Kids are more in tune to natural instincts
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (68)
sorted by:
No, adore is a synonym for worship according to Denzinger. It doesn't matter if it's incomplete, because the position of NA is premised on natural theology. Rome teaches jews and muslims, being "monotheistic Abrahamic religions" worship God the Father of the OT. This is the communality NA is referring to.
I don't know anyone who had 3 years of catechesis. Orthodox aren't expected to be theologians, but to know the basics of the faith and dogma. To know what they actually believe in when they enter the Church which is completely reasonable and necessary. You go build bridges with hindus, buddhists, muslims, JW, LDS, ecumenists - have a blast.
What is the fruit exactly? Arriving to some ecumenist perenialist compromise that has nothing to do with the true Church and the faith of Christ? We're not freemasons. Don't give me that bs. Everyone participating in ecumenist efforts and dialogues (like the Rockefeller ran WCC) should be excommunicated. Jesus nukes bridges between His people and the heterodox, Satan is the one who brings people in false unity in his one world religion and beast system.
Well, I've always looked at embedded missionaries as having the most effective fruit, starting with Paul in Corinth. But when you say:
That's very similar to where I've been before, and currently I would say it's still a risk but there ought to be an ability for the discerning to distinguish false bridges from true. In 251 the church started arguing over whether welcoming the Lapsi was a true or false bridge. So I can't dismiss it out of hand as your appeal to theology does. But I take your warning seriously as I don't want to be involved in the false, even as I have recently been given my own charge and it looks more false to some people than any other charge I've gotten.
The words for "worship" are pretty difficult and I'm not arguing them right now, I was just chiming in my view. If Rome actually taught that Jews and Muslims by their systems' theology already worshipped God the Father (who is always one with the Son if he is to be worshipped at all), that would be pretty clearly contrary to prior teaching, which is why I'm confident the casuists permitted the phrasing that retains ambiguity. (Obviously righteous Jews before Christ worshipped God the Father without contradicting the Son or knowing the details about him, but if someone rejects the Son after he's been revealed then that's out.) Jewish theology stays agnostic about Jesus, despite their folk practices that go beyond the theology, and Muslim theology is pretty anti-Jesus but has pathways to permit the truth, and the only way to Jesus within those systems is by finding the truth about Jesus in spite of the system. So I have hope for those; and I understand officially Orthodoxy does not forbid hope.
It is contradictory and it is obvious. The whole Vatican II ecumenist position and the prior scholastic natural theology doctrine is incompatible with the teaching of the Church that Christ is the only path to God the Father. This is why you don't put reasoning and empiricism before divine Revelation.
The whole RC system is full of such contradictions. Remember when the Pope called crusades against Islam which was condemned as satanic heresy by Rome? The same office of the Roman See now calls for open borders and talks about how the Muslims adore the one true God. Come on. Forget the semantics and how they can massage language to make you believe gray is white (because saying black is white is too obvious and they're incrementalist). Just step back and look at what the current position is and compare to what the position 1000 years ago was. And that's just a single issue. Don't get me started on the skittles stuff, the raves and clown masses.