Posted on 06/02/2015 11:07:22 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
abuse of the mentally ill!
Your take is wrong and you would have lost that bet. I know what the Catholic Church teaches and I know what the Orthodox church teaches about marriage.
There will only be a union of return. Get used to it.
What does this response have to do with the info I linked? Seems a tad disconnected (and "raving").
“There will only be a union of return. Get used to it.”
Oh, I agree 100%. Heaven and Earth will rejoice when the Roman Church returns to Orthodoxy and takes her rightful place among the Patriarchates. Then there might be some hope for the West. But as I said, you won’t be there.
ROTFLMAO! Look who’s already been is schism since the 11th century!
The Catholic Church will never allow polygamy as the Orthodox church does. Maybe y’all will reunite with the Mormons instead. They you can keep all your wives under the same roof.
Right! Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Moscow left The Church and only Rome remained faithful.s/ The weed of heresy, e t, always bears bitter fruit, in this instance the Protestant Revolution. That was Rome’s spiritual child, not Orthodoxy’s. After Rome broke away, Protestantism was inevitable. There was. K Protestznt Revolution in Orthodoxy.The proof they say is in the pudding.
Do you find it at all curious that the Church of Rome recognizes all Orthodox sacraments and will actually admit us Orthodox to communion? Or does your strain of claimed Roman Catholicism reject that also?
“There was. K Protestznt Revolution in Orthodoxy.The proof they say is in the pudding.”
There was no Protestant Revolution in Orthodoxy.q
The Catholic Church will never allow polygamy as the Orthodox church does.”
Sure it does. I have a client who is a real magisterium thumping Latin. He of course loathes +Francis as a heretic, a veritable anti-pope. But he goes go mass and communion every Sunday and confession once a week. He also just finished his third divorce (having married three times in the Roman Church) and has applied for his third annulment because he has “finally met a real Catholic woman” who he just knows will be his wife unto death!
Which Orthodox Church are we talking about? Greek? Russian? American? Antioch? And do they all teach and believe the same thing?
Do the patriarchs speak out against gay marriage? I’ve never seen or heard any such reports.
“Which Orthodox Church are we talking about? Greek? Russian? American? Antioch? And do they all teach and believe the same thing?”
Yes and yes.
The MP has made “gay marriage” something of a signature issue for Orthodoxy. Try a quick Google search and you’ll find dozens of articles. The EP and the hierarchs here in America and in Greece and Serbia have similarly spoken out. Here’s a link to a sermon by the EP given in Tallinn, Estonia:
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2013/09/ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew.html
I think you’ll find that the considerations are the same as traditional Latin Church ones. As a basic proposition, we believe there is no such thing as “gay marriage” as we define marriage. It is simply an impossibility for The Church to call such a union a Mystery of The Church!
Your main message, I think, is that by July 1933, the Vatican could and should have seen that Hitler was already clearly on his way to setting up a racial/pagan/socialist dictatorship, and that it was wrong for them to have tried to counter this by signing a Concordat intended to protect the liberties of the Church.
I would argue that at that time (first half of 1933) the Vatican indeed knew that Hitler was going to be Big Trouble, but they didn't know how big. Was he going to be as bad as Bismarck with his “Kulturkampf” had been in the 1870's? Was he going to be worse? At that time, they were convinced by the evidence at hand that they had to do something to counter Hitler diplomatically, at least to prevent the Nazi Party from claiming the power to appoint and depose Catholic Bishops and force the nationalization of all the Catholic educational, medical, and charitable ministries.
The Church has not only the right, but the duty to try to defend the liberty necessary for Her to carry out Christ's mission. Every church ought to have done this. The Jews ought to have done this.
If you will read Elie Wiesel and other Jews from the Central Europe and prewar Germany you will see that in the early 30's the most at-risk people felt the same way: they knew Hitler was a threat on some level. Their response was that some Jews started emigrating (West) from Germany. Others, similar to the Catholic Church, tried to maneuver for legal protections within Germany.
The worst of what had happening to Jews at first few years of the 1930's was racist demagoguery directed against them, street-bullying of the "thugs beating Jews" variety, vandalism, and boycotts which continued throughout much of the 1930s. The Nazis hadn't even legally defined "Jew" until the racist criteria were codified at their annual party rally in September 1935, when the Nazis announced their new Nuremberg Laws that made Jews second-class citizens and revoked most of their political rights.
The organized nationwide assault upon Jewish homes, businesses, and places of worship by the SA, SS, and the Hitler Youth wasn't until November, 1938.
Read Etty Hillesum's journal from 1941-1943. She was a Dutch Jewish University student in a Zionist, left-wing and anti-fascist "politically and socially aware" student milieu . Even they, as late as 1941, hoped that if they were quiet and "kept their heads down," the Hitler thing would blow over as many other spates of anti-Semitism had done in the early 19th century (e.g. the "Hep Hep" riots") and at many other points in history.
So it's necessary to put yourself onto other people's shoes in history in 1933, five years before the Kristallnacht. Although persecution of the Jews and the suppression or "Reichskirche" assimilation of the Christian churches became an active Nazi policy, at first laws were not as rigorously obeyed or as devastating as in later years.
The Jewish community reacted self-defensively but feebly. For instance, when Jews were ejected from the Civil Service and from their posts as University professors in March 1933, the Jewish community called for an international boycott of German products. Would the German Protestants have been morally wrong if they'd tried signing an agreement protecting the Lutheran Church's ministries in 1933? Would the Jewish Community have been wrong in trying to take political steps to regain Jewish civil liberties in 1933?
It wasn't until August, 1934, that President Paul von Hindenburg died. No new president was appointed; with Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany, he took control of the office of Führer. Were the Catholics--- or any Church --- or even the Jews--- supposed to have know this would happen from the standpoint of a year earlier?
FaithPressesOn, your post was exceedingly interesting, but nothing in it directly engaged my points. My points were that the Church was making a legitimate diplomatic effort to LIMIT the German State's encroachment on Church ministries. It was not only justified, but pretty much their duty to defend the embattled institutions which stood between the people and the totalitarian State.
The Concordat quickly turned out to be tactically futile from a political point of view, but they could not know that at the time.
The political concessions which the Vatican made in order to get this Religious Liberty Concordat --- they disbanded the Catholic Center Party and swore loyalty oaths to Germany --- turned out to be a tragic strategic blunder, but once again, they could scarcely have known that at the time.
Disbanding the Church’s political party can be portrayed as a betrayal of the millions of German Catholics who hoped that the German Center Party would be the most important institution to counter the totalitarian State. But as of 1933, Pacelli realized that the new regime would never allow the existence of a explicitly opposition political party run by the Church. He hoped that by maintaining the Catholic identity of their schools, hospitals, charities and publishing houses, they could still throw a counterweight against the all-devouring advance of the State.
Surely you don't think that church denominations have the obligation to erect and maintain their own political parties?
As for the Loyalty Oath, it was not a personal oath to Hitler or an unlimited fealty, but a pledge to “honor the legally constituted Government.” It is comparable to what a person has to swear to become a Citizen of the United States.
I’m not denying that it turned into both a moral and strategic catastrophe. There were millions of members of the Catholic Center Party who now felt that the “message” was to drop organized opposition and even cooperate with the Nazis. Although the terms of the Concordat were immediately violated by the Reich, the Concordat itself was never formally abrogated by either side. It was not an inherently fascist oath. As far as I know, it has continued in existence continuously through all the postwar German governments and even to this day.
The collaboration of German and Austrian Catholics with the Third Reich is well known, and inspires deep shame and disgust in any decent person. This was moral collapse on the part of many Catholics. But it was not moral collapse on the part of Pius XI or Pacelli himself after he was elected to succeed Pius XI.
Pius XII was one of the most effective, if not the most effective, civilian opponent that Nazism had to contend with in Europe. An examination of history from “Mit Brennender Sorge” to the end of WWII, makes that clear. Check it out (Link), FaithPressesOn, Alex, All.
At present, perhaps. However, a quick google search also reveals that at least some Orthodox sects permit artificial contraception. Perversion of the purpose of the marital act by rendering it sterile violates the natural law. The acceptance of artificial contraception in disobedience to Sacred Scripture is the first step down the slippery slope toward the acceptance of unnatural, sterile homosexual unions.
Contraception gave us divorce and gay ‘marriage’ and will destroy us: here’s how
Why make a demonstrably false claim regarding Catholicism? One need only consult a Catholic catechism to discover the facts.
“The Catholic Church will never allow polygamy as the Orthodox church does.” Sure it does.
Why make a demonstrably false claim regarding Catholicism? One need only consult a Catholic catechism to discover the facts.”
BN, I gave you an example of it. The irony is that so far as I know, there is no limit to the number of times a Roman can get married, none at all. Three spouses die, or three annulments granted and there can be a fourth or a fifth or an eighth wedding. At least we cut it off at three weddings. BTW, the second wedding in the Orthodox Church is a relatively somber affair; the third is positively funereal!
“At present, perhaps. However, a quick google search also reveals that at least some Orthodox sects permit artificial contraception.”
I don’t know what Orthodox “sect” you are talking about. The use of artificial birth control (non-abortifacient) is a matter between an Orthodox Christian and his or her spiritual father. We are taught that the use of birth control can only be acceptable as a matter of economia and as I trust you can appreciate, we cannot grant economia to ourselves in this matter or any other. I understand, however, that Roman Catholics grant themselves economia to use birth control at a rate equal too or in excess of the Protestants. Why is that? Could it be that it is an indication that Humanae Vitae is not true dogma?
Irish Church Leader Distances Himself from Cardinal Burke’s Comments on Marriage Referendum
(1) Please cite where Catholic teaching states that there is no limit to the number of times a Catholic can marry.
(2) Why are you equating divorce with the death of a spouse?
(3) Regarding the Orthodox limit to three: I wouldn't be too proud of that.
Having said that, the number of annulments granted post-Vatican II is pathetic and scandalous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.