Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Extract:
Source: Associated Press Article http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3898289.html
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"
The re-statement of the ecclesiological stand does however essentially line up with the headline. I did read the text of the document itself.
I think it's interesting that this came out before the next round of Catholic-Orthodox dialog, and I hope this will serve as a wake up call to our hierarchs.
I can respect and feel more Christian kinship with a tough, conservative, traditional worshipping, Catholic Church a lot more than the spiritually namby pamby mess they've got now. Chop off all the liberal parts, weed out the weirdos, and take 'em back to the good old days. (Though, this is probably wishful thinking - these changes may be too little, too late.)
Didn't we have another discussion in another thread that mentioned Pope Benedict being lenient on the case of Papal supremacy?
I doubt your hierarchs would want union with a Church that would give away the farm! :)
This document, however, is more for us Catholics, I think. A good number of Catholics suffer from delusions of universalism, an impression encouraged, no doubt, by dissenting liberals in the Church.
I think it's interesting that this came out before the next round of Catholic-Orthodox dialog, and I hope this will serve as a wake up call to our hierarchs.
Yes, Benedict has spoken in the past about coming to an understanding of Petrine ministry with regard to the East as it was understood in the first millennium.
I don't suppose that means he or any of his successors are willing to give up the big chair and just be one of the boys? How about Head Boy (would that be a good Harry Potter analogy?)
Those questions to me, among others, really are that simple; and I don't see how one side or the other could change it's tune on these and not fundamentally compromise something about itself.
I'm glad the document came out, because the Pope is really saying by it that they will not be the ones to compromise. That leaves one possible party to do so.
The Pope also noted the sky was blue.
As he was the architect of Dominus Iesus last century, I hardly find this surprising.
Isn't this, though, the Orthodox view of things, that those not within the fold of Orthodoxy have, at best, a defective understanding of ekklesia?
In other words, the pope would exercise a primacy of more than honor only and less than total supremacy. In an eventual restoration of full communion, I can see the pope with regard to the East as being in a "head of state" kind of role, the chief spokesman to the wider world, a high court of appeal, and probably little more.Not a head of state, but an ambassador perhaps. I like the original title best, though: "First among equals." It perfectly describes the Papacy as it ought to be.
Not a head of state, but an ambassador perhaps.
I like the original title best, though: "First among equals." It perfectly describes the Papacy as it ought to be.
Should reconciliation ever take place (yeah, right) would Orthodox hierarchs force him to be a spiritual leader only and leave the Vatican to be governed by secular authorities?
Should reconciliation ever take place (yeah, right) would the Orthodox have a problem with the Pope still retaining his temporal status as potentate of the Vatican City? Or would Orthodox hierarchs force him to be a spiritual leader only and leave the Vatican to be governed by secular authorities?
I would hope not. You want the Holy Father to end up like the Ecumenical Patriarch? I can only imagine the constraints the Italian government would put on him.
Are you saying that the Italians would behave in such a ruthless, reckless fashion towards the pope worthy of the Turks? If that's the case, then Europe's soul has been sold to the evil one! Details at 11!
The Papacy is a divinely instituted office present in the church from the beginning or it isn't.
The Pope has supreme, full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire church or he doesn't.
The Pope can without reference to or consent of the church proclaim doctrine infallible in certain circumstances or he can't.
The Orthodox Church contains the fullness of faith, without defects, or it doesn't.
Those questions to me, among others, really are that simple; and I don't see how one side or the other could change it's tune on these and not fundamentally compromise something about itself.
I'm glad the document came out, because the Pope is really saying by it that they will not be the ones to compromise. That leaves one possible party to do so.
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches
While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.I don't think Pope Benedict has shown any confusion at all. You seem to be projecting onto his statements an Orthodox ecclesiology that says that those outside the Church (in his case, the RCC) are heretics with whom prayer is forbidden. Pope Benedict has never proclaimed this regarding us EO, AFAIK; to the contrary, even though the Pope has stated that the EO Church is defective for its lack of the Papacy, he still sees our church as a valid church with grace-filled sacraments, not as a body of heretics.
I don't think Pope Benedict has shown any confusion at all. You seem to be projecting onto his statements an Orthodox ecclesiology that says that those outside the Church (in his case, the RCC) are heretics with whom prayer is forbidden.
the heterodox speaking of the "spirit of Vatican II" are always trying to paint the council as a rupture, a break with tradition.
Are you saying that the Italians would behave in such a ruthless, reckless fashion towards the pope worthy of the Turks?
So what does this mean for Orthodoxy and our Bishops, who are our representatives? It means that, Pope Benedict has confirmed the "elephant in the room" papal supremacy. I think he needs to be commended for this statement. Now, are we going to accept this? No, of course not. So, what should we do. A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do. Love and respect each other. Even possibly inviting each other to great feast days and speaking out against common concerns, but otherwise, leaving each other be.
Basil
The Pope of Rome is a heretic...
A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do.I love this analogy! I especially like the part about being "good friends". I also think it was very courageous of the Pope to make the Catholic position clear, and Orthodoxy has also made its position clear. Reconciliation may not be what many envisage it to be (i.e. full Communion and Unity), but if we can be honest and draw our lines in the sand and say: "OK, this is what we not prepared to compromise on", at least we know where we both stand, and can avoid a false ecumenism. Honesty is the basis of any relationship.
The Pope of Rome is a heretic...The Oracle has spoken..... ::)
While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.
Lol so the canons the Church made forbidding prayer with heretics which were made before the West went into schism didnt apply to Rome?Again, you're looking at things from OUR perspective, which I don't think applies here. Looking at this from Rome's POV, how much force does canon law have when the Pope is above the canons?
Either one of two things: Rome has rejected this canon (like many other canons) or recognizes this canon as valid but just goes against the canon (like how they treat many of their canons as well).Returning to what I said earlier, I suggest a third approach: Pope Benedict doesn't see the Orthodox as heretics, so the canons forbidding prayer with heretics don't apply to prayers with the Orthodox.
The Pope of Rome is a heretic...Would you care to justify this drive-by stabbing?
Would you care to justify this drive-by stabbing?
The Pope of Rome is a heretic...Fatman,
Again, you're looking at things from OUR perspective, which I don't think applies here. Looking at this from Rome's POV, how much force does canon law have when the Pope is above the canons?
More can be found here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx
Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.AFAIK, Drewmeister is a member of a traditionalist Orthodox group, as can be surmised from his sig line "Orthodoxia i Thanatos" (Orthodoxy or Death). He's probably pointed his finger at the EP way too much already for the very reason you mention.
Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.
While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.
AFAIK, Drewmeister is a member of a traditionalist Orthodox group, as can be surmised from his sig line "Orthodoxia i Thanatos" (Orthodoxy or Death). He's probably pointed his finger at the EP way too much already for the very reason you mention.
Yes, Benedict has spoken in the past about coming to an understanding of Petrine ministry with regard to the East as it was understood in the first millennium.Could you let us know a little more about this please?
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.[/i]
As the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch is the Successor of St. Peter, does that mean that "the fullness of universality" is realised in the Oriental Orthodox Church?
This is not the venue for such a debate. Besides, there are probably a dozen old threads on this chestnut already.You're probably right about that however there is the question here about whether or not The Orthodox Church is defective.
I will say, though, that our Church sees Peter and Paul's martyrdom in Rome, as well as Rome's place as the center of the empire, as having special divine significance. Thus the See of Peter, the Apostolic See, is ascribed to Rome, the primatial See of the Church. This was, of course, accepted many centuries ago by the undivided Church, even before the founding of Constantinople.Thank you for this information. I didn't know the Roman Catholic Church saw divine significance in Sts. Peter and Paul's martyrdoms in Rome. Do you see any divine significance in the martyrdom of St. James in Jerusalem as well?
(this is no insult to Antioch, of course, one of the celebrated Pentarchy, and a patriarchate more ancient than Constantinople)
This was, of course, accepted many centuries ago by the undivided Church, even before the founding of Constantinople.
Vatican's honest position furthers dialogue - Metropolitan Kirill
Moscow, July 11, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church has called "honest" the position of the Vatican published in a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stating that the Catholic Church is the only Church approved by Christ.
"It is an honest statement. It is much better than the so-called 'church diplomacy'." It shows how close or, on the contrary, how divided we are," Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, who heads the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, told journalists in Moscow.
"For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side," because "it helps understand how different we are," he said. Basically, the Vatican's current document has nothing new and is in "full conformity with the doctrine of the Catholic Church," Metropolitan Kirill said.
"The Orthodox Church is, according to Apostolic Succession, successor and heir to the old, undivided Church. Which is why everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church," the Metropolitan added.
I thought this was a good response:
Most Orthodox and most Catholics were, of course, blameless in the division of centuries ago. While their Churches remain, they still receive grace through the sacraments via God's great love and mercy.
So what does this mean for Orthodoxy and our Bishops, who are our representatives? It means that, Pope Benedict has confirmed the "elephant in the room" papal supremacy. I think he needs to be commended for this statement. Now, are we going to accept this? No, of course not. So, what should we do. A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do. Love and respect each other. Even possibly inviting each other to great feast days and speaking out against common concerns, but otherwise, leaving each other be.
Basil
More from me on the matter here (http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-pope-and-subsistit-in-repeating.html).
After all, the only major remaining sticking point for us is an acknowledgement of the actual, not symbolic or honorific, primacy of Roman pontiff, which is what we consider a divinely instituted authority.
There is no way to reconcile and keep both views in tact. My hope is the RCC accepts the Orthodox position and admits they have developed a deficient understanding of the Papacy that communion with Orthodoxy would correct. I think the statement is really a sign they won't though.
If Richard McBrien or Hans Kung or Gary Wills had their way, we would accept it. But believe me, you wouldn't want those guys in your Church. :)
But that in itself is really a refutation of the Orthodox position
Metropolitan Kirill re-affirmed what I believe to be the case. The RCC views itself as the church, containing the fullness of faith, and that other churches ecclesial communities are in some sense defective and/or missing something. The Orthodox view, as stated by the Metroplitan, is exactly the same but in reverse. That is what we believe about the Orthodox Church.
In reality what has to happen for the RCC and Orthodoxy to reconcile is somebody has to say in effect "we are wrong, and up to this point we have not had the fullness of faith".
But that in itself is really a refutation of the Orthodox position (and while I agree it's the major issue, I don't think it's the only one). Metropolitan Kirill re-affirmed what I believe to be the case. The RCC views itself as the church, containing the fullness of faith, and that other churches ecclesial communities are in some sense defective and/or missing something. The Orthodox view, as stated by the Metroplitan, is exactly the same but in reverse. That is what we believe about the Orthodox Church. In reality what has to happen for the RCC and Orthodoxy to reconcile is somebody has to say in effect "we are wrong, and up to this point we have not had the fullness of faith". Your suggestion for Orthdoxy is really what that means.
There is no way to reconcile and keep both views in tact. My hope is the RCC accepts the Orthodox position and admits they have developed a deficient understanding of the Papacy that communion with Orthodoxy would correct. I think the statement is really a sign they won't though.
If Richard McBrien or Hans Kung or Gary Wills had their way, we would accept it. But believe me, you wouldn't want those guys in your Church. :)
Amen. You RCs are welcome to keep those guys! Would you mind if we unloaded a few "Orthodox" on you as well? ;D
I somehow don't think they want GiC... :D
Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.
On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate. ;D
On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate. Grin
So what does this mean for Orthodoxy . . . ?
On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate. ;D
More like the kind of person who needs attention. ;D
And if you're wondering, no, I do not have any respect for the human race (they're all, or at the very least with VERY few exceptions, worthless) and yes, I do have a sadistic streak. ;D
And if you're wondering,I wasn't. ;)
I wasn't. ;)
You should know by now that I play to the mob...not the individual. It's amazing how you can twist an otherwise rational person when you threaten them with the façade of the displeasure of their peers. ;DBut I thought we were all worthless? So some of us are worthless AND rational? Or are the rational ones those whom you see as having worth? But wait, if you see those whom are rational as having worth, why do you want to twist and threaten them? Because they're worthless? But that would mean... Oh gosh, my head is spinning from the circular logic of GiC and his sinister plots.
But I thought we were all worthless? So some of us are worthless AND rational? Or are the rational ones those whom you see as having worth? But wait, if you see those whom are rational as having worth, why do you want to twist and threaten them? Because they're worthless? But that would mean... Oh gosh, my head is spinning from the circular logic of GiC and his sinister plots.
^
You're so vain. You probably think this thread is about you. Don't you? Don't you? ;D
In celebration of the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, and after reading the recent inanity on this thread, I will proceed to prepare and imbibe a large Scotch & Soda, perhaps followed by another, and then maybe...
In celebration of the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, and after reading the recent inanity on this thread, I will proceed to prepare and imbibe a large Scotch & Soda, perhaps followed by another, and then maybe...
Sounds like a very good idea. 8) BTW, is that today for Old Calendarists? I never can remember by how many days we are apart.
If I have driven someone to drink, then I have done a good deed. ;D
For those of us on the Julian calendar, yes. The 'Old Calendarists' by definition are on THE calendar also.
Here's one to Fr Sarducci!
Sigh. . .do people not even read anymore? Somebody needs to cancel the Patriarch's subscription to the New York Times.
Some of the best sketches on the old SNL were with him [Don Novello as Fr Guido Sarducci]. My favorite was when he was in Mexico gathering up relics like the femur bone of St. Augustine, which he didn't get because it was chipped...
so my question for you ecclesiastical history buffs out there is which patriarchate came to its powerful zenith first? Certainly not Constantinople...that came a lil later...but was it Antioch, Alexandria, or Western Rome? I've read in history books that Antioch and Alexandria always vyied for power but which one was first? Alexandria took care of "All of Africa" and Egypt and surrounding area...but Antioch had under its omorphion all of the Middle East besides Egypt and including part of Persia (if not all of it) according to wikipedia...so my conclusion would be that Antioch was the 1st most powerful patriarchate quickly followed by Alexandria and then Constantinople and finally Rome...I don't know for certain, but my knowledge of the Scriptures (Acts 11:19-26) suggests that the Church in Antioch became a major Christian center even before the fall of the Jerusalem Church in A.D. 70. Rome being the commercial center, as well as being the capital, of the Empire, I'm sure any major religious movement would quickly gain a strong following in Rome, even without an as-of-yet apostolic foundation. But if one looks only to apostolic foundation (Antioch with Ss. Peter and Paul--remember that Antioch was the community that ordained Paul for his apostolic ministry--; Alexandria with St. Andrew; later, Rome with Ss. Peter and Paul), I think Antioch has to be considered the first major Christian Church founded on the ministry of a resident Apostle.
the See of Alexandria (which btw, was established by St Mark, not St Andrew)Thanks for correcting me on this. (seriously; no sarcasm intended :))
"We were stunned by such a statement, which troubles the entire Christian world. Such things do not make God happy," said Teoctist. "With such a brutal statement, it is hard to find a way to continue the dialogue with the Catholic Church, as long as it does not even recognize us as a church."
It's hard to imagine why Patriarch Teoctist would say that the Catholic Church "does not even recognize us as a church". Did he simply misread the document?
Also, how is Patriarch Teoctist regarded within Orthodoxy in terms of ecumenism? I.e. is he considered ecumenically liberal?
Thanks,
Peter.
Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church.
I dare say his reaction is due to what he feels is rather a betrayal (it sounds very different to the sorts of things he was hearing previously from Rome). I'm very glad that the Pope made that statement and even more glad to see His Holiness' reaction. I was hoping it might temper our church's over-enthusiasm for ecumenism and certain rather unrealistic hopes and it looks like my hopes might be being fulfilled.
Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church. I dare say his reaction is due to what he feels is rather a betrayal (it sounds very different to the sorts of things he was hearing previously from Rome). I'm very glad that the Pope made that statement and even more glad to see His Holiness' reaction. I was hoping it might temper our church's over-enthusiasm for ecumenism and certain rather unrealistic hopes and it looks like my hopes might be being fulfilled.
James
Sigh. . .do people not even read anymore? Somebody needs to cancel the Patriarch's subscription to the New York Times.
In terms of prominence, I think it's rather hard to dispute the idea that the See of Alexandria (which btw, was established by St Mark, not St Andrew) lead the way in that regard. Alexandria was, well before Christianity was even introduced to Egypt, the intellectual centre of the world. The Alexandrian Museum (“Shrine of the Muses”) was a reputably academically prestigious institution for intellectual elite. Alexandria’s intellectual atmosphere was also promoted by the Great Library which accompanied the Museum. Once Christianity was introduced into Alexandria, the Church continued the city's legacy through the Didascalia. In his Life of Athanasius, the Apostolic, Kamel Saleh Nakhla quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as saying, ‘The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.’
And we certainly don't disagree with the age of the See of Antioch. But we do insist that St. Peter completed his apostolic witness in Rome, as God willed it, and was there crucified. And there his tomb rests, under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. St. Paul rests in Rome as well. But, then, that's why we are Catholics and you are Orthodox.
It's no slight to Antioch, of course, which remains one of the pentarchy, though it has FIVE patriarchs and isn't even located in Antioch. :)
My response to this argument was always, so what? I really never got it and it really seems like stretching to argue primacy from something like this, especially in light of the real world, where superiority is determined by political influence and strong armies. Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land. Rome's position comes because of the reverence due to the City, it comes because of Lucius Junius Brutus, Scipio Africanus, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, etc., etc. not because of St. Peter or St. Paul or any other St. Such and Such. It seems to me that Rome merely diminishes herself by distancing herself from her Imperial past, the glory that Rome once was and of which the Church is a continuation.
Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land.Somehow, Lubeltri, I don't think GiC was talking merely about Rome and her place in the Church. The above statement, taken at face value and in the light of his many other similar postings on this site, appears to identify the whole of Christianity as nothing more than the cult of the Roman/Byzantine Empire. How many times has GiC said that when Byzantium fell the Church fell with her? How many times has GiC said that the Empire and the Church share the same glory? In GiC's mind, the Church fell into darkness in 1452 and has never recovered, for to him the Church IS the Byzantine Empire.
The cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, St. John Lateran, was a Roman basilica given to the Pope by no less than Constantine the Great.You're not talking about the Donation of Constantine, are you? I believe that document was proven fraudulent years ago, but I could be wrong.
No I believe he is correct, Constantine built St John as the Cathedra for the patriarch/Bishop of Rome. The Cathedra in Rome for the patriarch of Constantinople was St Peters.Okay. I wasn't quite sure about this. Thanks for the info.
Thomas
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/default/images/warnwarn.gif) Disparaging remarks against the Christian Faith, specifically:
"Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land."
^^ Dam son, you should spend some more time at the pool or get out more often... ;D Maybe you were warned because throwing out heavy handed words such as 'christianity is an imperial cult' on a christian forum without extensive factual information to support such a controversial claim obviously is going to piss most people off.
Consider Chalcedon, it represented a change in Imperial policy from Ephesus II, they only reason we're not Eutychians today is because of a change in Emperors and a change in Imperial Policy.
I'm sorry, but that assumption simply is not true. Forgive me for saying this here, but by this you are assuming that we are Eutychians. I think you should have the common respect that as much as Constantinople 553 "clarified" Chalcedon, so did our Ephesus 475 clarify Ephesus II (I'm surprised you haven't called it a "Robber's Council").
God bless.
I'm not really making that assumption, and I believe that you are missing my point. My point is really that the difference between Nestorian, Eutychian, and Chalcedonian Christianity are not substantial enough cause division and schism; and it was most certainly in the best interest of the Empire to maintain unity. That was the point of Chalcedon, the Emperor and Senate simply wanted union, they looked for a compromise between Eutychianism and Nestorianism, a middle road everyone could follow (though I'm sure the preference would have been for these issues to just go away). Of course, there were other cultural factors that made certain Egyptian and Syrian bishops not want to get along with each other, much less the Empire, thus the political manoeuvring wasn't entirely successful. Later the Empire tried again with Monothelitism giving a clarafication of theology to hopefully heal the schism between the two sides in the schism over Chalcedon (by this time the Nestorians were almost entirely beyond the bounds of the Empire and thus of little significance to Imperial politics), but Coptic nationalism and rebellion against the Empire succeeded again and the theological system was scrapped when it started causing more problems than it was fixing. My point was simply that political considerations (on both sides) drove doctrinal development.
Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church.
I really think that there is no way to unity unless we either throw out the Papacy (won't happen) or the Eastern Orthodox will have to accept the Papacy (won't happen). So guess what, I don't think it will happen on this side of heaven.Actually, we're not asking you to throw out the Papacy, for the Papacy did serve a valuable role within the Church at one time. All we're asking is that you throw out how the Papacy has grown to define itself over the past 1000+ years.
Actually, we're not asking you to throw out the Papacy, for the Papacy did serve a valuable role within the Church at one time. All we're asking is that you throw out how the Papacy has grown to define itself over the past 1000+ years.
We would do that if we did not believe that some of the greatest exponents of the papal primacy were first-millennium popes like St. Gregory the Great and St. Leo the Great. Hence the snag.
Of course, we would just say that you misunderstand what Sts. Gregory and Leo believed about the office of the Bishop of Rome. ;)
Actually, we're not asking you to throw out the Papacy, for the Papacy did serve a valuable role within the Church at one time. All we're asking is that you throw out how the Papacy has grown to define itself over the past 1000+ years.
In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled, "The Jewish People and their sacred scriptures in the Christian Bible."
This book was written by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).
In this book that represents the Vaticans (the Papacy) views about Jews and Judaism, you will discover that it recognizes Judaism as an equally valid path to salvation and rejects the idea that salvation is only through Jesus Christ.
While the Roman Catholic Church is pretending to seek unity with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it is obvious that comments like those made in the article reveal the true nature of the Vatican and the Pope.
Who cares what the Roman Catholics tell themselves? Its self-deception and they serve the purpose of rabbinical Judaism and of course the antichrist.
Pope Benedict XVI's book which I mentioned above, is but one example of the Vatican's real views which are against TRUE CHRISTIANITY (ORTHODOXY).
To see what I'm talking about, look up the book I mentioned and refer to
SECTION II A 5
SECTION II A 7
Also look up Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's other book "God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald." Ignatius Press 2002. p..209
Where he says,
“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promise as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts […] There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ….”
The Roman Catholic Church is very different from Orthodoxy. Very different.
Greetings in Christ to you lubetriYou made an assertion based on an apparently selective reading of one of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's books. lubeltri refuted your argument by quoting a much larger excerpt of the passage you quoted in order to place your quote in context. So far I have seen you do nothing to prove your point except to accuse lubeltri of being a careless slave to post-Vatican-II Roman teaching and to continue to preach without proof the thesis that lubeltri so cogently refuted. Your rant against lubeltri falls into the logical fallacy of the ad hominem, and your continued argument without proof presents an inflated view of your own authority.
For some strange reason you opted to inciminate the Orthodox with your "question"
"So Orthodoxy is all about presuming evil motives of the Jewish people?"
No, the Orthodox Church does not presume the Jews are evil. That was your assumption and ignorance since even the Roman Catholic Church claims that the teachings of the Holy Fathers are valid for our spiritual benefit, and they have also taught us that from the Tribe of Dan the Antichrist will emerge from amongst the Jews (but not the "Jews").
Your responses have demonstrated a straying away from the OLD TESTAMENT that the early Church used (the New Testament was not complete or official in that period) which was used to learn about the Messiah Jesus Christ.
Your respones also demonstrate the careless acceptance of what the Vatican NOW teaches.
I couldn't help but notice how you failed to answer why Pope Benedict XVI promotes the belief that salvation is not only through Christ.
So while you sit there and make implicit suggestions against the Orthodox Church as "anti-Semitic" to avoid the reality of what the Vatican now teaches, you only help demonstrate why the ORTHODOX CHURCH IS NOT "DEFECTIVE" as stated by your heretical Papacy that opts to teach alternatives to salvation found in rabbinical Judaism.
You dont have to quote lengthy passages and explanations from the Vatican since I've looked at many Roman Catholic books describing what you believe. The point I made was actually assisted by your response which asserts that the OLD TESTAMENT has been devalued by the Vatican who has distanced its relationship to Jesus Christ and the New Testament.
I think you should re-examine the "theology" of the Vatican and then compare that to what the Holy Church Fathers taught in the first 1000 years of the Church's history.
::)
Your accusations are false and remain unproven by you, but since you obviously have an axe to grind and wish only to bash Catholics over the head with false accusations, I will waste no more time with you.
I truly hope you spend more time in an actual parish practicing a positive Orthodox faith rather than consume yourself with a Church of which you are not even part.
I think you misinterpret Cardinal Ratzinger's exegesis. He was speculating on one defense against the charge that parts of the Old Testament may have been fabricated by followers of Jesus to "point" to him. He points out that they are clearly ancient partly because they do not so obviously and literally and exclusively point to Jesus of Nazareth. They CAN be read in a different way. How else to explain the condemnation of the clear Messiah Jesus of Nazareth and the Sanhedrin's handing him over for crucifixion? How else to explain many Jews' failure to see it, past and present? Are they all just dishonest and of ill will? Hardly.
If the Old Testament scriptures were so overtly pointing to Jesus of Nazareth, with no other reasonable interpretation, they would be seen as Christian propaganda. Read in the light of faith in Jesus, yes, they are clear. But they are not starting-point proof-texts for Jesus.
Charges of "scholasticism" do not apply here.
::)
Your accusations are false and remain unproven by you, but since you obviously have an axe to grind and wish only to bash Catholics over the head with false accusations, I will waste no more time with you.
I truly hope you spend more time in an actual parish practicing a positive Orthodox faith rather than consume yourself with a Church of which you are not even part.
I think you misinterpret Cardinal Ratzinger's exegesis. He was speculating on one defense against the charge that parts of the Old Testament may have been fabricated by followers of Jesus to "point" to him. He points out that they are clearly ancient partly because they do not so obviously and literally and exclusively point to Jesus of Nazareth. They CAN be read in a different way. How else to explain the condemnation of the clear Messiah Jesus of Nazareth and the Sanhedrin's handing him over for crucifixion? How else to explain many Jews' failure to see it, past and present? Are they all just dishonest and of ill will? Hardly.Dear brother, I don't think Zarabas is saying wrong things. On the contrary, the position of Benedict XVI and John Paul II contradicts explicitly what the Church Fathers stated for 1000 years. Am I accusing the Jews of the sin of voluntarily denying the *explicit* messianic interpretation of the Scriptures? No, I'm not. I'm accusing those Jews who, after the rise of Jesus from the dead, violently altered the text of the Scriptures: those men denied any value to the older editions (the aramaic and the Septuagint which were evidently quoted by the Apostles were not the Masoretic Text!)! I even have a Jewish friend, a wonderful girl, and I couldn't even think to say she's evil... the Bible she got is not the inspired Bible that we can trace in the Septuagint, where all the Messianic prophecies were explicit and could not be misunderstood.
If the Old Testament scriptures were so overtly pointing to Jesus of Nazareth, with no other reasonable interpretation, they would be seen as Christian propaganda. Read in the light of faith in Jesus, yes, they are clear. But they are not starting-point proof-texts for Jesus.
The 275 Jews of the island of Zakynthos, however, survived the Holocaust. When the island's mayor, Carrer, was presented with the German order to hand over a list of Jews, Bishop Chrysostomos returned to the Germans with a list of two names; his and the mayor's. The island's population hid every member of the Jewish community. When the island was almost levelled by the great earthquake of 1953, the first relief came from the state of Israel, with a message that read "The Jews of Zakynthos have never forgotten their Mayor or their beloved Bishop and what they did for us."
Obviously I did read those texts and obviously I'm not going to quote the entire books just to get to the point of the matter.Actually, there IS something wrong with this approach, which I think lubeltri made quite evident. The [...] made it appear as if you were concealing something from us in order to make your point. Lubeltri exposed this text you hid from us and showed that the larger passage from which you drew your excerpt said something quite different, and in many ways opposite, from what you argued.
I intentionally used ---> [...] brackets to show that I made a transition in the selections I wanted to put forward. In writing, this is what is done to shorten relevant passages that are being quoted. There was nothing wrong on my part for doing that. I even quoted from which page and section the information could be compared.
I also made sure to tell people that they should read these books and see for themselves.As I showed above, you actually DID appear to misrepresent the data in order to advance your agenda. Did you know that the defense of your tactics you just provided in the above quote is the same defense that underlies most attempts to proof text?
I did not misrepresent the data, but only provided those relevant passages for my considerations put forward to the issue of what is "Defective" and it is not the Orthodox Church.
Yes, that is my point. IMO, lubeltri made a good defense of Cardinal Ratzinger's theological opinions, which defense had the unintended consequence of revealing how you misrepresented the Cardinal. You, however, have yet to provide a good defense of your thesis that Cardinal Ratzinger ever preached that salvation comes not through Christ alone and that the Vatican is therefore defective in this specific regard.
As for Lubeltri, he made sure to imply "anti-Semitism" to the Orthodox Church just because I mentioned how the Vatican under Cardinal (and now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) promotes that salvation is not through Christ alone.
So Peter, what is your point? That I misrepresente and twisted what the Vatican says? Read carefully and you will see that this is not a case of semantics or misreadings.
Obviously I did read those texts and obviously I'm not going to quote the entire books just to get to the point of the matter.Actually, there IS something wrong with this approach, which I think lubeltri made quite evident. The [...] made it appear as if you were concealing something from us in order to make your point. Lubeltri exposed this text you hid from us and showed that the larger passage from which you drew your excerpt said something quite different, and in many ways opposite, from what you argued.
I intentionally used ---> [...] brackets to show that I made a transition in the selections I wanted to put forward. In writing, this is what is done to shorten relevant passages that are being quoted. There was nothing wrong on my part for doing that. I even quoted from which page and section the information could be compared.QuoteI also made sure to tell people that they should read these books and see for themselves.As I showed above, you actually DID appear to misrepresent the data in order to advance your agenda. Did you know that the defense of your tactics you just provided in the above quote is the same defense that underlies most attempts to proof text?
I did not misrepresent the data, but only provided those relevant passages for my considerations put forward to the issue of what is "Defective" and it is not the Orthodox Church.QuoteYes, that is my point. IMO, lubeltri made a good defense of Cardinal Ratzinger's theological opinions, which defense had the unintended consequence of revealing how you misrepresented the Cardinal. You, however, have yet to provide a good defense of your thesis that Cardinal Ratzinger ever preached that salvation comes not through Christ alone and that the Vatican is therefore defective in this specific regard.
As for Lubeltri, he made sure to imply "anti-Semitism" to the Orthodox Church just because I mentioned how the Vatican under Cardinal (and now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) promotes that salvation is not through Christ alone.
So Peter, what is your point? That I misrepresente and twisted what the Vatican says? Read carefully and you will see that this is not a case of semantics or misreadings.
DISCLAIMER: In no way am I trying to actually defend any Roman Catholic doctrines or theological opinions that contradict the apostolic faith of the Orthodox Church. I just want to point out to you, Zarabas, how weak is the case you have presented thus far on this thread and what you need to do to be more convincing.
Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust
Excellent point. (How did I miss this?) Demetrios, within what group of people are the Greeks the only ones to harbor Jews during the Holocaust? If you're talking about just the entire continent of Europe, then your comment shows the grossest misunderstanding of history I've ever seen. :o I'll let the links LBK posted support my assessment of the sheer ignorance of your reply.Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust
Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.
http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust
Excellent point. (How did I miss this?) Demetrios, within what group of people are the Greeks the only ones to harbor Jews during the Holocaust? If you're talking about just the entire continent of Europe, then your comment shows the grossest misunderstanding of history I've ever seen. :o I'll let the links LBK posted support my assessment of the sheer ignorance of your reply.Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust
Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.
http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust
Let's get off the anti-Semitism red herring. My question was purely rhetorical. I have not accused Orthodoxy of being anti-Semitic. Just another ad hominem.
Obviously I did read those texts and obviously I'm not going to quote the entire books just to get to the point of the matter.Actually, there IS something wrong with this approach, which I think lubeltri made quite evident. The [...] made it appear as if you were concealing something from us in order to make your point. Lubeltri exposed this text you hid from us and showed that the larger passage from which you drew your excerpt said something quite different, and in many ways opposite, from what you argued.
I intentionally used ---> [...] brackets to show that I made a transition in the selections I wanted to put forward. In writing, this is what is done to shorten relevant passages that are being quoted. There was nothing wrong on my part for doing that. I even quoted from which page and section the information could be compared.QuoteI also made sure to tell people that they should read these books and see for themselves.As I showed above, you actually DID appear to misrepresent the data in order to advance your agenda. Did you know that the defense of your tactics you just provided in the above quote is the same defense that underlies most attempts to proof text?
I did not misrepresent the data, but only provided those relevant passages for my considerations put forward to the issue of what is "Defective" and it is not the Orthodox Church.QuoteYes, that is my point. IMO, lubeltri made a good defense of Cardinal Ratzinger's theological opinions, which defense had the unintended consequence of revealing how you misrepresented the Cardinal. You, however, have yet to provide a good defense of your thesis that Cardinal Ratzinger ever preached that salvation comes not through Christ alone and that the Vatican is therefore defective in this specific regard.
As for Lubeltri, he made sure to imply "anti-Semitism" to the Orthodox Church just because I mentioned how the Vatican under Cardinal (and now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) promotes that salvation is not through Christ alone.
So Peter, what is your point? That I misrepresente and twisted what the Vatican says? Read carefully and you will see that this is not a case of semantics or misreadings.
DISCLAIMER: In no way am I trying to actually defend any Roman Catholic doctrines or theological opinions that contradict the apostolic faith of the Orthodox Church. I just want to point out to you, Zarabas, how weak is the case you have presented thus far on this thread and what you need to do to be more convincing.
Take it easy pal, your exploiting a typo. What I was trying to prove is that Orthodox Greeks aren't antisemitic. For the most part the Christian west gave them up in droves. Despite The individuals that are listed on that list. Most of those countries listed caved very quickly to German pressure.Excellent point. (How did I miss this?) Demetrios, within what group of people are the Greeks the only ones to harbor Jews during the Holocaust? If you're talking about just the entire continent of Europe, then your comment shows the grossest misunderstanding of history I've ever seen. :o I'll let the links LBK posted support my assessment of the sheer ignorance of your reply.Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust
Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.
http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust
Take it easy pal, your exploiting a typo. What I was trying to prove is that Orthodox Greeks aren't antisemitic. For the most part the Christian west gave them up in droves. Despite The individuals that are listed on that list. Most of those countries listed caved very quickly to German pressure.Excellent point. (How did I miss this?) Demetrios, within what group of people are the Greeks the only ones to harbor Jews during the Holocaust? If you're talking about just the entire continent of Europe, then your comment shows the grossest misunderstanding of history I've ever seen. :o I'll let the links LBK posted support my assessment of the sheer ignorance of your reply.Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust
Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.
http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust