one is rooted in enlightened selfishness - the other in the love of God.
According to RC moralists, "imperfect contrition" is sufficient to receive priestly absolution for mortal sins (sins of such gravity that they will send a person to hell.) However, "perfect contrition" is such that it results in the immediate forgiveness of sins by God Himself - but as a matter of both law and precept (since a person is said to not know with certitude that they have this "perfect contrition") the obligation still exists for this "perfectly contrite" person to go to confession, in particular before they receive any other sacraments.
Of course, that is according to "old school" Roman Catholicism. It would be rare to find such distinctions or emphases being made by most parish priests now days, save outside of the "schismatic" traditionalist groups or the few more "conservative" groups which somehow still exist in the increasingly Protestantized/Modernized RCC.
Seraphim
Seraphim