OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 11:40:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Jesuit Calls on Catholic and Orthodox Churches to Restore Communion  (Read 8177 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #45 on: July 15, 2010, 07:16:20 PM »

Really .... it violates the moratorium?

Yes, it has the obvious intended implication of referring to the unsanctity of same gender relationships. It is in its intention a violation of the moratorium.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #46 on: July 15, 2010, 07:18:22 PM »

But where is the Catholic view of these events?

It is hardly unbiased to present a Russian Orthodox view only.

The Russian view was presented in response to Archimandrite Taft.  Not making a response to him would have left his scurrilous allegations against the Orthodox unanswered.  So... he made accusations, the Russians made a response.  Why is that biased?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 07:29:13 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #47 on: July 15, 2010, 07:32:31 PM »

Since we have Roman Catholics on this discussion board, perhaps they can tell us if there are any horrible things that the Orthodox Church has done against the Roman Catholics.  As of now, with the Fourth Crusade and the number of Orthodox who were cruelly forced under the pope in various lands, this reads a little like a leader in the slave trade saying “okay, I will apologize for my role in the slave trade, but the slaves need to apologize also.”  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania and contiuned harassment of Greek Catholics Churches in Ukraine and Romania.  The 4th Crusade and the Unias do not excuse Orthodox actions in the 1940s.  Wrong is wrong.

And yet you excuse Brest Lvov, Transylvania, Talerhof etc. over and over and over, after repeating over and over and over.

Btw:
Did I miss your response?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 07:49:51 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #48 on: July 15, 2010, 07:46:58 PM »

We know the reasons that the Greek Catholics withdrew from the Quadrennial Commission established to solve the problems in the Western Ukraine. I was thinking of sparing your sensibilities but it is probably beneficial if the truth be told..

1) The Greek Catholics were promised by the Nationalist Ukrainian Party in Western Ukraine, known as Rukh, the People's Movement of Ukraina that they would bring about the ethnic cleansing of the Orthodox from Western Ukraine and so the Greek Catholics would come into possession of the Orthodox churches and monasteries. The Greek Catholics therefore saw no point in playing along with the Quadrennial Commission. Rukh was assuring them that it would soon all be their hands anyway.

2) The Ukrainian Greek Catholics were shafted by the Vatican representatives on the Quadrennial Commission in 1990! This betrayal of the Greek Catholics is described at length in an article by Fr Serge Kelleher who serves the Ukrainian Greek Catholic community in Ireland at the Dublin Cathedral. I'll see if I can locate it. It is on the Net somewhere.


3) The "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church" has decided it can make its primate it a patriarch without the approval of Rome, and to create "facts" on the ground have picked up and set up shop in Kiev, leaving their historic center in Lviv. Btw, for all the wailing, no complaints from the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church" and their supporters about the Soviet Union seizing Western Ukraine (the UGCC cradle) from Poland and Slovakia and annexing it to Ukraine.  That area now has been part of Ukraine for only 70 years, after being part of the Polish-Lithuanian state since 1340 i.e. 6 centuries, i.e. over half its history.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 07:47:39 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #49 on: July 15, 2010, 07:51:07 PM »

But where is the Catholic view of these events?

It is hardly unbiased to present a Russian Orthodox view only.

The Russian view was presented in response to Archimandrite Taft.  Not making a response to him would have left his scurrilous allegations against the Orthodox unanswered.  So... he made accusations, the Russians made a response.  Why is that biased?
We're not supposed to defend ourselves, or bring up certain issues. Just say our mea culpa and sing kumbaya.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #50 on: July 15, 2010, 07:53:36 PM »

As i figured would happen, it's like talking to the wall.
It's easier to write a polemic against Father Taft or anyone latin or greek, then it is to look in one's own heart to search where they have lacked charity.

There will be no reunion until the stiff-necked on BOTH sides look at themselves and stop pointing at the other guy.
(and NO, i am not inferring anyone here at all is stiff-necked. It is a statement of both sides in general. My statement is not meant as an implication to anyone here. I want that made clear, because I know what's coming if I don't make that plainly obvious).

Dear Danman,

We will talk with you at a thousand theological conferences and discuss our differences.  We will work with you to fight back the tide of secularism.  We will march with you on anti-abortion marches. We will fight with you to overcome the immorality which threatens to engulf the world.    But one thing we will not do.  We will not change our faith.

If anybody wishes to come into unity with the Church individually or as a group or as another church body, then they absolutely must hold the faith that we hold.  The Orthodox will not compromise on that.  On that we are very stiff-necked.  So we do not seek your submission to a patriarch in Constantinople or one in Russia.  We ask that you accept the faith of the Apostles and be of one mind and heart with us.


AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

I'm all for everything but ecclesiastical union with the Vatican, until it confesses the Orothodox Faith.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #51 on: July 15, 2010, 07:59:32 PM »

So many of our martyrs lost their lives at the hands of Roman Catholics, like the martyrs of Zographou Monastery on Mt. Athos and St. Peter the Aleut more recently.  Has the Orthodox Church done such things to Roman Catholics? 

St. Andrew Bobala, the Martyrs of Bet Maroun Monastery in Lebanon, the Matyrs of Prautlin, the Blessed Matrys and Confessors Theodore, Paul, Basil, Methodius, Mykola, Hryhorij, Josaphat, Symeon, Vasyl, Ivan, Mykyta, Hryhorij, Leonid, Mykola, Andrij, Roman, Mykola, Petro, Oleksa, Klymentij, Severijan, Jakym, Zynovij, Vitalij, Ivan, Tarsykia, Olympia, Laurentia, Volodymyr, Kamen, Pavel, Josaphat.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #52 on: July 15, 2010, 08:10:26 PM »

I am not quite sure how Catholics in general can be blamed for the mercenary activities of the Normans in Southern Italy. The Papal army had been defeated by them already. The various poetic cycles written about the invasion show that they were motivated by greed and thought the Greeks were effeminate and did not deserve the land. They were not acting as agents of the Pope of Rome.

The invasion of Southern Italy by the Normans was not a Catholic invasion any more than that of England by William the B*£$tard which took place at the same sort of time.

If you mean the Vatican, actually it was: the Great Schism came to England with William (ironically, distant kin to the Rus' who adopted Orthodoxy).
A similar (and reverse) question is why didn't those in the West (Bishops or laity) side with Constantinople and break off communion with Rome?


Let's see: we have the Franks of France who stuck the filioque in at the Council of Frankfurt, despite Rome's protest, and the Saxons whose Henry II, having installed the pope at Rome, forced him to stick it there as well.  Their Norman cousins were busy suppressing the Orthodox in Southern Italy, and busy suppressing the Anglo-Saxons in England (many ended up in the East: Constantinople recruited for the Varengian guard a lot in London). The last Anglo-Saxon Archbishop of Cantebury had his own problems with Rome. Soon another Norman, as Pope Adrian, would send the King of England to exerminate the remnants of the Celtic Church, which had had connections back East.  Adrian had, previously to becoming master of the Vatican, finished organizing Scandinavia and had sent the Swedes on Crusade to stamp out the "pagan" Finns: Orthodoxy had already comet there, and it had more to do with fighting Orthodox Novgorod.  And who's more German than the Teutonic Knights, that "monastic" order sent to Crusade across the Baltic, where Orthodox just happened to be.  Down South, the Mozarabic Church in Spain had resisted centralization from Rome, and maintained links East: that ended with the Reconquista.  I'm not sure what happend in North Africa.

Mystery solved.

Like Scandinavia? England? I mention those because Scandinavians and Angles were both in Constantinople in the 11th century, even having Churches in New Rome, and no one seems to have questioned that they were under the jurisdiction of Old Rome, not New Rome.  Ethiopia, from Balsamon and Zonoras' viewpoint outside the established Church, was, and is, always under Alexandria, not Constantinople.
The Varangians of Byzantium By Benedict Benedikz, Sigfús Blöndal
http://books.google.com/books?id=vFRug14ui7gC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Varangian+Church+in+Constantinople&source=bl&ots=Wkqq67PUmm&sig=PB3rMuG6as1LFP2u-aj2lPy0e9g&hl=en&ei=kefVS6fWEYWoNs6DvdID&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=English%20Church%20in%20constantinople&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #53 on: July 15, 2010, 08:14:16 PM »

Since we have Roman Catholics on this discussion board, perhaps they can tell us if there are any horrible things that the Orthodox Church has done against the Roman Catholics.  As of now, with the Fourth Crusade and the number of Orthodox who were cruelly forced under the pope in various lands, this reads a little like a leader in the slave trade saying “okay, I will apologize for my role in the slave trade, but the slaves need to apologize also.”  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania and contiuned harassment of Greek Catholics Churches in Ukraine and Romania.  The 4th Crusade and the Unias do not excuse Orthodox actions in the 1940s.  Wrong is wrong.

And yet you excuse Brest Lvov, Transylvania, Talerhof etc. over and over and over, after repeating over and over and over.

Btw:
Did I miss your response?

I do not excuse wrong doing by Catholics during the Unias or now.  I do protest acting like one can directly compare the time of empires with the time of republics.

I thought your google answered should have answered your question.  The Romanian Catehcism was published in 93 not 92 and by the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest not Rome.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,589


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 15, 2010, 08:50:59 PM »

To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what
the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the
further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets,
except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything
ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It's futile to try and
reason about this.


I was able to chuckle at the bluster and hypocrisy of that interview for awhile (For someone who believes that East and West is a false juxtaposition employed by the Orthodox, he sure uses it a lot himself, by the way!) but I had to stop reading after this bit of patronizing, "white man's burden" style bullplop.  But maybe that's just because I'm an illogical, irrational, hysterical, emotional, chap whose ancestors on both sides hail from regions far to the south and east of the civilized lands of the Franks.  But we can cook though, apparently, so we've got that going for us.  Roll Eyes
Logged

My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #55 on: July 15, 2010, 09:11:32 PM »

Since we have Roman Catholics on this discussion board, perhaps they can tell us if there are any horrible things that the Orthodox Church has done against the Roman Catholics.  As of now, with the Fourth Crusade and the number of Orthodox who were cruelly forced under the pope in various lands, this reads a little like a leader in the slave trade saying “okay, I will apologize for my role in the slave trade, but the slaves need to apologize also.”  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania and contiuned harassment of Greek Catholics Churches in Ukraine and Romania.  The 4th Crusade and the Unias do not excuse Orthodox actions in the 1940s.  Wrong is wrong.

And yet you excuse Brest Lvov, Transylvania, Talerhof etc. over and over and over, after repeating over and over and over.

Btw:
Did I miss your response?

I do not excuse wrong doing by Catholics during the Unias or now.  I do protest acting like one can directly compare the time of empires with the time of republics.

Yeah, because Talerhof 1914 was so much different that  Lviv 1947.  And the sham concordant of the Romanian king with his pontiff the Vatican in the 1920's SOOOO different from Alba Iulia in 1947 (not to mention the doings of the nuncio and the Latin hiearchy in the interwar years). Etc.  The world moved and shifted SO much that it was SO different after 30 years. And I still don't hear any complaints that Lviv et alia was torn from Poland and attached to Ukraine by the Soviets. I know plenty of Poles who want it back.

And St. Alexis Kabaliuk survived Talerhof, and worked and lived to see 1947. Holy Fathers Alexis and Maxim Sandovich, pray for us!

Quote
I thought your google answered should have answered your question.  The Romanian Catehcism was published in 93 not 92 and by the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest not Rome.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341350.html#msg341350
Quote
So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358
Quote
LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.
Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html
Haven't we seen this before?

Btw, the King of Romanian, Ferdinand, was not Orthodox but a communicant of the Vatican, and the oath of loyalty for the clergy were to him, not Romania.  The concoradant was first a secret agreement, and caused wide protests when revealed.

As a result of the concordant, the Vatican's holdings were exempt from land reform, and inherited crown lands and assets assigned to "Roman Catholic status" under the Hapsburgs.

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?
Somewhere along the line (this issue has been on a few threads) I specified that I was in Bucharest in Oct. '92, and returned in Oct. '93. And yes, the Romanian version of the CCC was available. I don't recall the issue of me being early two months too early (though, given the publishing cycle, I don't know if I am) but the very existence of the Romanian version, and its availability in mass quantitites that early, i.e. as early as nearly any language, including the Frence original, and within the year of that (see boldface).

And I think I've made it clear, it matters not a jot whether the master or his agent printed it.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 09:33:58 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #56 on: July 15, 2010, 11:37:14 PM »

Isa,

Quit trying to twist my words to say something I did not.  I do not excuse Catholic sin, period.  I was refeing to the Unias which occured in the political setting of empires compared to the pseudo-synods that liquidated the Greek Catholic Churches in modern times.  I was not refering to Talerhof or the murder of St. Maxim, which of course were despicable.

As to the Cathechism, your own link shows what I said was correct, the Romanian edition was not published until 93.  And complaining that the Romanian Latin Church advertised, published, and made available the Catechism is, in my opinion, a bit silly. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #57 on: July 16, 2010, 01:10:17 AM »

Isa,

Quit trying to twist my words to say something I did not.  I do not excuse Catholic sin, period.  I was refeing to the Unias which occured in the political setting of empires compared to the pseudo-synods that liquidated the Greek Catholic Churches in modern times.
 

You mean pseudo-Unias and synods. No, I'm sure you didn't, as I've seen plenty of assertions of Cuius regio, eius religio (how Caesaropapist!). The fact that that "principle" finds its home in the West, and has no application in the East (ancient, medieval or modern), and hence has no role in the discussion, exposes this distinction without a difference.


Quote
I was not refering to Talerhof or the murder of St. Maxim, which of course were despicable.

That's nice to hear.

Quote
As to the Cathechism, your own link shows what I said was correct, the Romanian edition was not published until 93.

Since most of those threads are locked etc., and I'm tired, I'm going to have to do it by memory.

You said nothing about when it was published.  Rather you said
So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.
Which sounds more like you doubted the existence of the Romanian edition so early, which was the point I was making: that for a country/nation/ethnicity which had few followers of the Vatican (and the ones it had were other ethnic/language groups) as Romania, it was odd that it had the CCC in its own language, while much, much larger nations and languages, e.g. English, with many many more followers of the Vatican, and to wait years for theirs.  I don't think that you were quibbling about two months (as I made it clear, I was there in Oct '92).  Not to disparage my "other info about Greek Catholics."  For two months, that's a bit silly.  And as I said, I was there exactly a year later also, Oct. '93.

And yes, the CCC (or rather CBC) were available in stacks at the Latin cathedral, where the missals etc. were in Hungarian.  And yes the posters and brochures advertising it in Romania were everywhere in Bucharest.  And yes, I still think it was odd, if prosyletizing (I think you used the term sheep stealing) was not intended. That's not even taking into consideration the statements the Vatican was making at the time ("if the Romanians were really Roman, they would be Roman Catholic....").

Quote
  And complaining that the Romanian Latin Church advertised, published, and made available the Catechism is, in my opinion, a bit silly. 
Wasn't complaining. Just substantiating, when challenged, why the Vatican's claims of limiting its interest in Romania to "pastoral needs" didn't match facts on the ground.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #58 on: July 16, 2010, 06:22:12 AM »

Really .... it violates the moratorium?

Yes, it has the obvious intended implication of referring to the unsanctity of same gender relationships. It is in its intention a violation of the moratorium.
The moratorium is still in effect. Please, everyone refrain from writing about homosexuality in any way until we give you further notice. A good rule of thumb is if in doubt, don't post it. If the same point can be made without mentioning homosexuality, then please do it. If the point cannot be made without mentioning homosexuality, it's probably in violation of the moratorium anyway. Let's all work together to make this a great place for Orthodox conversation.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 06:22:36 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,925


« Reply #59 on: July 16, 2010, 11:08:08 AM »

Really .... it violates the moratorium?

Yes, it has the obvious intended implication of referring to the unsanctity of same gender relationships. It is in its intention a violation of the moratorium.
The moratorium is still in effect. Please, everyone refrain from writing about homosexuality in any way until we give you further notice. A good rule of thumb is if in doubt, don't post it. If the same point can be made without mentioning homosexuality, then please do it. If the point cannot be made without mentioning homosexuality, it's probably in violation of the moratorium anyway. Let's all work together to make this a great place for Orthodox conversation.
Oh Good Lord, I wasn't thinking of the moratorium or anything in a strict sense when I mentioned marriage in a passing general sense.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #60 on: July 16, 2010, 01:19:26 PM »

the sanctity of male/female marriage etc.

Oh come on now. This has an obvious implied meaning that violates the moratorium.

Really .... it violates the moratorium?

Yes, it has the obvious intended implication of referring to the unsanctity of same gender relationships. It is in its intention a violation of the moratorium.
Rather than take it upon yourself to define what a violation of the Moratorium is, don't you think it would be better for you to refer this to the judgment of the moderator team by reporting the post you think may be afoul of the Moratorium?  Your apparent vigilanteism is really starting to bug me.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 01:33:08 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #61 on: July 16, 2010, 01:20:56 PM »

Sorry, is there a sticky thread I need to read. I don't know anything about a moratorium?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #62 on: July 16, 2010, 01:22:27 PM »

Sorry, is there a sticky thread I need to read. I don't know anything about a moratorium?
Moratorium on Discussing Homosexual Conduct
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #63 on: July 16, 2010, 05:05:23 PM »

Since we have Roman Catholics on this discussion board, perhaps they can tell us if there are any horrible things that the Orthodox Church has done against the Roman Catholics.  As of now, with the Fourth Crusade and the number of Orthodox who were cruelly forced under the pope in various lands, this reads a little like a leader in the slave trade saying “okay, I will apologize for my role in the slave trade, but the slaves need to apologize also.”  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania and contiuned harassment of Greek Catholics Churches in Ukraine and Romania.  The 4th Crusade and the Unias do not excuse Orthodox actions in the 1940s.  Wrong is wrong.

And yet you excuse Brest Lvov, Transylvania, Talerhof etc. over and over and over, after repeating over and over and over.

Btw:
Did I miss your response?

I do not excuse wrong doing by Catholics during the Unias or now.  I do protest acting like one can directly compare the time of empires with the time of republics.

Yeah, because Talerhof 1914 was so much different that  Lviv 1947.  And the sham concordant of the Romanian king with his pontiff the Vatican in the 1920's SOOOO different from Alba Iulia in 1947 (not to mention the doings of the nuncio and the Latin hiearchy in the interwar years). Etc.  The world moved and shifted SO much that it was SO different after 30 years. And I still don't hear any complaints that Lviv et alia was torn from Poland and attached to Ukraine by the Soviets. I know plenty of Poles who want it back.

And St. Alexis Kabaliuk survived Talerhof, and worked and lived to see 1947. Holy Fathers Alexis and Maxim Sandovich, pray for us!

Quote
I thought your google answered should have answered your question.  The Romanian Catehcism was published in 93 not 92 and by the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest not Rome.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341350.html#msg341350
Quote
So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358
Quote
LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.
Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html
Haven't we seen this before?

Btw, the King of Romanian, Ferdinand, was not Orthodox but a communicant of the Vatican, and the oath of loyalty for the clergy were to him, not Romania.  The concoradant was first a secret agreement, and caused wide protests when revealed.

As a result of the concordant, the Vatican's holdings were exempt from land reform, and inherited crown lands and assets assigned to "Roman Catholic status" under the Hapsburgs.

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?
Somewhere along the line (this issue has been on a few threads) I specified that I was in Bucharest in Oct. '92, and returned in Oct. '93. And yes, the Romanian version of the CCC was available. I don't recall the issue of me being early two months too early (though, given the publishing cycle, I don't know if I am) but the very existence of the Romanian version, and its availability in mass quantitites that early, i.e. as early as nearly any language, including the Frence original, and within the year of that (see boldface).

And I think I've made it clear, it matters not a jot whether the master or his agent printed it.
There are some Masses in Bucharest that are in Hungarian, but I think that most are in Romanian.
According to wikipedia the CCC was first published in 1994 — in French — and was then translated into many other languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #64 on: July 16, 2010, 06:57:16 PM »

Since we have Roman Catholics on this discussion board, perhaps they can tell us if there are any horrible things that the Orthodox Church has done against the Roman Catholics.  As of now, with the Fourth Crusade and the number of Orthodox who were cruelly forced under the pope in various lands, this reads a little like a leader in the slave trade saying “okay, I will apologize for my role in the slave trade, but the slaves need to apologize also.”  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania and contiuned harassment of Greek Catholics Churches in Ukraine and Romania.  The 4th Crusade and the Unias do not excuse Orthodox actions in the 1940s.  Wrong is wrong.

And yet you excuse Brest Lvov, Transylvania, Talerhof etc. over and over and over, after repeating over and over and over.

Btw:
Did I miss your response?

I do not excuse wrong doing by Catholics during the Unias or now.  I do protest acting like one can directly compare the time of empires with the time of republics.

Yeah, because Talerhof 1914 was so much different that  Lviv 1947.  And the sham concordant of the Romanian king with his pontiff the Vatican in the 1920's SOOOO different from Alba Iulia in 1947 (not to mention the doings of the nuncio and the Latin hiearchy in the interwar years). Etc.  The world moved and shifted SO much that it was SO different after 30 years. And I still don't hear any complaints that Lviv et alia was torn from Poland and attached to Ukraine by the Soviets. I know plenty of Poles who want it back.

And St. Alexis Kabaliuk survived Talerhof, and worked and lived to see 1947. Holy Fathers Alexis and Maxim Sandovich, pray for us!

Quote
I thought your google answered should have answered your question.  The Romanian Catehcism was published in 93 not 92 and by the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest not Rome.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341350.html#msg341350
Quote
So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358
Quote
LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.
Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html
Haven't we seen this before?

Btw, the King of Romanian, Ferdinand, was not Orthodox but a communicant of the Vatican, and the oath of loyalty for the clergy were to him, not Romania.  The concoradant was first a secret agreement, and caused wide protests when revealed.

As a result of the concordant, the Vatican's holdings were exempt from land reform, and inherited crown lands and assets assigned to "Roman Catholic status" under the Hapsburgs.

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?
Somewhere along the line (this issue has been on a few threads) I specified that I was in Bucharest in Oct. '92, and returned in Oct. '93. And yes, the Romanian version of the CCC was available. I don't recall the issue of me being early two months too early (though, given the publishing cycle, I don't know if I am) but the very existence of the Romanian version, and its availability in mass quantitites that early, i.e. as early as nearly any language, including the Frence original, and within the year of that (see boldface).

And I think I've made it clear, it matters not a jot whether the master or his agent printed it.
There are some Masses in Bucharest that are in Hungarian, but I think that most are in Romanian.

Couldn't tell you: I wasn't there for a mass, and no services were going on. The missals were in Hungarian, though. Next to stacks of the Catechisms in Romanian.

Quote
According to wikipedia the CCC was first published in 1994 — in French — and was then translated into many other languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

Accoring to your pope, it was published October 11, 1992 in French:
Quote
IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html

Who you going to believe, him or wikipedia?

I think we had gone over that before.  October 11, 1992 I was either in Jordan or Palestine (I think I had left Syria already. I know that I had not gone back to Egypt yet). The announcement of the publication of the French version came out earlier in the summer, because I saw Mother Angelica consoling her audience about it as they were besides themselves over the permission to have girl altar servers before I left Chicago for Cairo. So I was aware of the CCC coming out. Mother Angelica has explained how the French was going to be first, because it was the working language of the committee.  English would be forcecoming. So I was suprised to see the advertising for the Romanian, and I hadn't seen a word for the English. I was in Bucharest late October 1992, and again the following year in late October/early November 1993.  I physically saw the catechisms, so November 1993 at the latest (i.e. within one year of it appearing in any language), the CCC was available in Romanian, and being distributed.

And again, since Romania at the time (and now) was nearly 90% Orthodox, and of the 6% who followed the Vatican, 83% were not members of the "Romanian Greek Catholic Church united with Rome," but 67% were Hungarians and 6% German (and only 31% Romanian) Latin rite members. Adding the RGCCuR with the Romanian Latin rite members, only 588,377 altogether, and for good measure the Hungarians and Germans, you had 1,373,197 for an audience for the Romanian edition, again only 6% of the population.  Meanwhile, the Vatican's English speaking flock (over 50 million in the US alone) had to wait for years to get it. I'd be interested in knowing how long the Spanish and Portuguese (and Italian!) had to wait.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #65 on: July 16, 2010, 08:04:55 PM »

Really .... it violates the moratorium?

Yes, it has the obvious intended implication of referring to the unsanctity of same gender relationships. It is in its intention a violation of the moratorium.
The moratorium is still in effect. Please, everyone refrain from writing about homosexuality in any way until we give you further notice. A good rule of thumb is if in doubt, don't post it. If the same point can be made without mentioning homosexuality, then please do it. If the point cannot be made without mentioning homosexuality, it's probably in violation of the moratorium anyway. Let's all work together to make this a great place for Orthodox conversation.
Oh Good Lord, I wasn't thinking of the moratorium or anything in a strict sense when I mentioned marriage in a passing general sense.

I don't buy it. If you didn't have the unsanctity of same sex relationships in mind, you would have just said "the sanctity of marriage", instead of "the sanctity of male/female marriage".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #66 on: July 16, 2010, 08:07:34 PM »

the sanctity of male/female marriage etc.

Oh come on now. This has an obvious implied meaning that violates the moratorium.

Really .... it violates the moratorium?

Yes, it has the obvious intended implication of referring to the unsanctity of same gender relationships. It is in its intention a violation of the moratorium.
Rather than take it upon yourself to define what a violation of the Moratorium is, don't you think it would be better for you to refer this to the judgment of the moderator team by reporting the post you think may be afoul of the Moratorium?  Your apparent vigilanteism is really starting to bug me.

Peter, I was simply posting offering my opinion on the consistency or lack of consistency of another poster's statements with the moratorium as a means of flagging the post to get it addressed by a moderator. If you would rather I just send private messages to a moderator in the future instead of pointing it out in the thread, I am willing to do so.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 08:07:54 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #67 on: July 16, 2010, 08:10:56 PM »

Since we have Roman Catholics on this discussion board, perhaps they can tell us if there are any horrible things that the Orthodox Church has done against the Roman Catholics.  As of now, with the Fourth Crusade and the number of Orthodox who were cruelly forced under the pope in various lands, this reads a little like a leader in the slave trade saying “okay, I will apologize for my role in the slave trade, but the slaves need to apologize also.”  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania and contiuned harassment of Greek Catholics Churches in Ukraine and Romania.  The 4th Crusade and the Unias do not excuse Orthodox actions in the 1940s.  Wrong is wrong.

And yet you excuse Brest Lvov, Transylvania, Talerhof etc. over and over and over, after repeating over and over and over.

Btw:
Did I miss your response?

I do not excuse wrong doing by Catholics during the Unias or now.  I do protest acting like one can directly compare the time of empires with the time of republics.

Yeah, because Talerhof 1914 was so much different that  Lviv 1947.  And the sham concordant of the Romanian king with his pontiff the Vatican in the 1920's SOOOO different from Alba Iulia in 1947 (not to mention the doings of the nuncio and the Latin hiearchy in the interwar years). Etc.  The world moved and shifted SO much that it was SO different after 30 years. And I still don't hear any complaints that Lviv et alia was torn from Poland and attached to Ukraine by the Soviets. I know plenty of Poles who want it back.

And St. Alexis Kabaliuk survived Talerhof, and worked and lived to see 1947. Holy Fathers Alexis and Maxim Sandovich, pray for us!

Quote
I thought your google answered should have answered your question.  The Romanian Catehcism was published in 93 not 92 and by the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest not Rome.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341350.html#msg341350
Quote
So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358
Quote
LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.
Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html
Haven't we seen this before?

Btw, the King of Romanian, Ferdinand, was not Orthodox but a communicant of the Vatican, and the oath of loyalty for the clergy were to him, not Romania.  The concoradant was first a secret agreement, and caused wide protests when revealed.

As a result of the concordant, the Vatican's holdings were exempt from land reform, and inherited crown lands and assets assigned to "Roman Catholic status" under the Hapsburgs.

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?
Somewhere along the line (this issue has been on a few threads) I specified that I was in Bucharest in Oct. '92, and returned in Oct. '93. And yes, the Romanian version of the CCC was available. I don't recall the issue of me being early two months too early (though, given the publishing cycle, I don't know if I am) but the very existence of the Romanian version, and its availability in mass quantitites that early, i.e. as early as nearly any language, including the Frence original, and within the year of that (see boldface).

And I think I've made it clear, it matters not a jot whether the master or his agent printed it.
There are some Masses in Bucharest that are in Hungarian, but I think that most are in Romanian.

Couldn't tell you: I wasn't there for a mass, and no services were going on. The missals were in Hungarian, though. Next to stacks of the Catechisms in Romanian.

Quote
According to wikipedia the CCC was first published in 1994 — in French — and was then translated into many other languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

Accoring to your pope, it was published October 11, 1992 in French:
Quote
IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html

Who you going to believe, him or wikipedia?

I think we had gone over that before.  October 11, 1992 I was either in Jordan or Palestine (I think I had left Syria already. I know that I had not gone back to Egypt yet). The announcement of the publication of the French version came out earlier in the summer, because I saw Mother Angelica consoling her audience about it as they were besides themselves over the permission to have girl altar servers before I left Chicago for Cairo. So I was aware of the CCC coming out. Mother Angelica has explained how the French was going to be first, because it was the working language of the committee.  English would be forcecoming. So I was suprised to see the advertising for the Romanian, and I hadn't seen a word for the English. I was in Bucharest late October 1992, and again the following year in late October/early November 1993.  I physically saw the catechisms, so November 1993 at the latest (i.e. within one year of it appearing in any language), the CCC was available in Romanian, and being distributed.

And again, since Romania at the time (and now) was nearly 90% Orthodox, and of the 6% who followed the Vatican, 83% were not members of the "Romanian Greek Catholic Church united with Rome," but 67% were Hungarians and 6% German (and only 31% Romanian) Latin rite members. Adding the RGCCuR with the Romanian Latin rite members, only 588,377 altogether, and for good measure the Hungarians and Germans, you had 1,373,197 for an audience for the Romanian edition, again only 6% of the population.  Meanwhile, the Vatican's English speaking flock (over 50 million in the US alone) had to wait for years to get it. I'd be interested in knowing how long the Spanish and Portuguese (and Italian!) had to wait.
I don;t know but according to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html
the Pope ordered the publication on October 11, 1992, and then perhaps the actual publication came later as mentioned in the wikipedia article.
There may have been only Hungarian missalettes available in the Church when you stopped by, since the Romanian language ones might have been sold out at that time. But for sure, there were thousands of Romanian language missalettes published.  
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #68 on: July 16, 2010, 08:11:28 PM »

Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?

shhhh! You are not supposed to ask such questions.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #69 on: July 16, 2010, 08:13:45 PM »

Since we have Roman Catholics on this discussion board, perhaps they can tell us if there are any horrible things that the Orthodox Church has done against the Roman Catholics.  As of now, with the Fourth Crusade and the number of Orthodox who were cruelly forced under the pope in various lands, this reads a little like a leader in the slave trade saying “okay, I will apologize for my role in the slave trade, but the slaves need to apologize also.”  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania and contiuned harassment of Greek Catholics Churches in Ukraine and Romania.  The 4th Crusade and the Unias do not excuse Orthodox actions in the 1940s.  Wrong is wrong.

And yet you excuse Brest Lvov, Transylvania, Talerhof etc. over and over and over, after repeating over and over and over.

Btw:
Did I miss your response?

I do not excuse wrong doing by Catholics during the Unias or now.  I do protest acting like one can directly compare the time of empires with the time of republics.

Yeah, because Talerhof 1914 was so much different that  Lviv 1947.  And the sham concordant of the Romanian king with his pontiff the Vatican in the 1920's SOOOO different from Alba Iulia in 1947 (not to mention the doings of the nuncio and the Latin hiearchy in the interwar years). Etc.  The world moved and shifted SO much that it was SO different after 30 years. And I still don't hear any complaints that Lviv et alia was torn from Poland and attached to Ukraine by the Soviets. I know plenty of Poles who want it back.

And St. Alexis Kabaliuk survived Talerhof, and worked and lived to see 1947. Holy Fathers Alexis and Maxim Sandovich, pray for us!

Quote
I thought your google answered should have answered your question.  The Romanian Catehcism was published in 93 not 92 and by the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest not Rome.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341350.html#msg341350
Quote
So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358
Quote
LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.
Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html
Haven't we seen this before?

Btw, the King of Romanian, Ferdinand, was not Orthodox but a communicant of the Vatican, and the oath of loyalty for the clergy were to him, not Romania.  The concoradant was first a secret agreement, and caused wide protests when revealed.

As a result of the concordant, the Vatican's holdings were exempt from land reform, and inherited crown lands and assets assigned to "Roman Catholic status" under the Hapsburgs.

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?
Somewhere along the line (this issue has been on a few threads) I specified that I was in Bucharest in Oct. '92, and returned in Oct. '93. And yes, the Romanian version of the CCC was available. I don't recall the issue of me being early two months too early (though, given the publishing cycle, I don't know if I am) but the very existence of the Romanian version, and its availability in mass quantitites that early, i.e. as early as nearly any language, including the Frence original, and within the year of that (see boldface).

And I think I've made it clear, it matters not a jot whether the master or his agent printed it.
There are some Masses in Bucharest that are in Hungarian, but I think that most are in Romanian.

Couldn't tell you: I wasn't there for a mass, and no services were going on. The missals were in Hungarian, though. Next to stacks of the Catechisms in Romanian.

Quote
According to wikipedia the CCC was first published in 1994 — in French — and was then translated into many other languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

Accoring to your pope, it was published October 11, 1992 in French:
Quote
IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html

Who you going to believe, him or wikipedia?

I think we had gone over that before.  October 11, 1992 I was either in Jordan or Palestine (I think I had left Syria already. I know that I had not gone back to Egypt yet). The announcement of the publication of the French version came out earlier in the summer, because I saw Mother Angelica consoling her audience about it as they were besides themselves over the permission to have girl altar servers before I left Chicago for Cairo. So I was aware of the CCC coming out. Mother Angelica has explained how the French was going to be first, because it was the working language of the committee.  English would be forcecoming. So I was suprised to see the advertising for the Romanian, and I hadn't seen a word for the English. I was in Bucharest late October 1992, and again the following year in late October/early November 1993.  I physically saw the catechisms, so November 1993 at the latest (i.e. within one year of it appearing in any language), the CCC was available in Romanian, and being distributed.

And again, since Romania at the time (and now) was nearly 90% Orthodox, and of the 6% who followed the Vatican, 83% were not members of the "Romanian Greek Catholic Church united with Rome," but 67% were Hungarians and 6% German (and only 31% Romanian) Latin rite members. Adding the RGCCuR with the Romanian Latin rite members, only 588,377 altogether, and for good measure the Hungarians and Germans, you had 1,373,197 for an audience for the Romanian edition, again only 6% of the population.  Meanwhile, the Vatican's English speaking flock (over 50 million in the US alone) had to wait for years to get it. I'd be interested in knowing how long the Spanish and Portuguese (and Italian!) had to wait.
I don;t know but according to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html
the Pope ordered the publication on October 11, 1992, and then perhaps the actual publication came later as mentioned in the wikipedia article.
There may have been only Hungarian missalettes available in the Church when you stopped by, since the Romanian language ones might have been sold out at that time. But for sure, there were thousands of Romanian language missalettes published.  
Didn't say there wasn't. I can't say. I just am stating what I saw, and when I saw it, and where I saw it.

As for the French edition, since I've never seen it (except online), I can't say anything on it. I'm not sure about the English one, but coudl swear it was before 1997.

I just know that the Romanian one was available, Nov. '93 at the latest.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 08:22:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #70 on: July 16, 2010, 08:14:54 PM »

Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?

shhhh! You are not supposed to ask such questions.
Why not. It is a fair question, as is also the question of how did those western rite Orthodox Churches come into existence.
It is not a bad idea to discuss all of these issues fairly and openly?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #71 on: July 16, 2010, 08:15:50 PM »

Since we have Roman Catholics on this discussion board, perhaps they can tell us if there are any horrible things that the Orthodox Church has done against the Roman Catholics.  As of now, with the Fourth Crusade and the number of Orthodox who were cruelly forced under the pope in various lands, this reads a little like a leader in the slave trade saying “okay, I will apologize for my role in the slave trade, but the slaves need to apologize also.”  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania and contiuned harassment of Greek Catholics Churches in Ukraine and Romania.  The 4th Crusade and the Unias do not excuse Orthodox actions in the 1940s.  Wrong is wrong.

And yet you excuse Brest Lvov, Transylvania, Talerhof etc. over and over and over, after repeating over and over and over.

Btw:
Did I miss your response?

I do not excuse wrong doing by Catholics during the Unias or now.  I do protest acting like one can directly compare the time of empires with the time of republics.

Yeah, because Talerhof 1914 was so much different that  Lviv 1947.  And the sham concordant of the Romanian king with his pontiff the Vatican in the 1920's SOOOO different from Alba Iulia in 1947 (not to mention the doings of the nuncio and the Latin hiearchy in the interwar years). Etc.  The world moved and shifted SO much that it was SO different after 30 years. And I still don't hear any complaints that Lviv et alia was torn from Poland and attached to Ukraine by the Soviets. I know plenty of Poles who want it back.

And St. Alexis Kabaliuk survived Talerhof, and worked and lived to see 1947. Holy Fathers Alexis and Maxim Sandovich, pray for us!

Quote
I thought your google answered should have answered your question.  The Romanian Catehcism was published in 93 not 92 and by the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest not Rome.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341350.html#msg341350
Quote
So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358
Quote
LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.
Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html
Haven't we seen this before?

Btw, the King of Romanian, Ferdinand, was not Orthodox but a communicant of the Vatican, and the oath of loyalty for the clergy were to him, not Romania.  The concoradant was first a secret agreement, and caused wide protests when revealed.

As a result of the concordant, the Vatican's holdings were exempt from land reform, and inherited crown lands and assets assigned to "Roman Catholic status" under the Hapsburgs.

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?
Somewhere along the line (this issue has been on a few threads) I specified that I was in Bucharest in Oct. '92, and returned in Oct. '93. And yes, the Romanian version of the CCC was available. I don't recall the issue of me being early two months too early (though, given the publishing cycle, I don't know if I am) but the very existence of the Romanian version, and its availability in mass quantitites that early, i.e. as early as nearly any language, including the Frence original, and within the year of that (see boldface).

And I think I've made it clear, it matters not a jot whether the master or his agent printed it.
There are some Masses in Bucharest that are in Hungarian, but I think that most are in Romanian.

Couldn't tell you: I wasn't there for a mass, and no services were going on. The missals were in Hungarian, though. Next to stacks of the Catechisms in Romanian.

Quote
According to wikipedia the CCC was first published in 1994 — in French — and was then translated into many other languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

Accoring to your pope, it was published October 11, 1992 in French:
Quote
IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html

Who you going to believe, him or wikipedia?

I think we had gone over that before.  October 11, 1992 I was either in Jordan or Palestine (I think I had left Syria already. I know that I had not gone back to Egypt yet). The announcement of the publication of the French version came out earlier in the summer, because I saw Mother Angelica consoling her audience about it as they were besides themselves over the permission to have girl altar servers before I left Chicago for Cairo. So I was aware of the CCC coming out. Mother Angelica has explained how the French was going to be first, because it was the working language of the committee.  English would be forcecoming. So I was suprised to see the advertising for the Romanian, and I hadn't seen a word for the English. I was in Bucharest late October 1992, and again the following year in late October/early November 1993.  I physically saw the catechisms, so November 1993 at the latest (i.e. within one year of it appearing in any language), the CCC was available in Romanian, and being distributed.

And again, since Romania at the time (and now) was nearly 90% Orthodox, and of the 6% who followed the Vatican, 83% were not members of the "Romanian Greek Catholic Church united with Rome," but 67% were Hungarians and 6% German (and only 31% Romanian) Latin rite members. Adding the RGCCuR with the Romanian Latin rite members, only 588,377 altogether, and for good measure the Hungarians and Germans, you had 1,373,197 for an audience for the Romanian edition, again only 6% of the population.  Meanwhile, the Vatican's English speaking flock (over 50 million in the US alone) had to wait for years to get it. I'd be interested in knowing how long the Spanish and Portuguese (and Italian!) had to wait.
I don;t know but according to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html
the Pope ordered the publication on October 11, 1992, and then perhaps the actual publication came later as mentioned in the wikipedia article.
There may have been only Hungarian missalettes available in the Church when you stopped by, since the Romanian language ones might have been sold out at that time. But for sure, there were thousands of Romanian language missalettes published.  
Didn't say there wasn't. I can't say. I just am stating what I saw, and when I saw it, and where I saw it.
OK
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: July 16, 2010, 08:22:35 PM »

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?


What brought them to Constantinople was money, big business and big profits. Constantinople was the richest city in the world.

So Constantinople had sizeable colonies of rival Italians - those from Venice, those from Pisa and those from Genoa.

From time to time the Italians groups broke out into wars between themselves and would devastate areas of Constantinople until the Imperial army brought them under control.  Their presence in the city was a mixed blessing and if it wasn't for the lucrative trade which they facilitated the Byzantines would have been better to throw them all out long ago. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #73 on: July 16, 2010, 08:32:39 PM »

Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?

shhhh! You are not supposed to ask such questions.
Why not. It is a fair question, as is also the question of how did those western rite Orthodox Churches come into existence.

From Western Christians shifting the Orthodox wheat from the heretic chaff of the West.

Quote
It is not a bad idea to discuss all of these issues fairly and openly?
No, it's a good idea. Can ya'll?
Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?
1. So you think that the massacre of Latins in Constantinople was ok?
No. Your point? The initial aggression would be the Crusades.

Quote
Wow. Well, it's like I have always said, EOs believe that bloodshed committed by EOs is of a higher quality than the bloodshed of others.
2. Two union documents signed by Byzantine Christians.
At swordpoint, blessed by the Vatican.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: July 16, 2010, 08:33:34 PM »

[
Why not. It is a fair question, as is also the question of how did those western rite Orthodox Churches come into existence.
It is not a bad idea to discuss all of these issues fairly and openly?

About 30 parishes in total, most in the US, many of them no more than a priest and a handful of people.  They came into existence over the last two or three decades.   They are mainly ex-Anglicans/Episcopalian who could not take much more of women priests and the (Moratorium does not permit me to name their other major concern,)    They approached Orthodox bishops and begged to be given a home under authentic bishops who upheld traditional faith and morality.

Most Orthodox Churches would not accept them.   Their parishes exist these days in the Antiochian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.    For a while the Romanian Church had some French parishes but it dropped them.  The Serbs in Western Europe accepted some French parishes but insisted that they should be Byzantine in practice.

They have proven to be spectacularly unsuccessful in missionary work.   Converts prefer the Byzantine Rite.


« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 08:35:49 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #75 on: July 16, 2010, 08:55:16 PM »

the sanctity of male/female marriage etc.

Oh come on now. This has an obvious implied meaning that violates the moratorium.

Really .... it violates the moratorium?

Yes, it has the obvious intended implication of referring to the unsanctity of same gender relationships. It is in its intention a violation of the moratorium.
Rather than take it upon yourself to define what a violation of the Moratorium is, don't you think it would be better for you to refer this to the judgment of the moderator team by reporting the post you think may be afoul of the Moratorium?  Your apparent vigilanteism is really starting to bug me.

Peter, I was simply posting offering my opinion on the consistency or lack of consistency of another poster's statements with the moratorium as a means of flagging the post to get it addressed by a moderator. If you would rather I just send private messages to a moderator in the future instead of pointing it out in the thread, I am willing to do so.
Please see my PM.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #76 on: July 16, 2010, 09:12:46 PM »

Really .... it violates the moratorium?

Yes, it has the obvious intended implication of referring to the unsanctity of same gender relationships. It is in its intention a violation of the moratorium.
The moratorium is still in effect. Please, everyone refrain from writing about homosexuality in any way until we give you further notice. A good rule of thumb is if in doubt, don't post it. If the same point can be made without mentioning homosexuality, then please do it. If the point cannot be made without mentioning homosexuality, it's probably in violation of the moratorium anyway. Let's all work together to make this a great place for Orthodox conversation.
Oh Good Lord, I wasn't thinking of the moratorium or anything in a strict sense when I mentioned marriage in a passing general sense.

I don't buy it. If you didn't have the unsanctity of same sex relationships in mind, you would have just said "the sanctity of marriage", instead of "the sanctity of male/female marriage".
Enough of this, since now YOU are starting to tread the line of a Moratorium violation yourself.  The moderators are watching this discussion closely, so you've no need to derail this thread by arguing with someone over what constitutes a violation of the Moratorium.  For the sake of keeping this thread on topic, let us do our job and make the final call on how to interpret forum rules.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #77 on: July 17, 2010, 02:47:08 PM »

[
Why not. It is a fair question, as is also the question of how did those western rite Orthodox Churches come into existence.
It is not a bad idea to discuss all of these issues fairly and openly?

About 30 parishes in total, most in the US, many of them no more than a priest and a handful of people.  They came into existence over the last two or three decades.   They are mainly ex-Anglicans/Episcopalian who could not take much more of women priests and the (Moratorium does not permit me to name their other major concern,)    They approached Orthodox bishops and begged to be given a home under authentic bishops who upheld traditional faith and morality.

Most Orthodox Churches would not accept them.   Their parishes exist these days in the Antiochian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.    For a while the Romanian Church had some French parishes but it dropped them.  The Serbs in Western Europe accepted some French parishes but insisted that they should be Byzantine in practice.

They have proven to be spectacularly unsuccessful in missionary work.   Converts prefer the Byzantine Rite.



right.
I was mainly saying that I personally don't object to discussing the Eastern rite Churches openly and fairly.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #78 on: July 17, 2010, 02:49:39 PM »

Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?

shhhh! You are not supposed to ask such questions.
Why not. It is a fair question, as is also the question of how did those western rite Orthodox Churches come into existence.

From Western Christians shifting the Orthodox wheat from the heretic chaff of the West.

Quote
It is not a bad idea to discuss all of these issues fairly and openly?
No, it's a good idea. Can ya'll?
Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?
1. So you think that the massacre of Latins in Constantinople was ok?
No. Your point? The initial aggression would be the Crusades.

Quote
Wow. Well, it's like I have always said, EOs believe that bloodshed committed by EOs is of a higher quality than the bloodshed of others.
2. Two union documents signed by Byzantine Christians.
At swordpoint, blessed by the Vatican.
At swordpoint? You mean that they would have been decapitated on the spot if they did not agree to the union? I did not know that this was done at the point of a sword? How many swords were there in all?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #79 on: July 17, 2010, 06:23:07 PM »

Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?

shhhh! You are not supposed to ask such questions.
Why not. It is a fair question, as is also the question of how did those western rite Orthodox Churches come into existence.

From Western Christians shifting the Orthodox wheat from the heretic chaff of the West.

Quote
It is not a bad idea to discuss all of these issues fairly and openly?
No, it's a good idea. Can ya'll?
Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?
1. So you think that the massacre of Latins in Constantinople was ok?
No. Your point? The initial aggression would be the Crusades.

Quote
Wow. Well, it's like I have always said, EOs believe that bloodshed committed by EOs is of a higher quality than the bloodshed of others.
2. Two union documents signed by Byzantine Christians.
At swordpoint, blessed by the Vatican.
At swordpoint? You mean that they would have been decapitated on the spot if they did not agree to the union? I did not know that this was done at the point of a sword? How many swords were there in all?
Don't know: how many divisions had the king of Poland?
I suppose only one sword was needed, for instance, to decapitate St. Athansius, but I do not know for sure.  I am sure that it took the Romans a while to bring St. Ignatius from Antioch to the arena. He was thrown to the lions around 105, after leading the Church since 67. That's around 40 years. So I guess, since he wasn't fed to the lions on the spot, I guess there was no Roman persecusion of the Church.
Quote
Holy Hieromartyr Athanasius of Brest-Litovsk (1649)
"Saint Athanasius was born in the province of Minsk in 1596, the same year as the false Union of Brest-Litovsk was concluded between Rome and some Russian bishops. His father was a Lithuanian nobleman of modest means, but Athanasius acquired a breadth and depth of learning that were exceptional at that time. Besides modern and ancient languages and the writings of the holy Fathers, he was familiar with the works of Western philosophers and theologians.
  "In 1627, after spending several years as a private tutor, he became a monk at the Monastery of Khutyn near Orsha in Little Russia. This monastery was independent of the Polish occupying forces and, by tradition, deeply committed to the preservation of Orthodoxy, so that it was able to offer great encouragement to the Orthodox people in the face of Roman Catholic propaganda. Athanasius went on to follow his monastic path in other renowned monasteries, and was ordained priest. The Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Moghila, gave him the task of restoring the Monastery of Kupyatitsk. In obedience to a divine revelation, Athanasius set out for Moscow, a long and dangerous journey through territory under Polish occupation, in order to ask for financial assistance for the restoration, and to acquaint the Tsar with the fate intended for the Orthodox Church in the lands to the south-west of Russia. He was successful in his quest and with the help of the Mother of God, the restoration works were begun. Two years later, Athanasius was appointed Abbot of the Monastery of St Symeon the Stylite in Brest-Litovsk. From then on, he was to be a resolute and tireless fighter against Roman proselytism, clothed in Orthodox rites and customs known as the Unia. For the next eight years, by prayer, preaching and through his writings, the Saint devoted all his strength to refuting the false Union, and to bringing back to the holy sheep-fold of Christ those who had strayed.
  "The population of the occupied territories was brutally treated by the Polish soldiers and colonists, nor did the Jesuit missionaries, for their part, abstain from any measure that might serve to lead the peoples of Little Russia to accept their faith. In this situation, Saint Athanasius decided to petition the King of Poland, Vladislav IV, that the Orthodox be treated with more humanity. The King was moved by his request and issued a decree forbidding the abuses that had occurred, but his officials ignored it. The condition of the Orthodox in Warsaw was particularly bad. It was not unknown for the Poles and Uniates to set fire to Orthodox churches on feast days when they were full of the faithful, just as had happened in the time of the great Persecutions.
  "Athanasius kept up the fight, aided and comforted by none but the Mother of God, and in 1643, following a new revelation, he again appealed for redress on behalf of the Orthodox to the Polish Council of State. He received a favourable hearing and the Orthodox were granted some legal protection. But certain Orthodox men of rank, fearing for their privileges, claimed that the Saint was mad and succeeded in having him deprived of his abbacy, deposed from the priesthood and sent to Kiev to answer before a church court.
  "The humble Athanasius was completely exonerated and restored to his position, but he did not have peace for long, since persecution of the Orthodox soon began again. He drew up a petition intended for the King of Poland, but was arrested and thrown into prison before he was able to complete it. He was released after three years' detention but, in 1648, a persecution broke out that was more terrible than ever before. So bloody was it that the people of Little Russia rose up and demanded the departure of the Polish-Lithuanian army and the restoration of Russian territory to the Tsar. The Polish authorities immediately arrested the rebel leaders and prominent Orthodox dignitaries. Saint Athanasius was imprisoned, and endured physical and mental torments of all kinds at the hands of his gaolers and of the Roman Catholic authorities, but he never ceased to cry, 'Anathema to the Union!' After being tortured with red-hot coals, he was flayed and burnt alive. As he was still not dead, his executioners shot him.
  "They threw his decapitated corpse into a pit, where it was found some time later incorrupt. In the years that followed, the relics of the holy Martyr worked many miracles." (Synaxarion)
http://www.abbamoses.com/months/september.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #80 on: July 17, 2010, 06:48:24 PM »

Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?

shhhh! You are not supposed to ask such questions.
Why not. It is a fair question, as is also the question of how did those western rite Orthodox Churches come into existence.

From Western Christians shifting the Orthodox wheat from the heretic chaff of the West.

Quote
It is not a bad idea to discuss all of these issues fairly and openly?
No, it's a good idea. Can ya'll?
Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?
1. So you think that the massacre of Latins in Constantinople was ok?
No. Your point? The initial aggression would be the Crusades.

Quote
Wow. Well, it's like I have always said, EOs believe that bloodshed committed by EOs is of a higher quality than the bloodshed of others.
2. Two union documents signed by Byzantine Christians.
At swordpoint, blessed by the Vatican.
At swordpoint? You mean that they would have been decapitated on the spot if they did not agree to the union? I did not know that this was done at the point of a sword? How many swords were there in all?
Don't know: how many divisions had the king of Poland?
I suppose only one sword was needed, for instance, to decapitate St. Athansius, but I do not know for sure.  I am sure that it took the Romans a while to bring St. Ignatius from Antioch to the arena. He was thrown to the lions around 105, after leading the Church since 67. That's around 40 years. So I guess, since he wasn't fed to the lions on the spot, I guess there was no Roman persecusion of the Church.
Quote
Holy Hieromartyr Athanasius of Brest-Litovsk (1649)
"Saint Athanasius was born in the province of Minsk in 1596, the same year as the false Union of Brest-Litovsk was concluded between Rome and some Russian bishops. His father was a Lithuanian nobleman of modest means, but Athanasius acquired a breadth and depth of learning that were exceptional at that time. Besides modern and ancient languages and the writings of the holy Fathers, he was familiar with the works of Western philosophers and theologians.
  "In 1627, after spending several years as a private tutor, he became a monk at the Monastery of Khutyn near Orsha in Little Russia. This monastery was independent of the Polish occupying forces and, by tradition, deeply committed to the preservation of Orthodoxy, so that it was able to offer great encouragement to the Orthodox people in the face of Roman Catholic propaganda. Athanasius went on to follow his monastic path in other renowned monasteries, and was ordained priest. The Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Moghila, gave him the task of restoring the Monastery of Kupyatitsk. In obedience to a divine revelation, Athanasius set out for Moscow, a long and dangerous journey through territory under Polish occupation, in order to ask for financial assistance for the restoration, and to acquaint the Tsar with the fate intended for the Orthodox Church in the lands to the south-west of Russia. He was successful in his quest and with the help of the Mother of God, the restoration works were begun. Two years later, Athanasius was appointed Abbot of the Monastery of St Symeon the Stylite in Brest-Litovsk. From then on, he was to be a resolute and tireless fighter against Roman proselytism, clothed in Orthodox rites and customs known as the Unia. For the next eight years, by prayer, preaching and through his writings, the Saint devoted all his strength to refuting the false Union, and to bringing back to the holy sheep-fold of Christ those who had strayed.
  "The population of the occupied territories was brutally treated by the Polish soldiers and colonists, nor did the Jesuit missionaries, for their part, abstain from any measure that might serve to lead the peoples of Little Russia to accept their faith. In this situation, Saint Athanasius decided to petition the King of Poland, Vladislav IV, that the Orthodox be treated with more humanity. The King was moved by his request and issued a decree forbidding the abuses that had occurred, but his officials ignored it. The condition of the Orthodox in Warsaw was particularly bad. It was not unknown for the Poles and Uniates to set fire to Orthodox churches on feast days when they were full of the faithful, just as had happened in the time of the great Persecutions.
  "Athanasius kept up the fight, aided and comforted by none but the Mother of God, and in 1643, following a new revelation, he again appealed for redress on behalf of the Orthodox to the Polish Council of State. He received a favourable hearing and the Orthodox were granted some legal protection. But certain Orthodox men of rank, fearing for their privileges, claimed that the Saint was mad and succeeded in having him deprived of his abbacy, deposed from the priesthood and sent to Kiev to answer before a church court.
  "The humble Athanasius was completely exonerated and restored to his position, but he did not have peace for long, since persecution of the Orthodox soon began again. He drew up a petition intended for the King of Poland, but was arrested and thrown into prison before he was able to complete it. He was released after three years' detention but, in 1648, a persecution broke out that was more terrible than ever before. So bloody was it that the people of Little Russia rose up and demanded the departure of the Polish-Lithuanian army and the restoration of Russian territory to the Tsar. The Polish authorities immediately arrested the rebel leaders and prominent Orthodox dignitaries. Saint Athanasius was imprisoned, and endured physical and mental torments of all kinds at the hands of his gaolers and of the Roman Catholic authorities, but he never ceased to cry, 'Anathema to the Union!' After being tortured with red-hot coals, he was flayed and burnt alive. As he was still not dead, his executioners shot him.
  "They threw his decapitated corpse into a pit, where it was found some time later incorrupt. In the years that followed, the relics of the holy Martyr worked many miracles." (Synaxarion)
http://www.abbamoses.com/months/september.html
But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #81 on: July 17, 2010, 06:57:20 PM »

Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?

shhhh! You are not supposed to ask such questions.
Why not. It is a fair question, as is also the question of how did those western rite Orthodox Churches come into existence.

From Western Christians shifting the Orthodox wheat from the heretic chaff of the West.

Quote
It is not a bad idea to discuss all of these issues fairly and openly?
No, it's a good idea. Can ya'll?
Well, there is the masscre of the Latins in Constantinople. Also, you could return the Eastern Catholic Churches that were taken from us during communist rule in Eastern Europe. That might be a start.

What initial aggression brought all of those Latins to Constantinople?

How did those "Eastern Catholic Churches" come into existence?
1. So you think that the massacre of Latins in Constantinople was ok?
No. Your point? The initial aggression would be the Crusades.

Quote
Wow. Well, it's like I have always said, EOs believe that bloodshed committed by EOs is of a higher quality than the bloodshed of others.
2. Two union documents signed by Byzantine Christians.
At swordpoint, blessed by the Vatican.
At swordpoint? You mean that they would have been decapitated on the spot if they did not agree to the union? I did not know that this was done at the point of a sword? How many swords were there in all?
Don't know: how many divisions had the king of Poland?
I suppose only one sword was needed, for instance, to decapitate St. Athansius, but I do not know for sure.  I am sure that it took the Romans a while to bring St. Ignatius from Antioch to the arena. He was thrown to the lions around 105, after leading the Church since 67. That's around 40 years. So I guess, since he wasn't fed to the lions on the spot, I guess there was no Roman persecusion of the Church.
Quote
Holy Hieromartyr Athanasius of Brest-Litovsk (1649)
"Saint Athanasius was born in the province of Minsk in 1596, the same year as the false Union of Brest-Litovsk was concluded between Rome and some Russian bishops. His father was a Lithuanian nobleman of modest means, but Athanasius acquired a breadth and depth of learning that were exceptional at that time. Besides modern and ancient languages and the writings of the holy Fathers, he was familiar with the works of Western philosophers and theologians.
  "In 1627, after spending several years as a private tutor, he became a monk at the Monastery of Khutyn near Orsha in Little Russia. This monastery was independent of the Polish occupying forces and, by tradition, deeply committed to the preservation of Orthodoxy, so that it was able to offer great encouragement to the Orthodox people in the face of Roman Catholic propaganda. Athanasius went on to follow his monastic path in other renowned monasteries, and was ordained priest. The Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Moghila, gave him the task of restoring the Monastery of Kupyatitsk. In obedience to a divine revelation, Athanasius set out for Moscow, a long and dangerous journey through territory under Polish occupation, in order to ask for financial assistance for the restoration, and to acquaint the Tsar with the fate intended for the Orthodox Church in the lands to the south-west of Russia. He was successful in his quest and with the help of the Mother of God, the restoration works were begun. Two years later, Athanasius was appointed Abbot of the Monastery of St Symeon the Stylite in Brest-Litovsk. From then on, he was to be a resolute and tireless fighter against Roman proselytism, clothed in Orthodox rites and customs known as the Unia. For the next eight years, by prayer, preaching and through his writings, the Saint devoted all his strength to refuting the false Union, and to bringing back to the holy sheep-fold of Christ those who had strayed.
  "The population of the occupied territories was brutally treated by the Polish soldiers and colonists, nor did the Jesuit missionaries, for their part, abstain from any measure that might serve to lead the peoples of Little Russia to accept their faith. In this situation, Saint Athanasius decided to petition the King of Poland, Vladislav IV, that the Orthodox be treated with more humanity. The King was moved by his request and issued a decree forbidding the abuses that had occurred, but his officials ignored it. The condition of the Orthodox in Warsaw was particularly bad. It was not unknown for the Poles and Uniates to set fire to Orthodox churches on feast days when they were full of the faithful, just as had happened in the time of the great Persecutions.
  "Athanasius kept up the fight, aided and comforted by none but the Mother of God, and in 1643, following a new revelation, he again appealed for redress on behalf of the Orthodox to the Polish Council of State. He received a favourable hearing and the Orthodox were granted some legal protection. But certain Orthodox men of rank, fearing for their privileges, claimed that the Saint was mad and succeeded in having him deprived of his abbacy, deposed from the priesthood and sent to Kiev to answer before a church court.
  "The humble Athanasius was completely exonerated and restored to his position, but he did not have peace for long, since persecution of the Orthodox soon began again. He drew up a petition intended for the King of Poland, but was arrested and thrown into prison before he was able to complete it. He was released after three years' detention but, in 1648, a persecution broke out that was more terrible than ever before. So bloody was it that the people of Little Russia rose up and demanded the departure of the Polish-Lithuanian army and the restoration of Russian territory to the Tsar. The Polish authorities immediately arrested the rebel leaders and prominent Orthodox dignitaries. Saint Athanasius was imprisoned, and endured physical and mental torments of all kinds at the hands of his gaolers and of the Roman Catholic authorities, but he never ceased to cry, 'Anathema to the Union!' After being tortured with red-hot coals, he was flayed and burnt alive. As he was still not dead, his executioners shot him.
  "They threw his decapitated corpse into a pit, where it was found some time later incorrupt. In the years that followed, the relics of the holy Martyr worked many miracles." (Synaxarion)
http://www.abbamoses.com/months/september.html
But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Yes.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #82 on: July 17, 2010, 07:40:17 PM »

But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Yes.
There are historians who don't agree with you. In this article, for example, it is stated flatly that:
" The union was not forced on the Ukrainian people, but was initiated freely and deliberately by the Ukrainian hierarchy."

http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/osbm.3.Pekar.92.3.An.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #83 on: July 17, 2010, 07:55:59 PM »

But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Yes.
There are historians who don't agree with you.

Hitler and Stalin had their historians too, who wrote all sorts of interesting things.

Dimitry Pospielovsky, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario.  He is the author of The Russian Church Under The Soviet Regime, 1917-1982v (SVS Press, 1984) and is one of the foremost authorities on Russian Church History:
Quote
The laity, the parish clergy, and particularly the brotherhoods refused to accept the union with Rome. The protest movement developed and spread quickly, joined at first by a single bishop, Gideon (Bolodan) of Lvov. The Polish King gave in to these pressures and authorized the convening of a local council of those bishops, clergy and laity of the Roman and Greek Church who accepted the papacy --i.e. those who did not accept the Unia were not invited.

The Council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox Churches in the city, the now Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev sealed all Orthodox Churches on the day before the Council was to begin, except for the cathedral where the Council was to take place. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school for a separate Orthodox Council. The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes. But the Polish King decided otherwise: his edict of October 15, LEGALIZED ONLY THOSE BYZANTINE RITE CHRISTIANS WHO JOINED THE UNIA; IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL ITS CLERGY EXCOMMUNICATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.... Everywhere in the commonwealth the Orthodox lost the right not only to build but to  repair churches; Pope Urban VIII proclaimed that any Roman Catholic who dared to oppose the use of the sword against the Orthodox would be excommunicated.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2cP0wc_E6yEC&pg=PA97&dq=Pospielovsky+Orthodox+russia+Urban+VII&hl=en&ei=EUFCTKbeD8L68AbL4JgI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Orthodox Church in the history of Russia By Dimitry Pospielovsky, pp. 89-99.

Quote
In this article, for example, it is stated flatly that:
" The union was not forced on the Ukrainian people, but was initiated freely and deliberately by the Ukrainian hierarchy."
http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/osbm.3.Pekar.92.3.An.htm
That it speaks of a "Ukrainian" hierachy in the 16th century should have tipped you off.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 07:57:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #84 on: July 17, 2010, 11:20:00 PM »

But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Yes.
There are historians who don't agree with you.

Hitler and Stalin had their historians too, who wrote all sorts of interesting things.
I doubt that this writer was allied with Stalin, since Stalin would have backed the Russian Orthodox point of view, wouldn't he. So that leaves only Adolf Hitler. I don;t see the supporting evidence that this author was allied to Adolf Hitler. BTW, I think it is a bit unfair to bring up Hitler and Stalin in the discussion about the union of Brest.
http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/osbm.3.Pekar.92.3.An.htm
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 11:21:12 PM by stanley123 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #85 on: July 17, 2010, 11:27:24 PM »

But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Yes.
There are historians who don't agree with you.

Hitler and Stalin had their historians too, who wrote all sorts of interesting things.
Another example of Godwin's Law coming into play here? Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #86 on: July 17, 2010, 11:36:01 PM »

But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Yes.
There are historians who don't agree with you.

Hitler and Stalin had their historians too, who wrote all sorts of interesting things.
I doubt that this writer was allied with Stalin, since Stalin would have backed the Russian Orthodox point of view, wouldn't he. So that leaves only Adolf Hitler. I don;t see the supporting evidence that this author was allied to Adolf Hitler. BTW, I think it is a bit unfair to bring up Hitler and Stalin in the discussion about the union of Brest.
http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/osbm.3.Pekar.92.3.An.htm
There historians in the service of history, and historians in the service of propaganda.  Falling in the second category your "source" has in common with the historians writing from the perspective of the triumph of the Herrenvolk and those writing from the culmination of scientific materialism.

Btw, since Stalin abandoned Orthodoxy for a plague from the West, what makes you so sure he would have backed the Russian Orthodox point of view?

And why is it unfair to bring them up?  The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact: now that was "initiated freely and deliberately."
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 11:39:46 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #87 on: July 17, 2010, 11:50:35 PM »

But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Yes.
There are historians who don't agree with you.

Hitler and Stalin had their historians too, who wrote all sorts of interesting things.
I doubt that this writer was allied with Stalin, since Stalin would have backed the Russian Orthodox point of view, wouldn't he. So that leaves only Adolf Hitler. I don;t see the supporting evidence that this author was allied to Adolf Hitler. BTW, I think it is a bit unfair to bring up Hitler and Stalin in the discussion about the union of Brest.
http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/osbm.3.Pekar.92.3.An.htm
Btw, since Stalin abandoned Orthodoxy for a plague from the West, what makes you so sure he would have backed the Russian Orthodox point of view?
It is just a guess on my part, since it seems natural that Stalin would have backed the Russian Orthodox Church in this. During the Communist takeover, many of the Eastern Catholic Churches were converted to Orthodox Churches in the Ukraine, weren't they? So, no, I don't believe that this author, who supports the Greek Catholic Churches,  was allied in any way with Stalin. And I don't see any supporting evidence to the contrary. So it is unfair to bring up Stalin in this discussion.

http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/osbm.3.Pekar.92.3.An.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #88 on: July 18, 2010, 12:16:04 AM »

But were the union documents signed at swordpoint with the blessing of the Vatican?
Yes.
There are historians who don't agree with you.

Hitler and Stalin had their historians too, who wrote all sorts of interesting things.
I doubt that this writer was allied with Stalin, since Stalin would have backed the Russian Orthodox point of view, wouldn't he. So that leaves only Adolf Hitler. I don;t see the supporting evidence that this author was allied to Adolf Hitler. BTW, I think it is a bit unfair to bring up Hitler and Stalin in the discussion about the union of Brest.
http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/osbm.3.Pekar.92.3.An.htm
Btw, since Stalin abandoned Orthodoxy for a plague from the West, what makes you so sure he would have backed the Russian Orthodox point of view?
It is just a guess on my part, since it seems natural that Stalin would have backed the Russian Orthodox Church in this. During the Communist takeover, many of the Eastern Catholic Churches were converted to Orthodox Churches in the Ukraine, weren't they? So, no, I don't believe that this author, who supports the Greek Catholic Churches,  was allied in any way with Stalin. And I don't see any supporting evidence to the contrary. So it is unfair to bring up Stalin in this discussion.

http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/osbm.3.Pekar.92.3.An.htm

The reason why Stalin came up is because your link reads like one of the propoganda pieces Stalin's "historians" put out.  Just different propoganda.  I neither said nor insuniated your author was allied to Stalin.  But just because he wasn't with him, doesn't mean he is not like him, at least when it comes to squeezing square pegs into round holes for propoganda purposes.

Stalin couldn't care less, I'm sure, about the Russian Orthodox views and concerns of the 16th century.  Stalin's concern was the dialectic going from freudalism to the bourgeoisie.  Hearding those he controled in the 20th century was a whole different matter to him.

Many, many (like St. Alexei Kabalyuk) in what would become (by Stalin) Western Ukraine worked for the return to Mother Orthodoxy from before Stalin was born or the Bolsheviks thought of.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #89 on: July 18, 2010, 10:33:18 AM »

Another example of Godwin's Law coming into play here? Wink

LOL ... I was thinking that too, Peter!

As a Catholic, I'm annoyed when non-Catholics accuse the RC of compliance with Hitler.  I can only assume the Orthodox feel the same way when accused of compliance with Stalin.

Undoubtedly there were individual Catholics who, to their eternal shame, worked for the Nazi regime; and undoubtedly there were individual Orthodox who worked for the advance of Communism.

But there were plenty of heroes, victims, and saints in each church (Maximilan Kolbe, and Elizabeth the New Martyr, for example) as well.  Maybe we should focus on them sometimes too.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 10:36:41 AM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Tags: Taft Godwin's Law 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.313 seconds with 72 queries.