What makes an Orthodox Catholic

[Myles Domini]

When can someone be safely held to be an Orthodox Catholic? This is a question that I feel is important to have answered at this current juncture since we, as Church, really need to band together and fortify our position to fight the apostasy of this age. Accordingly, we can no longer continue to fight amongst ourselves but we must turn our energies outwards and put out into deep so that we can take in a good catch of fish. The politicisation of our religion by [i]commentators[/i] has carved up the Catholica into camps like liberal, moderate and conservative but these classifications are--as we all know--completely inept at describing our credo from an insiders pespective. Once and for all we need to jettison these classifications and stand united against outsiders and their labels.

However, that is impossible if we are unable to agree on what we mean by 'Traditionalist', 'Orthodox' and so on and so forth. There needs to be [b]one[/b] form of idenification employed by all those who assent to the magisterium of the Church that is unambigious and clear. Synonyms aside the world needs to see us standing firm, kitted out in the same colours, ready to take on all comers. That the words 'Traditional' and 'Orthodox' have come to mean different things in our own time should be a cause of shame to all of us as Catholics! We should adamantly and without hesitation refuse point blank to accept that they mean different things in discussions with non-Catholics, at the same time seeking resolution on the issues that underpin those connotations amongst ourselves.

No longer can we stand behind invisible lines shouting infidelity at one another. The time for slating Vatican II is over, in for a penny, in for a pound. The time for berating those who dislike the council is over, if they assent to it who cares what they opine about it? If someone says they thinks the Pioline Mass is better than the new let them hold to that view and on the contrary if a person loves the Pauline Mass amen! If one person believes in allowing married men to become priests lets not fear it as the first symtoms of asebia and on the contrary let us not become too attached to disciplines subject to the whim of the Papacy.

Let us not push our preferences above the Orthodoxy of Mother Church and let us always be [b]clear[/b] ourselves about what that Orthodoxy involves so as to avoid unncessary disagreement and to allow for legitimate diversity of opinion within the Catholica.

It is time to take control of our own destiny's, time to implement the universal call of Vatican II and the new evangelisation [b]demanded[/b] by the late great John Paul II. Lets pull together and start feeding the flock of the lost sheep of the 12 apostles of the King of Israel, only He knows how much they need it and above all else my fellow knights of Christ...

...[b]BEAU SEANT!![/b]

[img]http://zhurnal.lib.ru/img/s/shatt_i_a/00004-12/tampliery_1.jpg[/img]

[MC Just]

To me Orthodoxy means obedience to Christ and his Vicar on Earth, the Pope. It is to believe in the teachings of the Church, the 2000 year old Catholic Church, not just the Catholic church after the second Vatican council. I consider myself "ultramontane".

Everyone who follows the Pope is a Ultramontane. As for liberal and conservative, i tried to explain this before but no one seems to understand.

Take a look at the definitions, there are catholics who fall under the definition of liberal, and there are catholics who fall under the definition of conservative, the conservative ones happen to be the Orthodox ones.

Personally im real tired of how we "catholics" here on Phatmass think so differently, so much for unity.

[Cam42]

[quote]When can someone be safely held to be an Orthodox Catholic? This is a question that I feel is important to have answered at this current juncture since we, as Church, really need to band together and fortify our position to fight the apostasy of this age. Accordingly, we can no longer continue to fight amongst ourselves but we must turn our energies outwards and put out into deep so that we can take in a good catch of fish. The politicisation of our religion by commentators has carved up the Catholica into camps like liberal, moderate and conservative but these classifications are--as we all know--completely inept at describing our credo from an insiders pespective. Once and for all we need to jettison these classifications and stand united against outsiders and their labels.

However, that is impossible if we are unable to agree on what we mean by 'Traditionalist', 'Orthodox' and so on and so forth. There needs to be one form of idenification employed by all those who assent to the magisterium of the Church that is unambigious and clear. Synonyms aside the world needs to see us standing firm, kitted out in the same colours, ready to take on all comers. That the words 'Traditional' and 'Orthodox' have come to mean different things in our own time should be a cause of shame to all of us as Catholics! We should adamantly and without hesitation refuse point blank to accept that they mean different things in discussions with non-Catholics, at the same time seeking resolution on the issues that underpin those connotations amongst ourselves.

No longer can we stand behind invisible lines shouting infidelity at one another. The time for slating Vatican II is over, in for a penny, in for a pound. The time for berating those who dislike the council is over, if they assent to it who cares what they opine about it? If someone says they thinks the Pioline Mass is better than the new let them hold to that view and on the contrary if a person loves the Pauline Mass amen! If one person believes in allowing married men to become priests lets not fear it as the first symtoms of asebia and on the contrary let us not become too attached to disciplines subject to the whim of the Papacy.

Let us not push our preferences above the Orthodoxy of Mother Church and let us always be clear ourselves about what that Orthodoxy involves so as to avoid unncessary disagreement and to allow for legitimate diversity of opinion within the Catholica.

It is time to take control of our own destiny's, time to implement the universal call of Vatican II and the new evangelisation demanded by the late great John Paul II. Lets pull together and start feeding the flock of the lost sheep of the 12 apostles of the King of Israel, only He knows how much they need it and above all else my fellow knights of Christ...[/quote]

Orthodoxy (orthodoxeia) signifies right belief or purity of faith. Right belief is not merely subjective, as resting on personal knowledge and convictions, but is in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority. This authority is the Church founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost. He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As divine revelation forms the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church for man's salvation, it also, with the truths clearly deduced from it, forms the object and content of orthodoxy.

Consistent with the teachings and method of Christ and the Apostles, the Fathers point out the necessity of preserving pure and undefiled the deposit of revelation. "Neither in the confusion of paganism", says St. Augustine, "nor in the defilement of heresy, nor in the lethargy of schism, nor yet in blindness of Judaism is religion to be sought; but among those alone who are called Catholic Christians, or the orthodox, that is, the custodians of sound doctrine and followers of right teaching" (De Vera Relig., cap. v). Fulgentius writes: "I rejoice that with no taint of perfidy you are solicitous for the true faith, without which no conversion is of any avail, nor can at all exist" (De Vera Fide ad Petrum, Proleg).

The Church, likewise, in its zeal for purity of faith and teaching, has rigorously adhered to the example set by the Apostles and Early Fathers. This is manifest in its whole history, but especially in such champions of the faith as Athansius, in councils, condemnations of heresy, and its definitions of revealed truth. That orthodox faith is requisite for salvation is a defined doctrine of the Church. "Whosoever wishes to be saved", declares the Athanasian Creed, "must first of all hold integral and inviolate the Catholic faith, without which he shall surely be eternally lost". While truth must be intolerant of error (2 Corinthians 6:14, 15), the Church does not deny the possibility of salvation of those earnest and sincere persons outside her fold who live and die in invincible ignorance of the true faith (cf. Council of the Vatican, Sess. III, cp. iii, Denz., 1794; S Aug., Ep.xliii ad Galerium).

That just about sums it up.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 12 2005, 07:06 PM']Orthodoxy (orthodoxeia) signifies right belief or purity of faith. Right belief is not merely subjective, as resting on personal knowledge and convictions, but is in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority. This authority is the Church founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost. He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As divine revelation forms the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church for man's salvation, it also, with the truths clearly deduced from it, forms the object and content of orthodoxy.

Consistent with the teachings and method of Christ and the Apostles, the Fathers point out the necessity of preserving pure and undefiled the deposit of revelation. "Neither in the confusion of paganism", says St. Augustine, "nor in the defilement of heresy, nor in the lethargy of schism, nor yet in blindness of Judaism is religion to be sought; but among those alone who are called Catholic Christians, or the orthodox, that is, the custodians of sound doctrine and followers of right teaching" (De Vera Relig., cap. v). Fulgentius writes: "I rejoice that with no taint of perfidy you are solicitous for the true faith, without which no conversion is of any avail, nor can at all exist" (De Vera Fide ad Petrum, Proleg).

The Church, likewise, in its zeal for purity of faith and teaching, has rigorously adhered to the example set by the Apostles and Early Fathers. This is manifest in its whole history, but especially in such champions of the faith as Athansius, in councils, condemnations of heresy, and its definitions of revealed truth. That orthodox faith is requisite for salvation is a defined doctrine of the Church. "Whosoever wishes to be saved", declares the Athanasian Creed, "must first of all hold integral and inviolate the Catholic faith, without which he shall surely be eternally lost".  While truth must be intolerant of error (2 Corinthians 6:14, 15), the Church does not deny the possibility of salvation of those earnest and sincere persons outside her fold who live and die in invincible ignorance of the true faith (cf. Council of the Vatican, Sess. III, cp. iii, Denz., 1794; S Aug., Ep.xliii ad Galerium).

That just about sums it up.
[right][snapback]786708[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


sweet.

[Myles Domini]

Naturally I agree with you Cam and that was the thrust of my post. Adherence to the Magisterium is the sole criteria for eusebia. I was attempting however to underscore that point so as to redraw the battle lines and get rid of these silly labels like 'post-conciliar Church', uneccessary criticism of Vatican II, and on the other hand unneccesary shots being fired at those who prefer the Tridentine Mass and prefer 'Baroque' theology. However, if there are those out there who want to challenge Cam's definition by all means do so and lets clear the air once and for all.

[cmotherofpirl]

Since political terms such as liberal and conservative really don't belong in church, I'll stick with being called faithful.

Edited November 13, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 12 2005, 08:26 PM']Since political terms such as liberal and conservative really don't belong in church, I'll stick with being called faithdul.
[right][snapback]786739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

is that a boring way to say "faithful?"

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 12 2005, 09:55 PM']is that a boring way to say "faithful?"
[right][snapback]786756[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

it happens when you break your reading glasses.
Don't worry, God willing, you will get old someday as well. :

[Myles Domini]

:

[Nathan]

Orthodoxy, to me, is being faithful to the teachings of the Church in belief and action. Simply, it is accepting Church teaching as [i]truth[/i].

[photosynthesis]

"...faith of our fathers, holy faith! we will be true to Thee till death."

[tojo]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Nov 12 2005, 10:21 PM']Orthodoxy, to me, is being faithful to the teachings of the Church in belief and action. Simply, it is accepting Church teaching as [i]truth[/i].
[right][snapback]786813[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What he said.

[rkwright]

I'm not sure anyone is going to debate on what it means to be an Orthodox Catholic, it seems like everyone is pretty much in agreement, that is to follow the teaching's of the Church. The real debate is trying to apply the teaching of the Church to the problems of our world today.

You call for unity amoung Catholics to fight the wars outside the faith. I agree somewhat, I think I'll clarify in a minute. I don't enjoy getting in squabbles over the Trindentine Mass, personally both Masses have much to offer and neither one is less sacramental than the other. It is silly to debate and fight, and even break off from the Church on these issues. However!!!! I think there is a serious battle within the Church that CANNOT be overlooked or simiply brushed aside for the sake of unity. For me the movements behind Modernism are a real threat to the morality of the Church and thus the teachings of the Church. I have heard a modernist priest say that the resurection did not really happen, this is to deny Christ's mission here on earth! We must fight the problems in our world today (abortion, capital punishment, ect ect) but never sacrifice Christ's message or the Church in the process.

[philothea]

[quote name='Myles' date='Nov 12 2005, 07:38 PM']Naturally I agree with you Cam and that was the thrust of my post. Adherence to the Magisterium is the sole criteria for eusebia. I was attempting however to underscore that point so as to redraw the battle lines and get rid of these silly labels like 'post-conciliar Church', uneccessary criticism of Vatican II, and on the other hand unneccesary shots being fired at those who prefer the Tridentine Mass and prefer 'Baroque' theology. However, if there are those out there who want to challenge Cam's definition by all means do so and lets clear the air once and for all.
[right][snapback]786726[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Pretty sure everyone is going to agree with Cam's definition. (Me too.)

And I'd like to take this opportunity to say, if any of you ever see me say anything with even the slightest possibility of seeming disobedient to the Church, please reprimand me!

Because I don't want to, ever.

Thank you.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='philothea' date='Nov 13 2005, 10:18 PM']Pretty sure everyone is going to agree with Cam's definition.  (Me too.)

And I'd like to take this opportunity to say, if any of you ever see me say anything with even the slightest possibility of seeming disobedient to the Church, please reprimand me! 

Because I don't want to, ever.

Thank you.
[right][snapback]787698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
me too. or else I'll send you to the Photosynthesis School of Assertiveness Training bwahahahahahaha...

[Guest Rick777]

Someone who is faithful to the Church, no matter what.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]You call for unity amoung Catholics to fight the wars outside the faith. I agree somewhat, I think I'll clarify in a minute. I don't enjoy getting in squabbles over the Trindentine Mass, personally both Masses have much to offer and neither one is less sacramental than the other. It is silly to debate and fight, and even break off from the Church on these issues. However!!!! I think there is a serious battle within the Church that CANNOT be overlooked or simiply brushed aside for the sake of unity. For me the movements behind Modernism are a real threat to the morality of the Church and thus the teachings of the Church. I have heard a modernist priest say that the resurection did not really happen, this is to deny Christ's mission here on earth! We must fight the problems in our world today (abortion, capital punishment, ect ect) but never sacrifice Christ's message or the Church in the process. [/quote]

Nobody is advocating leniency towards heresy. The purpose of this thread is not to seek unity at all costs, it is to seek unity amongst those who actually believe in what Holy Mother Church teaches. In an ideal world there would be need for this thread however some of the debates on phatmass are testament to the fact that between 'traditionalists' and 'devots' there is still some tension. This needs to evaporate so that we can stand united and start making inroads against the false teaching of which you spoke off. If we spend all our time fiercely debating with one another about the neccessity (or lack thereof) of Vatican II, we who actually live our lives by the book--that is Sacred Scripture and the Catechism--simply divide our forces and leave the Church less well defended agianst error. The smoke of Satan has invaded the Church and at the moment we're too busy fighting each other to fight the fires that spread it. This is an intolerable predicament hence I said before:

[quote]Let us not push our preferences above the Orthodoxy of Mother Church and let us always be clear ourselves about what that Orthodoxy involves so as to avoid unncessary disagreement and to allow for legitimate diversity of opinion within the Catholica.[/quote]

Lets be done with trying to prove who is the most Catholic and drawing invisible dividing lines where none need to be drawn. The Catholica leaves space for legitimate diversity and opinion in many places and thus rather than spend our hours slamming each other about adhereing to lawful theologumenon why dont we get down to the serious business of saving the lost sheep of the 12 Apostles? That is, those Catholics so seriously misled by equally misled individuals within our body?

[rkwright]

I would generally agree with you, though I would say there are those who are leaning towards heresy (modernism) without actually going that far, and some that do go that far and really have no one to stop them. I think Benedict will be a good force in the church to reign in many of the 'non orthodox' Catholics, but that doesn't mean the problem is solved. There were many people surprised by him being Pope because they knew that entailed orthodox Catholic values, something they wanted thrown out the window. While I was studying in Bonn in Germany I had the oppertunity to meet with a professor of Theology at the Unv. Bonn. This man also worked closely with Ratzinger and was one of his early students; he was introduced to our group as one of the leading theologians at ecumenical councils. Does it scare you that a person of this status, and this relationship to the Pope openly advocated gay marriage, married priests, and evolution? This is the danger I am talking about, the people that do have influence that can change the course of our Church. You put it nicely when you talk about enough room for opinions, but honestly how much room can we give without sacrificing the faith? It's a fine line I believe.

On your recovering "the lost sheep". I am in total agreement with you here! and I'm glad someone wants to look at issues like that. Too often we are told that everyone is ok, and we shouldn't push our religion on others. But I really think we should look at recovering those who have broken off, to unite the Body of Christ as he intended it to be.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Does it scare you that a person of this status, and this relationship to the Pope openly advocated gay marriage, married priests, and evolution? This is the danger I am talking about, the people that do have influence that can change the course of our Church. You put it nicely when you talk about enough room for opinions, but honestly how much room can we give without sacrificing the faith? It's a fine line I believe.
[/quote]

No it doesnt scare me because only one of those issues is against Church teaching: gay marriage and the Pope couldnt change that even if he wanted to. If he did he would cease to be Pope because he would cease even to be Catholic and thus we would be under no obligation to listen to him as St Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church, taught in his work on the Roman Pontiff.

Married priests likewise, depending on what you mean, poses no threat to tradition. Although married clergy became gradually less of a presence in the West following the Council of Elvira in the 4th century we even have a married doctor of the Church who is from the Latin and not Greek Church--where even today married men can be ordained--in St Hilary of Poiters. If Papa Benedetto did allow married men to enter the seminary (and thats doubtful in my opinion) it would neither be a) in violation of his powers as Pope or b) alien to most primitive discipline of the Church both East and West.

Lastly, evolution does not scare me either depending on what you mean by evolution. The earliest Christian exegesis on Genesis contained in the Epistle of Barnabus rejected the 6 day creation on account of the fact that the author felt that with God's power 6 days would be too long a time to posit for the creation (the writer said the creation took one day, and if I remember correctly Augustine followed him saying that the substance was created on the first day and each thing came into form in its own time). The Neo-Darwinism of a Richard Dawkins is not a science its an opinion, namely, the opinion that the apprent evidence for the evolution of species cannot be explained by anything else but random chance. If you are a materialist then there's no other explanation for Darwin's findings however if you're not then you can easily explain it as being the result of Divine Providence.

Nobody can prove that evolution happens purely by chance, science monitors the hows of processes not the forces behind them, indeed in most cases it simply seeks to quantify forces not explain them e.g. electromagnetism--why does it exist? A scientist can tell you how an electromagnetic current is generated. They can tell you about the relationship of atoms etc.etc. But to be a philosopher for two seconds if I can imagine a possible world in which the opposite happens in terms of electromagnetism in this world then why is it that electromagentism works the way it does in this world? No scientist can answer that question because it goes beyond the boundaries of science. Likewise the idea that evolution occured by chance is an assertion that goes beyond the boundaries of science. How can you prove it is chance and not providence? Can anyone go beyond time and space and observe the actions of God?

Evident of this is the fact that Darwin and the other founder of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, disagreed on what their finds meant. The former died agnostic the latter died a believer in a creator God.

On all three counts I see no reason to fear their being a serious challenge to Catholic Eusebia by the opinions of this individual--though the first is heretical meaning he's a danger to himself. Moreover, lest he be Cardinal Christoph Shonborn--probably Ratzinger's most influential student--I doubt he'll have much of a say about anything.