OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 08:09:11 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Irish hermit on unions  (Read 4328 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« on: July 08, 2011, 03:35:58 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you've said or at least implied that something like the Union of Brest won't happen again. I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you explain why you believe that?

Thanks in advance.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2011, 08:00:49 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you've said or at least implied that something like the Union of Brest won't happen again. I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you explain why you believe that?

Thanks in advance.

I have not mentioned the Union of Brest for months and months.  What do you have in mind?

It is actually not me but Mary who has appended to several of her last posts -"No Unia!"  Maybe you are confusing me with her.

Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2011, 08:30:33 PM »

I have not mentioned the Union of Brest for months and months.  What do you have in mind?

Well, you may not have used the phrase "Union of Brest", but you did say:

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Doesn't that imply that there won't be a union even remotely similar to Brest?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 08:32:28 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2011, 08:40:33 PM »

I have not mentioned the Union of Brest for months and months.  What do you have in mind?

Well, you may not have used the phrase "Union of Brest", but you did say:

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Doesn't that imply that there won't be a union even remotely similar to Brest?


Yes, but I would like to hear what Mary has to say.  Her war cry of "No Unia!" implies that she has some strong thoughts about what is not acceptable any longer.  There is a new strategy afoot.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2011, 09:02:54 PM »

Quote
Maybe you are confusing me with her.

Oooooh, that's a worry!  Shocked laugh laugh
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2011, 09:23:33 PM »

I have not mentioned the Union of Brest for months and months.  What do you have in mind?

Well, you may not have used the phrase "Union of Brest", but you did say:

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Doesn't that imply that there won't be a union even remotely similar to Brest?


Yes, but I would like to hear what Mary has to say. 

I asked you first.  Grin

But seriously, I agree with you that any future union(s) will differ from the Union of Brest in at least a couple respects -- I'm thinking specifically of the pressure that was used to bring about the union, and also the fact that there was very little respect for those Orthodox who "stayed behind" as it were. But it seems to me that you're going a lot further, and assuming that there won't be any unions even remotely similar to Brest.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2011, 10:03:28 PM »

I have not mentioned the Union of Brest for months and months.  What do you have in mind?

Well, you may not have used the phrase "Union of Brest", but you did say:

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Doesn't that imply that there won't be a union even remotely similar to Brest?


Yes, but I would like to hear what Mary has to say.

I asked you first.  Grin

But seriously, I agree with you that any future union(s) will differ from the Union of Brest in at least a couple respects -- I'm thinking specifically of the pressure that was used to bring about the union, and also the fact that there was very little respect for those Orthodox who "stayed behind" as it were. But it seems to me that you're going a lot further, and assuming that there won't be any unions even remotely similar to Brest.

The true union for which we pray will be based upon the orthodox faith in its entirety, and on the canons of the Church as regards the structure of the Church.  The interpretation and application of this will naturally be the prerogative of the Church, with due respect for the other Church and acting with charity and tolerance and with understanding for their perplexities after such a long time of separation.

In the plethora of discussions people can loose sight of these basic principles.  They may even believe, quite wrongly, that the Orthodox are dialoguing with an openness to achieve a negotiated faith.   That would be a mistaken impression.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 10:04:19 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2011, 11:15:06 PM »

I have not mentioned the Union of Brest for months and months.  What do you have in mind?

Well, you may not have used the phrase "Union of Brest", but you did say:

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Doesn't that imply that there won't be a union even remotely similar to Brest?


Yes, but I would like to hear what Mary has to say.

I asked you first.  Grin

But seriously, I agree with you that any future union(s) will differ from the Union of Brest in at least a couple respects -- I'm thinking specifically of the pressure that was used to bring about the union, and also the fact that there was very little respect for those Orthodox who "stayed behind" as it were. But it seems to me that you're going a lot further, and assuming that there won't be any unions even remotely similar to Brest.

The true union for which we pray will be based upon the orthodox faith in its entirety, and on the canons of the Church as regards the structure of the Church.  The interpretation and application of this will naturally be the prerogative of the Church, with due respect for the other Church and acting with charity and tolerance and with understanding for their perplexities after such a long time of separation.

In the plethora of discussions people can loose sight of these basic principles.  They may even believe, quite wrongly, that the Orthodox are dialoguing with an openness to achieve a negotiated faith.   That would be a mistaken impression.

I can certainly relate to what your saying, as far as the kind of union that you hope and pray for. (The kind of union that we Catholics hope and pray for would sound much the same, excepting that the roles of Orthodoxy and Catholicism would be reversed.)

However, I think we're talking past each other a bit. Of course I don't expect you to want another Union of Brest. I doubt any Orthodox want that. But not wanting it isn't the same as thinking it won't happen.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2011, 12:26:57 AM »

If the RCC does at some point in the future accept Union with Orthodoxy on their terms, will we Catholics have to give up all our dogma's, traditions, and devotions which were acquired after the Schism?  Will we, for instance have to give up the dogma's of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, as well as the post Schism ecumenical councils?  What about the Marian appartions at Fatima and Lourdes? Also what of  Purgatory, pardons, statues, indulgences, etc..?

How much change exactly will the RCC have to undergo in order to be considered acceptable for reunion with Orthodoxy?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2011, 01:19:56 AM »

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about labor unions.   Cheesy
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2011, 01:30:20 AM »

If the RCC does at some point in the future accept Union with Orthodoxy on their terms, will we Catholics have to give up all our dogma's, traditions, and devotions which were acquired after the Schism?  Will we, for instance have to give up the dogma's of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, as well as the post Schism ecumenical councils?  What about the Marian appartions at Fatima and Lourdes? Also what of  Purgatory, pardons, statues, indulgences, etc..?

How much change exactly will the RCC have to undergo in order to be considered acceptable for reunion with Orthodoxy?

Some Catholics, such as the Eastern Catholic Churches, already exist without

the Immacuate Conception
(but could be reworked to be acceptable?)
post-schism Western Councils
(acceptable in parts, but not such items as papal infallibility)
Purgatory
Indulgences

Statues are in.

The Marian apparitions?  I don't know.  All devotion to the Mother of God is good, but in some cases doctrine is linked with the apparition.  Some aspects of doctrine linked with the apparition may need to be shed.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2011, 06:40:46 AM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Then at other times in history, other Orthodox churches have come into communion with the Catholic Church.

But never has there been a mass switch the other way. Sure, Western Rite Orthodoxy exists, but most of those left the Catholic Church years ago. And at Florence and Lyons the Latin Church was pretty much acknowledged to be in the right.

Also stupid me, I thought this was going to be a thread about some random monk from Ireland talking about union.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 06:41:16 AM by WetCatechumen » Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2011, 07:07:59 AM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 07:22:07 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2011, 07:20:44 AM »


But never has there been a mass switch the other way.

Well, there have been returns to Orthodoxy..... there are feastdays in the Church Calendar such as "Commemoration of the return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy."

Also in American history we find that in the 1890s the Catholic priest Alexis Toth left Catholicism and he brought into holy Orthodoxy around 30,000 Eastern Catholics and of course their clergy. 

And when the Pope promulgated "Ea Semper" in 1907 a further 80,000 Catholics in the States abandoned the Catholic Church and came into Orthodoxy.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2011, 07:58:44 AM »


But never has there been a mass switch the other way.

Well, there have been returns to Orthodoxy..... there are feastdays in the Church Calendar such as "Commemoration of the return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy."

Also in American history we find that in the 1890s the Catholic priest Alexis Toth left Catholicism and he brought into holy Orthodoxy around 30,000 Eastern Catholics and of course their clergy. 

And when the Pope promulgated "Ea Semper" in 1907 a further 80,000 Catholics in the States abandoned the Catholic Church and came into Orthodoxy.


By 1916 the Catholic Church in America had lost 163 parishes to Orthodoxy.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,073


"My god is greater."


« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2011, 08:51:28 AM »


But never has there been a mass switch the other way.

http://acrod.org/
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 08:51:51 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2011, 08:57:20 AM »


But never has there been a mass switch the other way.

Well, there have been returns to Orthodoxy..... there are feastdays in the Church Calendar such as "Commemoration of the return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy."

Also in American history we find that in the 1890s the Catholic priest Alexis Toth left Catholicism and he brought into holy Orthodoxy around 30,000 Eastern Catholics and of course their clergy. 

And when the Pope promulgated "Ea Semper" in 1907 a further 80,000 Catholics in the States abandoned the Catholic Church and came into Orthodoxy.

I was aware of the smaller "unions" you mentioned, but the "return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy" is news to me. I can't be absolutely certain of this, but from what I can find online it sounds like political power (Tsar Nicholas the First) was a key element in their "decision" to convert (as with the Union of Brest).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2011, 09:02:46 AM »


But never has there been a mass switch the other way.

Well, there have been returns to Orthodoxy..... there are feastdays in the Church Calendar such as "Commemoration of the return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy."

Also in American history we find that in the 1890s the Catholic priest Alexis Toth left Catholicism and he brought into holy Orthodoxy around 30,000 Eastern Catholics and of course their clergy. 

And when the Pope promulgated "Ea Semper" in 1907 a further 80,000 Catholics in the States abandoned the Catholic Church and came into Orthodoxy.

I was aware of the smaller "unions" you mentioned, but the "return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy" is news to me. I can't be absolutely certain of this, but from what I can find online it sounds like political power (Tsar Nicholas the First) was a key element in their "decision" to convert (as with the Union of Brest).

But of course!  Before America was invented these things were usually done at the instigation of the political power.  The notion of separation of Church and State is foreign to Orthodoxy and has only recently been grudgingly accepted in Rome.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2011, 09:19:31 AM »


But never has there been a mass switch the other way.

Well, there have been returns to Orthodoxy..... there are feastdays in the Church Calendar such as "Commemoration of the return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy."

Also in American history we find that in the 1890s the Catholic priest Alexis Toth left Catholicism and he brought into holy Orthodoxy around 30,000 Eastern Catholics and of course their clergy. 

And when the Pope promulgated "Ea Semper" in 1907 a further 80,000 Catholics in the States abandoned the Catholic Church and came into Orthodoxy.

I was aware of the smaller "unions" you mentioned, but the "return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy" is news to me. I can't be absolutely certain of this, but from what I can find online it sounds like political power (Tsar Nicholas the First) was a key element in their "decision" to convert (as with the Union of Brest).

But of course!  Before America was invented these things were usually done at the instigation of the political power.  The notion of separation of Church and State is foreign to Orthodoxy and has only recently been grudgingly accepted in Rome.

Alright, but doesn't that weaken or even undermine your criticisms of the Union of Brest?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2011, 10:00:50 AM »


But never has there been a mass switch the other way.

Well, there have been returns to Orthodoxy..... there are feastdays in the Church Calendar such as "Commemoration of the return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy."

Also in American history we find that in the 1890s the Catholic priest Alexis Toth left Catholicism and he brought into holy Orthodoxy around 30,000 Eastern Catholics and of course their clergy. 

And when the Pope promulgated "Ea Semper" in 1907 a further 80,000 Catholics in the States abandoned the Catholic Church and came into Orthodoxy.

I was aware of the smaller "unions" you mentioned, but the "return of 3 Million Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy" is news to me. I can't be absolutely certain of this, but from what I can find online it sounds like political power (Tsar Nicholas the First) was a key element in their "decision" to convert (as with the Union of Brest).

But of course!  Before America was invented these things were usually done at the instigation of the political power.  The notion of separation of Church and State is foreign to Orthodoxy and has only recently been grudgingly accepted in Rome.

Alright, but doesn't that weaken or even undermine your criticisms of the Union of Brest?

As I understand it the creation of the Churches in a Unia with Rome was an assault upon the integrity of the Orthodox Church, it was the Pope and various Catholic governments making war on us with the hope of our eventual complete subjugation to the Roman Church.  By contrast, the Russian Tsar was reclaiming those who had once been Orthodox.



ol
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2011, 01:52:16 PM »

Quote
Maybe you are confusing me with her.

Oooooh, that's a worry!  Shocked laugh laugh

 Tongue Kiss Tongue
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2011, 01:57:06 PM »

I have not mentioned the Union of Brest for months and months.  What do you have in mind?

Well, you may not have used the phrase "Union of Brest", but you did say:

You must be aware though of the fact that after union the Archbishop of Rome will no longer be superior to Ecumenical Councils but subject to them.  Nor will he be superior to the other bishops but one of their equals.

Doesn't that imply that there won't be a union even remotely similar to Brest?


Yes, but I would like to hear what Mary has to say.

I asked you first.  Grin

But seriously, I agree with you that any future union(s) will differ from the Union of Brest in at least a couple respects -- I'm thinking specifically of the pressure that was used to bring about the union, and also the fact that there was very little respect for those Orthodox who "stayed behind" as it were. But it seems to me that you're going a lot further, and assuming that there won't be any unions even remotely similar to Brest.

The true union for which we pray will be based upon the orthodox faith in its entirety, and on the canons of the Church as regards the structure of the Church.  The interpretation and application of this will naturally be the prerogative of the Church, with due respect for the other Church and acting with charity and tolerance and with understanding for their perplexities after such a long time of separation.

In the plethora of discussions people can loose sight of these basic principles.  They may even believe, quite wrongly, that the Orthodox are dialoguing with an openness to achieve a negotiated faith.   That would be a mistaken impression.

Okee-Pokee!! 

You are so far behind the curve!!...There's not to be a "negotiated faith" at all.  Papists could not countenance such a thing!!

Nononono...

HOWEVER there may be such a thing as navigating the murky waters of understanding. 

Now THAT might bear a very good fruit.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2011, 01:59:58 PM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence


Which reminds me of those good lay Orthodox... you were braggin on yesterday... in OZ carrying stones to stone their bishop...right or wrong!!...

Yea...some solid foundations for the faith there...youbetcha!!
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 02:00:44 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2011, 02:05:16 PM »

You are so far behind the curve!!...There's not to be a "negotiated faith" at all.  Papists could not countenance such a thing!!

On this forum "Papist" is just one person's username.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2011, 02:06:30 PM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence


Which reminds me of those good lay Orthodox... you were braggin on yesterday... in OZ carrying stones to stone their bishop...right or wrong!!...

Yea...some solid foundations for the faith there...youbetcha!!
Where'd you read this? Huh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2011, 02:12:29 PM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence


Which reminds me of those good lay Orthodox... you were braggin on yesterday... in OZ carrying stones to stone their bishop...right or wrong!!...

Yea...some solid foundations for the faith there...youbetcha!!
Where'd you read this? Huh

Father Ambrose mentioned it as a display of the strong points of Orthodox laity and their defense of the faith...even when wrong...

I said it sounded just like the aftermath of the Council of Florence.

He just wrote about it yesterday...Maybe even in this thread.

Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2011, 02:27:11 PM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence


Which reminds me of those good lay Orthodox... you were braggin on yesterday... in OZ carrying stones to stone their bishop...right or wrong!!...

Yea...some solid foundations for the faith there...youbetcha!!
Where'd you read this? Huh

Father Ambrose mentioned it as a display of the strong points of Orthodox laity and their defense of the faith...even when wrong...

I said it sounded just like the aftermath of the Council of Florence.

He just wrote about it yesterday...Maybe even in this thread.
Could you post a link to where he says this? I'm interested to see it.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2011, 02:31:37 PM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence


Which reminds me of those good lay Orthodox... you were braggin on yesterday... in OZ carrying stones to stone their bishop...right or wrong!!...

Yea...some solid foundations for the faith there...youbetcha!!
Where'd you read this? Huh

Father Ambrose mentioned it as a display of the strong points of Orthodox laity and their defense of the faith...even when wrong...

I said it sounded just like the aftermath of the Council of Florence.

He just wrote about it yesterday...Maybe even in this thread.
Could you post a link to where he says this? I'm interested to see it.

   
Re: Something rotten in the state of ecumenism?
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2011, 10:27:26 PM »
   
Quote from: Peter J on July 07, 2011, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: Irish Hermit on July 07, 2011, 10:04:55 PM
Mary,  I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't.  You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility.  You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it.  It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican,  you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral!   You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2011, 02:39:26 PM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence


Which reminds me of those good lay Orthodox... you were braggin on yesterday... in OZ carrying stones to stone their bishop...right or wrong!!...

Yea...some solid foundations for the faith there...youbetcha!!
Where'd you read this? Huh

Father Ambrose mentioned it as a display of the strong points of Orthodox laity and their defense of the faith...even when wrong...

I said it sounded just like the aftermath of the Council of Florence.

He just wrote about it yesterday...Maybe even in this thread.
Could you post a link to where he says this? I'm interested to see it.

   
Re: Something rotten in the state of ecumenism?
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2011, 10:27:26 PM »
   
Quote from: Peter J on July 07, 2011, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: Irish Hermit on July 07, 2011, 10:04:55 PM
Mary,  I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't.  You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility.  You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it.  It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican,  you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral!   You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!

The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2011, 02:46:24 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.  As an outsider I tend to compare it with Father Ambrose's ordinary position that the Orthodox are exceptionally peaceful and peace-loving people when compared to the blood-thirsty papes.

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 02:47:38 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2011, 03:19:37 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.
As are you (which, it appears, you already have)... Wink

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.
Do you have any idea what a gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit really looks like? I can't say that I do.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 03:21:36 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2011, 03:27:43 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.
As are you (which, it appears, you already have)... Wink

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.
Do you have any idea what a gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit really looks like? I can't say that I do.

I can say that it does not look like vigilante gangs with cudgels and fists and pitchforks...but then you do claim a different faith for Orthodoxy.  So maybe you and Father Ambrose are right.  I would hope not though.
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2011, 03:43:51 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.
As are you (which, it appears, you already have)... Wink

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.
Do you have any idea what a gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit really looks like? I can't say that I do.

I can say that it does not look like vigilante gangs with cudgels and fists and pitchforks...but then you do claim a different faith for Orthodoxy.  So maybe you and Father Ambrose are right.  I would hope not though.
Right about what? You should know me well enough by now to know that I'm just as critical of Irish Hermit's brand of Orthodox faith as I am of your Eastern Catholic faith. So why do you associate me with him?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2011, 04:15:58 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.  As an outsider I tend to compare it with Father Ambrose's ordinary position that the Orthodox are exceptionally peaceful and peace-loving people when compared to the blood-thirsty papes.

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.

"Gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit"? Would that contrast with those same bishops held virtually captive hostages for two years at the Emperor's insistence until they relented and agreed to the pope's demands?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2011, 04:26:42 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.  As an outsider I tend to compare it with Father Ambrose's ordinary position that the Orthodox are exceptionally peaceful and peace-loving people when compared to the blood-thirsty papes.

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.

"Gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit"? Would that contrast with those same bishops held virtually captive hostages for two years at the Emperor's insistence until they relented and agreed to the pope's demands?

You'd have to document how these men were held "captive" when they could all have walked home in the space of a year with time and energy to spare.
Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2011, 04:47:38 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.  As an outsider I tend to compare it with Father Ambrose's ordinary position that the Orthodox are exceptionally peaceful and peace-loving people when compared to the blood-thirsty papes.

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.

"Gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit"? Would that contrast with those same bishops held virtually captive hostages for two years at the Emperor's insistence until they relented and agreed to the pope's demands?

You'd have to document how these men were held "captive" when they could all have walked home in the space of a year with time and energy to spare.
Sorry, my dear, but you seem to be 'shooting from the hip' on this. We've discussed this at length long ago here on OC.net.
You underestimate the emperor's desire to get an agreement hoping for military aid from the west against the Turks. The pope needed an agreement in order to show HIS bishops that his claims were accepted in the east so they in the west should accept them as well. MAYBE they could have walked home...if they had been allowed to leave.
Gennadios Scholarios documented all this at the time it was happening.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2011, 05:01:47 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.  As an outsider I tend to compare it with Father Ambrose's ordinary position that the Orthodox are exceptionally peaceful and peace-loving people when compared to the blood-thirsty papes.

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.

"Gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit"? Would that contrast with those same bishops held virtually captive hostages for two years at the Emperor's insistence until they relented and agreed to the pope's demands?

You'd have to document how these men were held "captive" when they could all have walked home in the space of a year with time and energy to spare.
Sorry, my dear, but you seem to be 'shooting from the hip' on this. We've discussed this at length long ago here on OC.net.
You underestimate the emperor's desire to get an agreement hoping for military aid from the west against the Turks. The pope needed an agreement in order to show HIS bishops that his claims were accepted in the east so they in the west should accept them as well. MAYBE they could have walked home...if they had been allowed to leave.
Gennadios Scholarios documented all this at the time it was happening.

Condescend to someone who cares...dear... Smiley

I am not shooting from the hip actually.  I am shooting from secondary sources...the same as most everyone here does or is doing.

Gennadios Scholarios is hardly an unbiased source.

So I'll keep my understanding of the situation, and it is not your's though I am aware of the politics of the time. 

Those politics do not detract from my point about the pugnacious nature of the Greeks at all.  In fact the politics enhance that part of the story.

But you must tell me when the Church...your's or mine...have existed entirely without external influence.  I suppose to be fair I can even say that you might extend that wish out to the future...maybe...some day.  I'll take that too.
Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2011, 05:45:01 PM »

Pugnacious Greeks...I like that. Of course no surprise to anyone who knows me.
After two years many of our bishops had no see to return to; the Turks had taken them. Many just stayed in the west making out as best they could (which was not well). Others, even in fear of the reaction they expected at home, returned and indeed found their actions rejected by the faithful.
Remember: no bishop = no church.  
Corollary: no flock = no church, as well.
Even the emperor knew his actions were not legitimate,  not announcing the "union" in Constantinople for years after.
Am I to assume that had certain Slavs been as 'pugnacious' as those "Greeks" your church would not exist as it does?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 05:45:59 PM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2011, 05:48:18 PM »

Pugnacious Greeks...I like that. Of course no surprise to anyone who knows me.
After two years many of our bishops had no see to return to; the Turks had taken them. Many just stayed in the west making out as best they could (which was not well). Others, even in fear of the reaction they expected at home, returned and indeed found their actions rejected by the faithful.
Remember: no bishop = no church.  
Corollary: no flock = no church, as well.
Even the emperor knew his actions were not legitimate,  not announcing the "union" in Constantinople for years after.
Am I to assume that had certain Slavs been as 'pugnacious' as those "Greeks" your church would not exist as it does?

You mean the Slav Catholics who think that when you hit the priest it has to be in his head since you cannot sully his hands?...Is that what you mean?
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2011, 06:00:07 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.  As an outsider I tend to compare it with Father Ambrose's ordinary position that the Orthodox are exceptionally peaceful and peace-loving people when compared to the blood-thirsty papes.

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.

Quote
Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved.

Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
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 #40 on: July 09, 2011, 08:38:02 PM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence


Which reminds me of those good lay Orthodox... you were braggin on yesterday... in OZ carrying stones to stone their bishop...right or wrong!!...

Yea...some solid foundations for the faith there...youbetcha!!
Where'd you read this? Huh

Father Ambrose mentioned it as a display of the strong points of Orthodox laity and their defense of the faith...even when wrong...

I said it sounded just like the aftermath of the Council of Florence.

He just wrote about it yesterday...Maybe even in this thread.



Your inability to understand what I write drives me to despair.   And what is worse, because of your lack of understanding you write snidely about me.  But this message is to say that while I do not understand why you do this, still I forgive you.   You have done it so often that you may not be culpable.  You are forgiven. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2011, 08:41:55 PM »

I find it fascinating that, twice, have the Orthodox bishops signed union with the Catholic Church, reneged on that union.

Dear WetCatechumen,

Not for the first time I have the honour to clear up this misunderstanding.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...!

The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence


Which reminds me of those good lay Orthodox... you were braggin on yesterday... in OZ carrying stones to stone their bishop...right or wrong!!...

Yea...some solid foundations for the faith there...youbetcha!!
Where'd you read this? Huh

Father Ambrose mentioned it as a display of the strong points of Orthodox laity and their defense of the faith...even when wrong...

I said it sounded just like the aftermath of the Council of Florence.

He just wrote about it yesterday...Maybe even in this thread.
Could you post a link to where he says this? I'm interested to see it.

   
Re: Something rotten in the state of ecumenism?
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2011, 10:27:26 PM »
   
Quote from: Peter J on July 07, 2011, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: Irish Hermit on July 07, 2011, 10:04:55 PM
Mary,  I wonder if your attitude stems from a belief that people such as Metropolitan Zizioulas represents the mind of the Church.

He doesn't.  You will find that Saint Justin Popovic was our best theologian of the last century and Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility.  You will find that the belief of the Church is faithfully expressed through Saint Justin and it is with him that the faithful will close ranks, not with Metropolitan Zizioulas.

Alright, since you've settled that, which represented the mind of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Celestine of Rome? Or was it St. John of Antioch?

It is not I who will settle it.  It will be the Church and I'll bet dollars to bootstraps that the Church will back Saint Justin and not the well groomed and deodorised delegates at Theological Commissions.

Seriously..... while you can pretty much count on your Catholic faithful accepting what is decided by the Vatican,  you certainly cannot count on that with our people.

An example....... when the Greek Archbishop Stylianos of Sydney was quite active in ecumenical affairs and headed a delegation to Rome his flock came to believe that he had betrayed Orthodoxy in some way (I can't remember details.)

The first Sunday he was back in Sydney his people actually stoned him on the steps of his cathedral!   You see the power of the people, the power of grassroots Orthodoxy.

In point of fact they were quite mistaken and the poor Archbishop had not betrayed Orthodoxy at all!

The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

Thank you, Peter.  This was indeed the sense and intention of what I wrote and I related it to the Orthodox laity's duty to maintain the faith and to be pro-active about it.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2011, 08:44:55 PM »


The thing is, he wasn't bragging about anyone. He was merely stating his observation of how powerful people can be when they unite behind a common cause, even if their cause is wrong. He didn't say it was a good thing, something we should emulate.

You are free to interpret it however you like.
As are you (which, it appears, you already have)... Wink

There are actually historical texts available mostly in languages that I cannot read, but others can, that document the behavior of the Greek people after Florence and it is pugnacious to say the least...and they carried it north to Slavic lands as well.  So much of that vaunted "turn-around" on the part of Orthodox bishops who signed the documents of union came at the butt of a very material and real cudgel, rather than from any gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit.
Do you have any idea what a gentle prodding by the Holy Spirit really looks like? I can't say that I do.

I can say that it does not look like vigilante gangs with cudgels and fists and pitchforks...but then you do claim a different faith for Orthodoxy.  So maybe you and Father Ambrose are right.  I would hope not though.
Right about what? You should know me well enough by now to know that I'm just as critical of Irish Hermit's brand of Orthodox faith

May I pay you the same compliment?   laugh

Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2011, 08:46:41 PM »

I can say that it does not look like vigilante gangs with cudgels and fists and pitchforks...

Such things were common in all of Christendom until recently. I believe it was Stanley Hauerwas (of all people!) who said that you can tell what a society really believes in by what it's willing to kill for. We enlightened Westerners of the 21st century still do plenty of killing, but for other causes.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2011, 08:53:54 PM »


Those politics do not detract from my point about the pugnacious nature of the Greeks at all.

The pugnacious nature of the Greek?!!  Oh, ho! ho! ho!

It is not the Greeks who have gone crashing into Catholic countries time and again over the centuries.  But Catholics have continually invaded Orthodox lands, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Greece, the Greek  Islands, Russia, Ukraine..... 

When was the last time "the pugnacious Greeks" were rampaging through Italy, France or Spain? 
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.199 seconds with 73 queries.