Conversation with an Orthodox.

Just for those interested...

I Wrote: “I cringe when people say "Protestant brethren". No Protestant is my brother in the Faith. For starters, nearly all Protestants go out of their way to scorn Our Lady, and to scorn the homage with which true Christians venerate her. Our Lady, the Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Ghost, enjoys a relationship with the Most Holy Trinity no other creature can even imagine. Moreover, the vast majority of Protestants live as pagans. They do not pray regularly, never do penance, and indulge in sins against the sixth commandment.”

The reply: “That’s a little harsh. Protestants are very committed to the Lord Jesus Christ. So committed that they do not consider the lady Theotokos to be worthy of veneration. Of course what they do not realize is that the Lord in His flesh today seated at the right hand of His Father honours His mother according to His command and commands us too in His word to honour her as set apart and blessed. Therefore in honouring His mother as He honours her today, we do honour to our Lord. No honour I bestow on her would be sufficient or inappropriate because My Lord honours her as a Son honours His mother.”

I further wrote: “Your thinking is convoluted. Nobody can have Our lord Jesus Christ for his Brother and God for his Father who does not have Our Lady as his Mother. Our Lady is not God- far from it! More than any other creature she recognized her nothingness, which is why she could boast about it in her Magnificat! (Imagine St Bernard referring to his "humility"- he is so proud of his "humility"!) But the reality of Our Lady far exceeds anything we could comprehend about God and His mysteries. So, how could one be "so committed to Our Lord Jesus Christ" they would consider Our Lady unworthy of veneration? Our Lady, who is daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Ghost? Protestants do not have the Faith, period. (All their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.)”

He asked: “I’m curious about your opinion of orthodoxy.”

The reply: “In the last chapter of St John's Gospel, Peter is recorded as asking "And what shall THIS man do?" (verse 21). Seems there was a little animosity between Peter and John, and from the little acorns do the mighty oaks grow. Being Orthodox, I am sure you are familiar with the school of Polycarp, Iraneus, etc. The Greek Fathers were very Marian and contemplative, in the footsteps of the Beloved Disciple. (Our Lady did go to Ephesus, after all.) Then you have Peter, who went to Rome. He became the mighty bureaucrat, as well as having been appointed by Our Lord Head of the Church. And so the beginnings of what would develop into the mighty chasm between East and West sprouted. The West was busy missionizing, evangelizing, and converting. The East was busy praying and contemplating. United, they powered Christendom. Divided, thus began the undoing of Holy Mother Church (humanly and politically speaking.) And that is one of many reasons why Our Lady came to Fatima. Russia sees itself as the third Rome. When it converts, the results will be most glorious. In the meantime, as they say- where Peter is, so is the church. Though the Holy Seat be vacant, it remains the center of Christendom. Viva Cristo Rey!”

He admonished: “I caution myself about calling out the speck in my brothers eye lest I’m blind to the beam in mine own. In all things I cling to orthodoxy and carefully exercise judgement that in doing so I protect myself from heterodoxy.”

And I replied: “To paraphrase the Beach Boys, I'm not quite catching the drift here. Just what exactly is orthodoxy as opposed to heterodoxy? Are you with the Unorthodox Orthodox who broke Communion with Rome circa 1054 A D and removed the name of the pope and western patriarchs from the diptychs? That is schism- refusing to be in communion with the Seat of Peter. (And it has nothing to do with who is pope, or what might be the current opinion of him.) If I be missing anything here, then speak up, for the glory of God and the Salvation of souls. (Which is basically the same thing in my book.)”

He countered: “I am an Orthodox Catholic in communion with the heir of St. Peter and St. Paul of blessed memory whose see (seat) is in Constantinople. There is only one Body, one Church and those in schism are in grave error as St. Ignatious of Antioch of blessed memory says. The errors of the Latins are self evident with every passing day and from our perspective we can see the protestants are simply the endless schism of the Roman see after it schismed from the Orthodox Catholic Church. Should the pope return to defending Orthodoxy which is his responsibility from which he is absconding we would welcome and honour him as first amongst equals, servant of servants, true patriarch of the west, Pope of all the Church.”

I replied: “Wowsers Capowsers but there is a lot to reply to here. For starters, I, as of Dec 31st, 2022, have been what "Trads" call a "Sedevacantist", meaning that I contend the Chair of Peter in Rome to be empty. Pope Frantic is not my pope. (I was always told that one criteria for the pope is he has to be catholic.) I always ask the fans of Pope Frantic two questions: How can the pope resign; can your father resign? And: WHO accepts the "resignation" (in actuality an abdication) of the Vicar of Christ? I was aplomb in 2013 how blithely so-called "Traditional" priests accepted the Roman Circus of February-March of 2013 and just moved along like drunken zombies. Obviously they all flunked theology 101. Moving along, the ancient Roman Calendar has two feast for the Chair of Peter- at Antioch (Feb 22nd) and at Rome (Jan 18th). (The liturgical anarchists during the pontificate of the evil Pius XII combined both feasts into one superfeast- the "Chair of Peter" on Feb 22nd as befitting the new "infallibility" superpower bestowed on the Piuses.) I know of no feast for the primacy that is in Constantinople. Constantinople was only founded circa 350 AD and it is not one of the ancient patriarchies of the crescent denoted by Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Apocalypse. Constantinople vied with some of the ancient patriarchies for at least an equal rank if not superior rank seeing as it was the political seat of Christendom especially after 400 AD. (Even though none of the ecumenical councils were held there.)

“I think the core issue here is just who is in schism from whom. The working definition of schism is the refusal of submission to the Primacy of Peter, who was appointed head of the Apostles by Our Lord Jesus Christ. (I agree with you that the Chair of Peter in Rome has overstated its case in the sense of calling Rome the Eternal City. Our Lady of La Salette said that Rome would lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist and just as Jeremiah told Jerusalem not to boast that here was "The Temple of the LORD, The Temple of the LORD!" Pope Frantic and his flock of Pederast Birdbrains are about to get a Divine wake-up call featuring nothing short of Peter and Paul in the sky with flaming swords- if not the Second Coming...) Meanwhile, I find nothing in Holy Tradition pointing to the Seat of Sts Peter and Paul being in Constantinople, as that city was not in existence during their time- I think there were a few minor cities on the Bosphorus in Roman times. I would need enlightenment on that point. I also need some enlightenment on what exactly the "errors of the Latins" are. I do agree the popes- especially the ones since Pius VI and Pius VII- who could have stopped the French Revolution with the stroke of a pen- are certainly guilty of a whole dumptruck load of buffooneries but I am unaware of any fundamental errors of our Holy Faith being imbibed by the universal Roman Church.”

“Pius IX was guilty of propagating the heresy of the "noble pagan". Pius XII was guilty of promoting Evolution and the "Big Bang" dogma. As for Good Pope John forward... just exactly would one want to begin? They violated just about every anathema of the Holy Council of Trent.”

And he responded to this long reply as follows: “I am not claiming that Old Rome doesn't exist or that it does not have a place of preeminence amongst the Holy Sees of antiquity. Im even claiming there is a valid bishop who reigns in that see. I reject the sedevacantist position as absurd. The schism is temporary and will be healed in Gods good time. It must be so because the Body of Christ cannot be divided forever. The pope will return to defending Orthodoxy as he once did.”

“Where should we begin with the errors of the Latins? 1) Changing creeds 2) Changing liturgies to become campfire sing-alongs 3) Relaxing the disciplines of the faith for the faithful, no fasting, no prayer 4) Explaining the faith and binding the faithful to meaningless dogma like the immaculate conception (to be clear the Lady Theotokos never ever sinned, but definitely was born fallen as indeed Jesus too had a fallen human nature) 5) Claiming universal jurisdiction and infallibility that none of the bishops of Rome ever claimed and all this because they refused to be corrected by their brethren in the east.”

To which I replied: “Let me answer all of these in turn. 1) I assume you are referring to the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. This was not a CHANGE to the Creed. It was an ADDITION that sought to clarify thinking on the Eternal Procession of the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. I am not astute on the precise arguments pro- and con- this controversy, but am only aware that exists. The Roman Catholic position is that the Holy ghost proceeds from the both the Father and Son as a sort of "Eternal Hug" between these two persons. 2) I could not agree with you more. The Traditional Latin Mass is the Apostolic Rite of St Peter. The title "Tridentine Mass" is a misnomer, as Trent did not fabricate a Mass, but rather restored the Roman Missal that was mutilated by the "Reformers" of the 1500's. The Traditional Mass is an unbloody representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, as are all the Eastern Rites. The "New Mass" is a Happy Meal, or, as Fr James Wathan termed it: The Great Sacrilege. More and more, I think it is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet. 3) Again, I could not agree with you more. This relaxation process started in earnest under Pius VI and Pius VII. Pius X abolished almost all Holy Days of Obligation (and their attendent vigils) in 1906. (Consequently, most Latin catholics cannot even name the Twelve Apostles.) Pius XII relaxed the ancient Communion fast from midnight to three hours, and allowed for evening Masses, contrary to ancient custom. (Please God spare us another pope named Pius!!!) Personally, I keep all the vigils and feast days codified by the Council of Trent. 4) The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared not by Pius IX but by Our Lady herself, on two occasions. One was when she gave St Catherine Laboure the design for the "Miraculous Medal", which has on its front side "O Mary Conceived Without Sin, Pray for us who have recourse to Thee." The Second Time was when she told dumb little Bernadette Sobrious: "I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION". The multiplicity of miracles from these two events testifies beyond any doubt to their authenticity. 5) The Bishop of Rome always claimed universal jurisdiction. As far back as 1304 in the Bull "Unam Santum" Urban VIII (himself a murderer of his predecessor and a very evil man) declared that every creature to be saved must be submissive to the Roman Pontiff. Specifically, this means- recognize his universal authority over all the bishops of Holy Mother Church. Our Lady of Fatima proves this jurisdiction when she requests that the Pope, in union with all the bishops of the world, consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. This unanimity will only be realized when the pope exerts his divine authority and ORDERS the bishops, UNDER PAIN OF EXCOMMUNICATION, to comply with his desire of fulfilling Our Lady's request.

“Our Lord Jesus Christ did not found His Church on a Pentarchy. He founded His Church on the Rock of Peter. It was to Peter and the Twelve Apostles that Our Lord gave the commission to make disciples of all nations, and gave them the Deposit of Faith such that "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. The precise relationship between Peter (and his successors) and the Twelve Apostles (and their successors, the bishops) has yet to be defined. But suffice it to say that from Apostolic times the Chair of Rome was always recognized as having a primacy over the entire church, and was not first among equals. "Where Peter is, there is the Church" has been a maxim which goes back to the Church Fathers. Now, I will wholeheartedly agree that many, many Latin, or Roman Catholics confuse the ontological powers of the Chair of Peter with contingencies- no matter how old or venerable they may be. For example, the Pope, with the flourish of a pen, could abolish the whole code of canon law and the conclave electoral system. He could abolish the cardinaliate and demote all those birdbrains to simple bishops. He could abolish the archepiscopal diocese and completely rearrange the territorial jurisdictions of the bishops. The papacy does have limits, however. The pope CANNOT abolish the historical apostolic seats, or seats that were given a primacy by multiple popes in a continuity of tradition- such as Constantinople. St Sophia Haggia remains a special Seat even though it has been occupied by infidels for centuries. Moreover, the Pope CANNOT abolish that which is recognized as Apostolic Tradition (the Eastern Rites and Missals, for example, and their attendant immemorial customs) or that which has been established by immemorial custom (such as aricular confession). When the pope tried to abolish the method of the Seat of St John for keeping the date of Easter, for example, he was wisely refuted by some Eastern Fathers, and relented peacefully. In the West, much confusion has arisen concerning the "infallibility" of the pope following the unfortunate definition of Vatican I- not that it was heretical, but as the wise Cardinal Pie of Portiers foresaw would give rise to buffooneries. Today many Catholics regard the pope as some sort of oriental despot who can change times and laws at a whim, and even transgress the unassailable Divine Law of Conduct. Personally, I see now how the enemies of Holy Mother Church prompted the definitions of Vatican I to pave the way for Vatican II, catching nearly all the clergy (and the successors of Peter) in the process. It is infinitely tragic that the Roman Pontiffs ignored the requests of Our Lady of Fatima since 1929, because only the supernatural solution that she proposes will remedy the current chaos, and NONE OTHER.”

And he replied: “regarding the papacy, I’d agree there is a primacy by tradition. I do not grant that the primacy of Peter is conferred on Rome by scripture as you seem to want to emphasize. I think we can have a pope chosen by all the bishops east and west and that pope doesn’t have to be a roman rite bishop. When you successfully manage to get an eastern rite pope. As there once greek popes, we can discuss things further.

“I certainly agree with you that the pope can be an Eastern Rite Bishop and does not have to be of the Seat of Rome. But he will be the successor of St Peter the Apostle. The Primacy of Peter was conferred immediately by Our Lord Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospels. The main reasons the acts of Peter, such as his denials, his reconciliation as recorded in St John, are given emphasis is he had that primacy. Peter and Paul have always been recognized as the Two Pillars of Holy Mother Church by both East and West.

“The Orthodox and the Latins, ultimately, stem from Peter and the Twelve Apostles. Granted that the Latins do not have an Orthodox Mind, neither do the Franciscans have a Dominican Mind. The Dominicans believe that the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ was "plan B", so to speak. If Adam had never Fallen, God would not have become man. The Franciscan Mind, to which I tend, sees the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ as the primordial end for which all creation was made. Adam was originally created so that he could build a magnificent temple from the stock of creation, using and commanding all the animals to shape the most ornate woods into the most delicate and durable structures to raise to heaven. Then, in the fullness of time, Our Lord Jesus Christ would be born of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be worshipped in the center of His creation, and then conduct all men to the beatific vision. Both the sin of Satan, who rebelled out of envy, and Adam, who rebelled out of pride, marred this Divine Plan, and introduced death not only to men, but to the whole of creation. But God even more magnificently planned the Redemption, appointing His Son as Eternal High Priest and His Mother as perpetual intercessor for all men from Adam to the end of time. Consequently, all men must have supernatural faith in the Messiah in order to be saved, in the Old Testament, by expectation of a Savior, and in the New, by participation in the Redemption through Baptism and the Eucharist. (or at least an explicit desire for both.) Meanwhile, union of hearts and minds of East and West will be had through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima. Who is She who cometh forth as the Morning Rising? Fair as the Moon, Bright as the Sun, Terrible as an Army Set in battle Array? These are the most terrible times, but the most exciting times. These are the birth pangs of the complete destruction of the worldly empire of Hell and the establishment of a peace that shall last a thousand years, until the days of Gog and Magog. (At least, that be my humble eschatological opinion.) Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only hope!”