What makes an Orthodox Catholic

[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.