Snapped today - Stuggling Catholic

ArmyMatt said:

indeed, but it's not just some division. we are both very different on practically everything.

Click to expand...

Lost4words said:

I love the Orthodox. Its a shame there is some division

God bless you all

Click to expand...

gurneyhalleck1 said:

Orthodoxy is not divided. Some groups jumped off the train over the last two millennia. But the good news is the train stops and turns around for lost passengers with free boarding passes!

Click to expand...

Lost4words said:

I disagree but dont want to argue

God bless you

Click to expand...

Lost4words said:

Division between Roman Catholics and Orthodox

Click to expand...

Markie Boy said:

So I asked the priest afterwards about expanded teaching, how the Bible also always refers to the saints as the people following Jesus in the early Church. He didn't seem very on board with the idea, even after I gave examples of Scripture referring to "the saints in Philippi or the saints in Ephesus", like not with that idea at all, and told me pope Francis said none of us are saints but we are all to be trying. I know what he's getting at I think - but I'm tired of straight up avoiding Biblical perspectives in favor of what the RCC says. I'm not even looking to pick one over the other - just acknowledge both.

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

While you may actually feel that such an idea that "the Church isn't divided" is arrogant, it's entirely consistent with Tradition as evident by the fact that Rome actually held the exact same doctrine up to Pope John XXIII.

From Pope Pius XI, 1928,

"Further, We believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head,[4] with an authority teaching by word of mouth,[5] and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace;[6] for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom,[7] to a house,[8] to a sheepfold,[9] and to a flock.[10] This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations."[11] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?"[12] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[13]
...
And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. ...
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]"


Mortalium Animos (January 6, 1928) | PIUS XI

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

As Patriarch Bartholomew said to a Catholic audience, "We have become ontologically different".

Click to expand...

Markie Boy said:

Yes - that link is how I understand it. But not how it's taught, or even how I have heard hardly any Catholics see it in my experience. The quote from the pope pretty much did not go with that link.

Click to expand...

Markie Boy said:

Not sure what to do from here. If the Orthodox Church was in our town it would be much easier.

I just want to present both sides, and people look at me like I'm some kind of heretic if I mentions the saints as those that choose to follow Jesus, but have not been canonized by Rome.

The hardest thing is if I walk away, there is nobody there to bring any Biblical teaching to those kids. They'll get overloaded with all kinds of visions, and prophecies, and chaplets, oh my!

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

As Patriarch Bartholomew said to a Catholic audience, "We have become ontologically different".

Click to expand...

Markie Boy said:

Who are those three - I'm interested?

Click to expand...