Russian Orthodox Church: Yes to Cooperation, No to Compromise

Tweet

From a statement of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokalamsk published in Russia Today (h/tAd Orientem):

Bishop Hilarion commented on his statement to RG as follows.

“The idea of a strategic alliance with the Catholics– is an old idea of mine. It came to me when the Catholics were electing the new Pope. Although I would like to point out that what I am suggesting is, in essence, the direct opposite of Uniatism, which is a way toward a rapprochement based on doctrinal compromises. In our point of view, the policy of Uniatism had suffered complete failure. Not only did it not bring the Orthodox Christians and Catholics closer together, it actually distanced them. And Uniatism, as is currently recognized by both Orthodox believers and Catholics, is not the path toward unity.

‘‘I, on the other hand, am asking to – without any doctrinal compromises and without attempts to artificially level our dogmatic differences, the teachings about the Church and about the superiority of the Universal Church, without the claims to resolve all of the existing problems between us – act as allies, at the same time, without being a single Church, without having a single administrative system or common liturgy, and while maintaining the differences on the points in which we differ.

‘’This is especially important in light of the common challenges that face both Orthodox and Catholic Christians. They are first and foremost the challenges of a godless world, which is equally hostile today to Orthodox believers and Catholics, the challenge of the aggressive Islamic movement, the challenge of moral corruption, family decay, the abandonment by many people in traditionally Christian countries of the traditional family structure, liberalism in theology and morals, which is eroding the Christian community from within. We can respond to these, and a number of other challenges, together.

‘’I would like to stress, once more, that there are well-known doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths, but there are also common positions in regard to morality and social issues which, today, are not shared by many of the representatives of liberal Protestantism. Therefore, cooperation is first and foremost necessary between the Orthodox and Catholic Christians – and that is what I call a strategic alliance.

‘’The Church is not ready to make any compromises. And I am not calling for compromise, but on the contrary, to uncompromisingly defend our positions.Within the framework of the Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, my position is often the toughest. Meanwhile, the documents that are drafted there, are the most often contested by the ROC delegations. There have been instances when we were forced to walk out of sessions as a sign of disagreement with what was happening. We always very firmly oppose attempts to erode the differences that exist between us.

‘’We don’t need any compromises. We need cooperation and collaboration. And within the framework of the theological commission, we could discuss the differences that exist between us not in order to find a compromise, but in order to clarify our differences and the things we have in common. It could so happen that in the course of discussion we realize that in some doctrinal aspects we are actually closer than seemed to be before – and this will be a rapprochement. But just the opposite could happen: we may see the differences that we have never noticed before.

‘’The theological dialogue should be allowed to take its course; it may or may not lead to some results. Meanwhile, cooperation that is built on a systematic basis and that is founded on the fact that we share many of the same tasks and challenges should be developed at the same time.”

MY THOUGHTS:

I actually can respect the fact the the Russian Orthodox Church wishes not to compromise on dogmatic differences.  They're still very wrong (see * below), but I can respect that he is promoting the need for us to focus on the threats of secularism and Islam.

He can get away with saying that because in the past few decades, for the most part, the Church hasn't always been towing the hardline in public support of its dogmas.  The head of the Russian Orthodox ends up doing a PR spin that makes us look like patsies.

Side bar on Dogmatic Differences:

The Western Catholic Church can never compromise anyway, on the three main dogmatic differences.  It is ridiculous to say, for instance, that Jesus's Incarnation would somehow be limited by the Blessed Mother's Immaculate Conception, any more than he'd be limited if the Blessed Virgin was purified at the conception of Jesus.  It makes no sense that the blessed womb of the Virgin Mother of God would be less sacred and pure than the pure soil which made the first man.   They say the Immaculate Conception is not biblical, while it's reasonable, and yet their concept is not biblical.

Purgatory is biblical, it's just not used as a word.  Why do people expect to say exact words for everything from different cultures?  It doesn't always happen in modern cultures, why do they suppose it has to be so with cultures thousands of years apart?

Likewise, the filioque is also biblical.  Jesus says he comes to us through the Father, and that he  sends the Paraclete -- the expression of the love of God the Father and God the Son.

+

Russian Orthodox Singers Performing, "Gabriel Appeared"

Catholics: How to Always Win an Argument with a Liberal

Tweet

+JMJ+

Many Catholics today are afraid to take a stand on issues.  If they do take a stand, they are afraid to connect their views to their faith, lest the liberal accuses them of letting their "values" get in the way of political thought (which, in of itself, is ironic --- shouldn't political thought be based on values?). 

These are the plain and simple steps to win any argument with a liberal:

1.)  Never let them try to make it a religious issue.  That is their way of trying to say that there is no real answer, because they tend to believe that truth is subjective and based on experiential circumstance (and who's to keep people from having experiences?).  (By the way, this is how license becomes confused for freedom.)  Once they bring up God, they are only attempting to demonstrate that the topic of discussion is not definitive, and that you cannot, therefore, achieve your objective.   This is a win for them; since they cannot argue on logic, a win for them is to cast dispersion on the strength of  your argument.  Don't let them back you into this corner.  Remind them that it is a political discussion and not religious.  If they wish to have an intelligent conversation on the matter at hand, tell them to stick to the topic.

2.)  Start to define the most basic terms of the debate.  Liberals never define their terms. They only employ shell game tactics to attempt to demonstrate that the related issues cannot be truly defined or even known.   For the liberal, their 'science' must be falsified and mislead the public, and true findings must be ignored.   Get them to see that they refuse to define their terms.   You won't be able to continue a discussion with them, or rather, they won't be able to debate with you, because they almost always refuse to do this.  Those who are the majority of the not-so-clever liberals, who disdain deep thought and prefer to make important decisions based on emotion and not reason, will surprise themselves as being totally unprepared.  The rest will continue to try to evade defining their terms of the debate deliberately, because they are accustomed to this being their predominant tactic.

Remind them of Debating 101:  Common, baseline terms must be defined; without establishing your terms, a logical argument cannot even take place.  It's a 'step one' in any debate.   Once they show that they are unwilling to do this, let them know that they were therefore unwilling to have a authentic debate.

Have you noticed how frequently liberal politicians will preface things with, "Let me be clear:" or "Let me be transparent..."?   The reason for this is precisely because they are employing the common means of performing a magic trick: create a plausible diversion.  Their very goal in making such statements (which in of themselves are ironic, since stating some clear or honest doesn't require anything from the hearer but the speaker themself.)  In other words, they are saying, "If I don't come across as if I am genuine, it's probably your fault, but anyways..."  When they start off with using these phrases it is because they are usually about to point out something which often does not provide a logical conclusion of the matter at hand, but just throws in a peripheral concern.  They cannot "be clear" or "transparent" for the simple matter that they will not agree to common terms on the issue being debated, and more often than not, liberal politicians know appear to know this, as you can see from their consistent and deliberate use of this tactic.  As a-matter-of-fact, they are so used to employing this method of diversion successfully because they are rarely challenged on the fact that they refuse to define their terms. 

Here's a common example with the issue being abortion:   When Does Life Begin? --- Already Agreed Upon Since 70s by Scientists  In this example, President Obama realizes by now, that the question is not merely a religious issue, but a human right's issue, so he brings up science, hoping that the general public doesn't yet know that this is already a non-issue with the medical, biological and scientific communities since the 1970s; human life we begins at conception.  (For those who do not already know, before the '70s, when the questioned was posed, liberals would simply say, "We don't know.  It's a theological question because only God knows.") Then Obama says it is a "moral difficulty", implying that the question isn't answerable.  The question wasn't, "What is your opinion on abortion?" but, "When does life begin?"   He doesn't acknoweldge the common scientific assertion known today, and instead diverts attention from that fact (playing on the fact that we live in a society that buries its head in the sand on awareness scientifically or historically known facts that are in opposition to one's feeling of entitlement and licensiousness), and tries to bring attention to the moral issue where he has more room to twist. 

3.)  Let them know that you are happy to have a conversational debate with them, but not to be attacked verbally.  This is the liberal's next tactic -- to throw anything at you hoping that something will eventually, maybe, stick.  Nothing will 'stick' as long as you don't react.  Remain calm and stay the course!   Again, don't let them bring you down to their level.   You can respect the person, even if they are already or are on the verge of being out of their mind and out of control.   Never sink to their level, rather, remember "if not for the grace of God, there go I!"  

4.)  Don't let them change subject after subject.   Ask them what point they are trying to make.  If it is an ad hominem attack, go to step 5.   If they can't help but change the subject out of fear that their ignorance on any one subject would be grossly apparent, they weren't willing to debate you anyway. 

5.) Smile and walk away (and don't forget to pray for them).  Do precisely what the devil does not want you to do at this point: remember that the real fight is for souls, and here is one before you.  Don't even say that you'll pray for them, rather, just do it, commending them to the Immaculate Heart of Mary's intercession, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

That is, for the purpose of that interaction, a real win.+

Signs of Repentance or Liberality by Local Ordinary?

Tweet

+JMJ+

Can. 1184 --- 1.) Unless they have given some signs of repentance before their death, the following are to be deprived of ecclesiasitical funeral rites:
1* notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics;
2* persons who had chosen the cremation of their bodies for reasons opposed to the Christian faith;
3* other manifest sinners for whom ecclesiastical funeral rites cannot be granted without public scandal to the faithful.
2.) If some doubt should arise, the local ordinary is to be consulted; and his judgment is to be followed.

Can. 1185 --- Any funeral Mass whatsover is also to be denied a person excluded from ecclesiastical funeral rites.

A very, public sinner who held tightly to views that were against the doctrinal teachings of the Church was recently given a Requiem Mass. A canon lawyer interpreted that the correct thing to do was to give this man a Mass. His reason, however, was not because the local ordinary had agreed it was the right thing to do, but he based his reasoning purely on a very liberal, and recent modernistic interpretation of Canon 1184, Section 1:

"See, e.g., J. Manzanares, [commentary on Canon 1184], in L. Echeverria, ed., Codigo de Derecho Canonico: Edicion Bilingue Comentada, 5th ed., (1985) at 574, wherein: "Those [manifest sinners] are no longer considered unworthy who, before death, give some sign of repentance. Moreover, this clause should receive a benign interpretation. A sign of repentance could be not only calling for a confessor, asking publicly for the forgiveness of God, or kissing a crucifix, etc., and could also be gleaned, despite one's otherwise irregular situation, by giving clear signs of adhesion to the Church, for example, by collaborating in its works, sending children to catechism, or participating themselves in ecclesiastical initiatives whenever possible." "

This canon lawyer took a liberal view of this (above) interpretation of canon law. If we look at the whole of Section 1 of Canon 1184, we see the intent that first consideration is to the level of scandal of the schism made by the sinner. In other words, was this a public heretic, therefore, any public Mass would be a sin to the public by giving public scandal (misleading the faithful into thinking that one can necessarily be saved by being a heretic). The second consideration is to the fact of whether or not a "sign of repentance" can be gleamed from an act by the sinner just prior to his death. In the spiritual economy of restitution, it has always been the teachings of Holy Mother Church that if a sin is public, the restitution must be public. But while a dying person may not have the opportunity for appropriate restitution, the "sign of repentance" must be according to one's means. In other words, if the public sinner publicly asked for God's forgiveness, or even publicly kissed a Crucifix, this would have sufficed, giving a "benign interpretation". Benign, however, does not mean blindly liberal.

If someone is in the public eye they have the means to convey a message to the public. Repentance of public sin would be insufficient if it was private, when public means was clearly available.

If your neighbor, out of a poor understanding of God's laws and/or natural laws, decided to not give you back the lawnmower he borrowed from you, and later was repentant about it, he could tell a priest he was sorry, but restitution would still need to be made. The priest would tell him to return the lawnmower. If this was impossible because it had since broke, or he sold it, or he was on his deathbed, he would still have to give some sort of sign of restitution, according to his ability.

A sinner who has the means to make restitution, in prudence, is obligated to do so. If the local ordinary says, "Well, you're going to die in another month or so, so don't worry about making restitution; we believe you're repentant" they are doing a grave spiritual disservice to the sinner. Restitution is for the sinner's salvation, not an arbitrary appointment by the Church. It is a sign of repentance in response to the grace of one being sorry for having offended God and having hurt one's neighbor to boot, and appropriate repentance must be made whenever possible. The effects of public sins are public, and any person truly sorry for a public sin would want to make restitution as a sign of repentance not despite the fact that they are dying but all the more so because they are dying.

I do pray and hope that the local ordinary for the late Senator Edward Kennedy gave him first a remittance of his his excommunication, after receiving his word that he no longer held unto his pro-abortion beliefs. Assuming all this was true, and that it was also physically impossible for Mr. Kennedy to then publicly recant his pro-abortion position, and gave an appropriate sign of repentance according to his public heresy and resulting excommunication ipso facto, then and only then would it have been appropriate for the local ordinary to have agreed on granting Mr. Kennedy a public, funeral Mass.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that was the case.

Note: True mercy is borne of true charity; and true charity is borne out of love of God, and to neighbor for the love of God (not the other way around; love comes from God, and supernaturalized love was given to us at the expense of Christ's blood). This life is merely a means. Any ordinary that caters first to the human condition at the expense of a person(s)' salvation do a grave disservice to the sinner (and to the public would would receive the scandal), and give dishonor to God. "The path to hell is lined with good intentions."

+

Edward Kennedy, Requiescat in pace.

Additional reading: Human Life International's Comments by Fr. Euteneuer

Obama's Pick for US Ambassador to Holy See, Miguel Diaz Defends HERESY

Tweet

This is information that EVERY devout Roman Catholic within the United States must soon learn: The recent nomination by President Obama to the office of Ambassador to the Holy See is a major heretic. He is "well-educated", but never-the-less, he ascribes to not one, not two, but many heresies which as a result, EXCOMMUNICATES himself from the Body of Christ ipso facto.

The office of the US Ambassador to the Holy See is important to the lives of American Catholics because it helps to ensure promote and ensure our rights within the nation. Certainly we shouldn't have MORE rights as Catholics, but we should neither have less. Also, it is an error to believe that the government should not make among its priorities those same societal values that are held by Catholics. If you believe that our religion is no greater than any other religion, then you are already misled. The fundamentals of human rights are revealed and fostered by those expressed in the traditional teachings of the doctrines in the first, and one true, holy Christian Church. While there have been many who have gone astray within the Church, they have fallen only by the very fact that they have allowed themselves to be led away from Her teachings.

Let's first go through some of the beliefs and teachings of Dr. Miguel Diaz, and compare them to what the Catholic Church teaches:

Liberation Theology - Believe-it-or-not, Diaz has written in support of Hispanic and Black Liberation Theology. This "theology" is based not on the teachings of Christ, but focuses rather on sociological ideas supported by Karl Marx. The choices of Christ during his life become and obstacle to these so-called theologians, who will say that we are not, as Christians, called to walk in his footsteps, but to develop our OWN IDEAS of what Christ would/might teach if he were "alive today". The trouble with that is obvious and fundamental: It says first off, that Christ's teachings were only relavent to his time, which consequentially distorts the importance of all Christian teaching. The idea of "I accept Christ as my Lord and Savior, but I do not have to follow his teachings to be saved, and I deny his teachings as fully relevant to today." The next step from there is to reprioritize Christian principals, and even discard ones that do not have within their first glance the promotion of material distribution to the minorities. (Do you see why the Communists love this?) Any person or persons then holding on to the traditional teachings of the Church (holding them as precisely "catholic" --- true always, for every people and every place) are then seen as traitor to the goals of the new society, intolerant of the needs of the oppressed, and to be taken out of society, either through repression of one's ability to practice their faith, or through other means which help to enforce the new order.

Does Miguel Diaz not know that our current Pontiff and last Pope advidly CONDEMNED Liberation Theology? Yes, they did and for good reason! It starts off on an evil footing by idolizing society over God's laws and leads to other errors (i.e., communism). This "theology" can only be support by those who already believe in relativism, whether or not they admit it. They disavow the unchangeability of dogma and doctrines of the Church, yet they believe in an absolute when it comes to the society so much that they will turn their backs on the Kingship of Christ in order to benefit who they want, and in the process gradually turn government into a type of tyrannical leadership in order to achieve their end.

Karl Rahner's big ideas on the Trinity - HERETICAL
Karl Rahner didn't ascribe to the traditional interpretation of the Holy Trinity because he felt it didn't explain enough. Basically, it didn't fit his agenda to become a basis in which he would demonstrate that our Lord's words and actions were largely only relative to that time in history.

Before I go any further with this, I want to first mention that not only is Miguel Diaz a past member of the steering committee of the Karl Rahner Society, but his writings consistently espouse the heresies of Karl Rahner.

Rahner's argument was that the distinction between each Person of the Holy Trinity was not, in traditional teachings, distinctive enough, that he says it creates a type of monotheism. He goes so far to say that "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." It is a type of trinitarian agnosticism, and NOT at all by accident. Rahner advocated "a theoloqy of knowledqe" instead of the traditional theology that recognizes its limitation and much mystery still unknown to the Church.

This "theology" is the means which leads to another heresy that Rahner professed, which is that heresy of immantism, which brings God to man's level as if God is another member of the world, and that man can be at the level of God. (Think: "We are Church" mentality.) This is why he supported "evolutionistic Christology" --- just as all his followers (i.e., Diaz). There are no, therefore, absolutes in Christ's teachings (at least in the confused minds of these heretics).

There are a lot of worm-holes, as you could imagine, in this deadly fruit. One of them is that this leads to the heresy of misunderstanding the meaning of transubstaniation. This is why people, not including the Church but who profess to be in the Church, like Diaz have another word for it *(I can't remember what word he uses but when I remember again I'll add it here.)

Employees the phrase "Systemic Theology" in order to undermine the teachings of the Church, that are in the modernists' minds, not a good fit for today's society - HERETICAL
This one is very popular today. In a nutshell, this tremendously popular 'theology' is taught in many of our (non)Catholic universities. "Systemic Theology" is a term that began with the Protestants to break down the dogmas and doctrines of the one, true, holy and Apostolic Faith. They arrogantly put down the teachings of the Church Fathers and especially the Church Doctors by saying that they did not have as illuminated understanding of the Bible, and therefore relied on a method of understanding which the Protestants who are honest enough to admit their Protestants and the catholics who are truly protestants. The modernist understanding of the what the Church SHOULD be teachings is by a new understanding of the Bible -- a type of sola scriptura methodology, which winks at tradition only when it suits it's social agenda. (If you want to hear a modernist in action describing this in further detail I recommend you listen to the 2nd and 3rd tapes of the 3-tape set of a talk given by Scott Hahn in 1993, "The Bodily Resurrection of Christ". In it Hahn compares "Traditionalist" Catholics (those who cling to the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Church in the same way that the Church Father, Doctors and the rest of the saints did) to Protestants, inferring that they are in schism, and starts showing his cards by showing his anger towards tradition, especially towards the Doctors of the Church.

False Ecumenism - HERETICAL
Diaz's mentality is that the Church's teachings are relative to today's society, and of course, his false presentation of ecumenism is only a means to promoting liberation theology.

Denies the Kingship of Christ - BLASPHEMOUS HERESY! *(I will write more this weekend)
Anyone who supports liberation theology, by the very essence of this heresy, profess that the society is greater than the Kingship of Christ. Don't be fooled by the word-smything; the Kingship of Christ is never defended by those that believe that what Christ did and said in the time of the Apostles is not all fully relevant throughout the ends of the earth and until the end of time, and for all peoples. (See definition of "Catholic".)


Here is just a small list of some of Diaz's heretical writings:
* "On Being Human: U.S. Hispanic and Rahnerian Perspectives"
* Co-Editor of "From the Heart of Our People: Explorations in Catholic Systematic Theology"
* author of numerous articles and book chapters inspired in the Latino and Black liberation theology, such as the forthcoming “The Life-Giving Reality of God from Black, Latin-American, and "U.S. Hispanic Theological Perspectives,” “Otherness in Black Catholic and Latino/a Catholic Theologies and the Otherness of God,” and “Outside the Survival of Community there is no Salvation,” in Building Bridges, Doing Justice: Constructing a Latino/a Ecumenical Theology

*Diaz is currently working on two future books: "Cuban-American Catholics" (Paulist Press) and “Migrating Across Theological Borders: The Essentials of Theology from U.S. Hispanic Theological Perspectives"

Here are some additional links on Dr. Miguel Diaz:

St. Benedict/St. John Universities' Article

Angelqueen article (which I highly recommend)

Catholic News (they are usually pretty liberal, so don't be too shocked by their tone)