Vatican cuts out kissing & pew jumping at communion

[Etienne]

Amen, James, and thank you

[PFC Nektarios]

I laugh when I read this, I will believe this when I see it.

I had a priest toss the "Eucharist" at me like a frizbee during a Christmas Mass. What a joke that liturgy is. There is nothing the Vatican can do to change the liturgical abuses, the RCC in America,
really donest care about the opinions or mandates of the Pope of Rome any more.

In Christ
Nektarios

[photi]

True about the lack of response to anything the pope pronounces; another thing that happens is even if they do listen to him, they are listening to a double headed snake, i.e. hearing two different things out of the same mouth. Example: Back in 2000, the pope issued an encyclical called Dominus Iesus which further promoted the RCC's view on it being the only means of salvation and that all outside it are lost. This was inline with quite a few other encyclicals from years gone by which promoted the same thing.( the RCC faithful start to forget after awhile) Respectively, we can sort of agree with it in an Orthodox manner, as we too believe that outside the Orthodox Church there is no salvation. "no one came come to the Father except thru me" (paraphrase)
The problem gets bigger for RCC members who hear this and then hear that the RCC agrees to a WCC statement stating that "we feel the need to (paraphrasing again) find a slavation outside of Jesus Christ.
This kind of dualistic theology of say one thing and do another while preaching another is rampant. I am tired and totally forgot where I was going with this
Forgive me....zzzz...... I work nights.....zzzz

[Seraphim Reeves]

Since Vatican II, the RCC has been in the business of issuing statements/encyclicals, etc. which try to create a synthesis between basically contradictory ideas; or at least that is their appearance. This appearance is useful, since it gives the more "radical" sides something to keep them satisifed - it keeps uber liberals happy, it keeps more "conservative" folks praying and paying.

For example, different people can get different things out of Vatican II's ecclessiology document Lumen Gentium. The conservative hears about the primacy of the Papacy and the moral imperitive to be in communion with the "see of Peter." The liberal, otoh, gets to read about how the RCC is really only a part of the "Church of Christ", about how the plan of salvation extends to all of mankind (which as it is phrased can be understood in different ways), etc.

The reality is actually quite sinister - what Lumen Gentium teaches, and what the ecclessiological letters of John Paul II's lengthy pontificate actually teach, is a potential blue print for the "church of the anti-Christ." Here is the summary...

• The centrality/powers of the Papacy are preserved. Strictly speaking, Papism is as alive as it ever was; though John Paul II is politically savvy, and will only flex those muscles in an authoritarian way when he thinks he can get away with it (basically, towards those who currently might actually care what he says). For example, the only bishops to my knowledge that have been excommunicated in the RCC since the Second Vatican Council are the "Lefebvrist" bishops - Marcel Lefebvre, Antonio de Castro Mayer, Richard Williamson, Benard Tissier de Mallerais, Alphonso de Galleretta, and Bernard Fellay. This may seem odd for an allegedly "conservative" Pope to do, given how many flaming (in more ways than one) lunatics he has manning the see's of his church right now. However, given John Paul II (and Rome's) real designs, it makes perfect sense - and politically it made sense, since the Lefebvrists were perceived to be a relatively small group who were best nipped in the bud early on...which would also explain in part why Rome's attitude has sweetened to them slightly in more recent years (corresponding to the growth of their movement.)

Orthodox should be especially aware of Rome's mechanations in this regard, because they correspond very much to John Paul II's statements to the effect that he wishes to "re-examine the Papacy." In more detail, what this means is that Rome has no intention of actually renouncing it's pretended powers (infallibility, universal juristiction) - only that it's willing to not always act on those powers any more, and on a practical level, is willing to "share" day in, day out "authority" more with others (presumably, with the Ecumenical Patriarch, and whoever else jumps on board...think of it Bartholomew... "vice Pope" over some 1 billion plus people...)

• There are varying degrees of communion/participation in the Pope's new church. While the "ideal" is for people to visibly profess their unity/loyalty to the Pope, the truth is that John Paul II (and Vatican II) view the RCC as a "sacrament". Now the "Church as Sacrament" is not a bad idea, at least as Orthodoxy traditionally understands this...but this is not what the RCC currently means by this. Rather, what is meant is that the RCC is the proper, visible sign of a unity which already exists. This by itself is simply a modified, philo-Papal version of the old "branch theory". However, this new teaching goes beyond old fashioned/Anglican branch-theorism - for the unity John Paul II envisions involves the totality of mankind. This is why the post-Vatican II RCC is so keen on emphasizing the "good points" of outright non-Christian religions, even the most grotesque forms of paganism. It also makes eminantly reasonable the more bizarre ecumenical/pan-religious congresses the Pope has overseen, including the infamous gathering in Assisi in 1986 (at which "world Orthodoxy" was represented...along with the Protestants, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Animists, Voodoo, etc.)

Obviously the idea for John Paul II would be the outright submission of such groups to the Papacy - but there is no urgency in this, and it seems he is willing to live with (and settle for) much less. This is why the apostolate of the RCC to non RC bodies is all but dead - except where it's not going to rock the boat or at least except for where the Pope and his Curia think they can get away with it. Thus, he is serious when he refers to the various local Orthodox Churches as the "other lung" of his church; but as is well known, the Papists are still willing to cherry pick and prostyletize amongst the Orthodox if a juicy enough opportunity arises, or they think it can be done with enough obfuscation or lack of notice. Of course, such attempts often do get caught, thus the bickering between the MP and the Vatican.

• This new RC ecclessiology has it's "metaphysical roots" in a revised soteriology and Christology. According to John Paul II, when Christ assumed a human nature, he was uniting Himself to all of mankind in all times and places in a way which his own church would once have (and which genuine Orthodoxy still) said only occurs normally with formal profession of the "true faith" and Baptism. A careful reading of John Paul II's pre and post Papal writings makes it quite clear that he believes this intimate union with each individual human being is not only now universal, but is even universal in a retroactive sense - thus any notion of "original sin" (or the more Orthodox idea of "ancestral sin") is materially cast into oblivion. The only conclusion left is that for the new RCC, all a "valid baptism" is REALLY doing, is making visible an already existing, material unity. IOW, baptism, ecclessiastical communion, etc. are reduced to manifestations of fraternity and charity. In turn, "faith" itself has been reduced almost totally to it's purely "fideistic"/"pietistic" elements; "saving faith" no longer involves the intellect, the acceptance and assimilation of truth. Obviously getting rid of that "little" roadblock, automatically creates a certain "unity of faith" amongst the worlds various religions - since it totally bi-passes all disagreements, all doctrine, etc.

This is why the new RCC has wrapped so many of it's hopes in the United Nations, utopianism, the "peace movement", etc. Pope Paul VI went so far as to attribute to the UN (despite it's obvious godlessness) an almost messianic quality...which fits, since the new RCC doesn't believe people actually have to like (let alone love) Christ, to be His true instruments or faithful.

• With the above in mind, and the knowledge that most of the Pope's curia and his cardinals are even further out to lunch than he is, it's not hard to imagine one of his successors praising the new "prodigy" that may arise soon - a "man of peace" and "genius", the supreme diplomat, who will seem able to bring that "utopia" which the post Enlightenment/Revolutionary world has been working towards with it's various "isms" (Communism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc.) He will "suceed" where the others failed - and in the process, may even make the Pope one of his lieutenants (or "right hand man"?) for being such a faithful promoter of his new vision of tolerance and peace.

He will be held as the last avatar of "Vishnu" by the Hindus, perhaps even the "Mahdi" of the Islamists (or for the shi'ites, the return of the last "Imam" who they believe to be in occultation), the "Moschiach" of the Talmudists, the "return of Horus" who will inaugerate the "age of Aquarius" for the new-agers, etc...or at least that is what all of these disparrent groups will hope and speculate for from afar.

All of this before, of course, he seats himself in the temple the Zionists have been so busily working to get underway...

The Papists, the WCC, they are all on a course towards constructing a grand offering for the anti-Christ - years of work, which I have little doubt only he could complete. It's devious, it's duplicitous, and it's sinisterly brilliant.

...which makes me wonder how anyone with even a glimmer of light ("Orthodox") can actually have a part (or simply be ambivelent towards) in this process. Or at least, how can they have any delusions about just what it is the Pope wants, or what the various Protestantisms want, when they go to the many congresses, joint prayes/liturgies, etc.?

In reality, something resembling a "genuine ecumenism" (holding talks with heterodox/schismatical leaders in the hope of convincing them they are in error and need to come into the Holy Church, the Orthodox Church) is not possible, and hasn't been possible, with any of the above mentioned parties for a long time. Really, there was more of a chance for this with the Papists back when they didn't particularly like us; back when Orthodox were still called "Greek schismatics" or things like this. Why? Because as wrong as they were, at least the Papists had a basic concept of "truth", and some very basic ecclessiological ideas which while wrong, were parallel/equivelent to those held by the Orthodox Church. Thus, the real obstical would be to demonstrate how/why those understandings were wrong, and then leave the rest to the grace of God. Now however, that simply cannot happen, since the RC's are committed to a mindset which is really a-doctrinal, and can tolerate almost anything. It would be better for the Orthodox to be met with outrage and vehement rebuttal, than to be met with a polite smile which has "how quaint" written all over it.

Seraphim

[Justin Kissel]

A very interesting post, Seraphim.