Moscow Opens First Church Dedicated to the Royal Martyrs of Russia (Orthodox/Catholic Caucus)

Royal Russia ^ | 03 March 2015 | Paul Gilbert

[TexConfederate1861]

I am Orthodox. Sorry. Won’t get rid of me that easy.

[TexConfederate1861]

The Roman Church is diametrically opposed to our beliefs. And there practices are going to the far left of heresy. Why bother??

[TexConfederate1861]

United yes. But not at the cost of heresy

[Henry Kelly]

Catholic writer Caryl Houslander in “Rocking Horse Catholic” wrote of a vision she had the Day
the murder of the royal family was published. She say a huge crucifix in the sky but the face of the crucified was that of Czar Nicholas.

[don-o]

ping

[Mrs. Don-o]

I really can't grasp why you would say that, let alone why you would so boldly attribute your own personal negative feeling to “most Catholics”.

First, Nicholas was executed precisely because he was a Christian monarch, by foes who wanted to extirpate every trace of Christian Russia. Thus he was killed “in odium Christi”, which in Catholic theology is a constitutive element of being a martyr.

Second, he and his innocent family prayed for the conversion of their captors, and died explicitly forgiving the murderers. Striking evidence of sanctity.

Third, I remember that the Catholic artist and writer Caryll House lander had a mystical vision symbolically depicting the martyrdom of Nicholas (in the skies over London!) showing his close identification with the Passion of Christ. I think that merits our respect.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I really can't grasp why you would say that, let alone why you would so boldly attribute your own personal negative feeling to “most Catholics”.

First, Nicholas was executed precisely because he was a Christian monarch, by foes who wanted to extirpate every trace of Christian Russia. Thus he was killed “in odium Christi”, which in Catholic theology is a constitutive element of being a martyr.

Second, he and his innocent family prayed for the conversion of their captors, and died explicitly forgiving the murderers. Striking evidence of sanctity.

Third, I remember that the Catholic artist and writer Caryll House lander had a mystical vision symbolically depicting the martyrdom of Nicholas (in the skies over London!) showing his close identification with the Passion of Christ. I think that merits our respect.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think you don’t know much about Nicholas Romanov and his family.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please don’t react to anti-Orthodox baiting. I got baited today and I finally had to break off the conversation. I need to do that more often.

Peace to the Orthodox brethren. Please forgive my offenses.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Since the Catholics and Orthodox share the gospels, the Creeds, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, and consider ourselves brothers and sisters in Christ, I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say we are diametrically opposed in our beliefs.

I am the distaff half of a Catholic-Orthodox marriage, and I know I have been sanctified by my Orthodox spouse.

[don-o]

“..who proceeds from the Father....”

Ducks for cover.

[Mrs. Don-o]

We always poke each other at that point.
😇

[Mrs. Don-o]

My smiley didn’t come through, but the 😇 works just as well.

:o/

And

+{{{:o)

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Lots of Catholic Kings and Queens are saints-—San Fernado Rey? —I see this as a psychical sign of the failure of Communism. The Royals they killed are now worshipped. They were murdered in cold blood—innocents. They are symbolic of all the millions who died under Communist rule. By implication Stalin was an agent of Satan.

[ebb tide]

The Catholics and Orthodox do not share the Creeds.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yeah, we do. (Poke).

[ebb tide]

filoque (poke batatchya).

[Mrs. Don-o]

Like I said at #52, that's when my husband and I poke each other. We're still sharing the Creed.

No, seriously. As I suppose you know, Pope Leo III tried to suppress the addition of the filioque clause to the formula of the Nicene Creed. Mind you, he rightly did not disapprove the doctrine, provided it was not interpreted in an un-orthodox way. Pope Leo caused the Creed in its original form to be engraved on two silver tables deposited at the tomb of St. Peter.

So it's still the same Creed, with or without filioque, assuming it is understood correctly.

Somebody who knows better than myself may want to clarify this, but it's my understanding that most Byzantine Catholics (both here in the USA and in Lebanon and the Ukraine and so forth) have both wordings in their printed Creeds, with "and the Son" in parentheses. I think they may decide on a pastor-by-pastor basis how they want to recite it, but they all accept the same doctrine as the Latin Church.

Again "it's my understanding" that the way St. Augustine explained it, is supposedly OK by all churches on all sides.

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

[NRx]

Unfortunately, no they are not the same creed. One professes a double procession of the Holy Spirit. The other does not. That is a serious deviation in Trinitarian theology. I have a great deal of respect for the Roman Church. But I don’t think it is constructive to pretend that there are no real differences.

On a side note, sorry for the delayed response. I have been at St.Sabbas monastery visiting my Godson.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You'll get different theological opinions both from Orthodox and from Catholics -- quite a spectrum of god-talky wordiferous opinions --- as to whether the filioque controversy is basically a linguistic misunderstanding, an intercultural lack of comprehension, a political pretext, a theologized turf battle, an ecclesiastical bug-tussle, a historic anachronism, a distinction without a difference, a presentation of equally defensible theologoumena, or a matter so jaw-droppingly divisive that the two sides aren't even worshiping the same God.

My own view is that St. Augustine ("Blessed Augustine" to you) presents a good account of it, and as I'm told, a significant number of Orthodox theologians see it that way, too.

I am so far from being an expert on "the inner life of the Holy Trinity," I am like a barnacle clinging to the hull of a nuclear submarine in the dark depths of the ocean. I haven't the least idea what I've gotten attached to. I just know I have to cling on, no matter what, in the strangely luminous dark.