OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 05:48:45 PM

Title: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 05:48:45 PM
Lets review the news:

Ecumenical Patriarch greets Vatican delegation on Feastday of the Apostle Andrew the First Called
Istanbul, Turkey
11/30/2009

His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew addressed a Vatican delegation representing Pope Benedict XVI at the Thronal Feast of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on November 30, 2009.

The delegation, led by Cardinal Walter Kasper also delivered greetings to His All Holiness on behalf of Pope Benedict.

The Ecumenical Patriarch's greeting on the feast of St. Andrew the First Called can be read below:

Your Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper, representative of His Holiness the Pope and Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI, and your honorable entourage,

It is with great joy that we welcome you once again to the courtyard of the Church of New Rome in order to concelebrate the sacred memory of its founder and protector Saint Andrew the First-Called of the Apostles. We express our heartfelt gratitude to our beloved brother in the Lord, His Holiness Pope Benedict of Old Rome, who deigned to delegate his representatives to the Thronal feast of our Church, following the custom established decades ago for an exchange of visitations during the patronal feasts of our two ancient and apostolic Churches as confirmation of their desire to lift the impediments, accumulated over a millennium and preventing the fullness of communion among them. We attribute great symbolical significance to your presence here inasmuch as it also reveals -- in a deeply formal manner -- the desire of the most holy Church of Rome to do whatever it can on its part, so that we may rediscover our unity in the same faith and sacramental communion according to the will of Him who has called us to unity "so that the world may believe." (John 17.21)

As is known, St. Andrew the First-Called of the apostles, whom we celebrate today, was the brother of St. Peter the chief among the apostles; together, they knew Christ and believed in Him. The two brothers held this faith in common; the two Churches, which they founded and sanctified by means of their preaching and martyrdom, I did also hold this faith in common. This same faith was proclaimed as doctrine by our common Church Fathers, who gathered from east and west in ecumenical councils, where they transmitted it as an invaluable treasure to our Churches in order that we might build upon this faith our unity in Christ. It is this same faith, preserved intact for an entire millennium both in the east and the west, which we are again called to establish as the basis of our unity, cleansing it from any chance addition or alteration, so that "with one soul and one mind" (Phil. 2.2) we may proceed to communion in the divine Eucharist, wherein lies the fullness of the unity of the Church of Christ.

This journey toward achieving full communion, as enjoyed by our Churches in common during the first millennium, has already commenced with the dialogue of love and truth, and continues by God's grace despite occasional difficulties. It is with vigilant concern and unceasing prayer that we follow the process of the ongoing official Theological Dialogue between our two Churches, co-chaired by Your Eminence, and now embarking upon the examination of critical ecclesiological issues, such as the question of primacy in general and that of the bishop of Rome in particular. Everyone is aware that this thorny issue proved a scandalous contention in the course of relations between our two Churches, which is why the eradication of this impediment from among us will surely greatly facilitate our journey toward unity. We are, therefore, convinced that the study of Church history during the first millennium, at least with regard to this matter, will also provide the touchstone for the further evaluation of later developments during the second millennium, which unfortunately led our Churches to greater estrangement and intensified our division.

In a world shattered by contrasts and conflicts, the exchange of peaceful and constructive dialogue constitutes the only way of achieving reconciliation and unity. In the apostolic passage read during this morning's Divine Liturgy, the Apostles are promoted as an example of utter humility in imitation of the crucified Lord: "When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we speak kindly. We have become like the rubbish of the world, the dregs of all things, to this very day." (1 Cor. 4. 12-13) If this ethos of humility must prevail in the relations of the faithful toward the persecutors of the Church, how much more so should it prevail in the relations among Christians themselves! The peaceful resolution of existing differences in inter-Christian relations by no means implies estrangement from truth. For truth does not fear dialogue; on the contrary, truth employs dialogue as a means of becoming acceptable even to those who for various reasons reject it. Hatred and fanaticism provoke the defensive entrenchment of each side in the blind persistence on its own positions and opinions, while consolidating differences and obliterating all hope of reconciliation. Such an attitude is absolutely unrelated to the spirit of the Christ's Gospel and the apostolic example. For only by "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4.15) do we truly speak the truth, just as only by loving truthfully (2 John 1) do we truly love. A dialogue imbued by a sincere spirit of humility guarantees this blessed combination, which comprises the only divinely-inspired way for all those who wish to be imitators of the Apostles. (1 Cor. 4.16)

It is this spirit of sincere and loving dialogue that the Church of Christ itself is today called to implement in its relations among divided Christians, while at the same time proclaiming it to all persons of good will, wherever they happen to be. We know from bitter experience that religion can easily be misused as a banner of fanaticism and conflict among people. We have personally emphasized on numerous occasions that war in the name of religion is war against religion. This is why interfaith dialogue is particularly mandatory in our age, without entailing any compromise in one's religious convictions. It is this dialogue that is encouraged and cultivated by our Ecumenical Patriarchate, which contributes in this way to the consolidation of peace in our contemporary world.

Your Eminence Cardinal Kasper and your honorable entourage,

Through the order established by the holy Ecumenical Councils, Divine Providence has assigned to the Church of this City the ministry of serving as the first-throne of the Orthodox Church, bearing the responsibility of coordinating and expressing the unanimity of the local holy Orthodox Churches. With this responsibility, then, we are now working diligently in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, by activating the appropriate preconciliar instruments. Thus, only last June, we successfully convened the 4th Preconciliar Panorthodox Consultation, which dealt with the question of the Orthodox Diaspora; soon, we shall convene the Preparatory Commission for the study and preparation of other issues for the Great Council. The purpose of this entire endeavor is to forge the unity of the Orthodox Church, so that "with one mind and one heart" it may contribute to the witness of the Gospel in our modern world. In this effort and overall variously difficult service, the Church of Constantinople always considers the support of the Old Church of Rome as invaluable, and so with great love we also direct our thought there at this moment.

Greeting you -- and through you, him who sent you here, namely our beloved brother in the Lord -- with a sacred embrace, we pray that the Lord our God, through the intercessions of the Holy glorious and First-Called Apostle Andrew, will protect His Church from all evil, guiding it to the fulfillment of His divine will.

Welcome here among us, beloved brothers!

Any comment?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 10:15:40 PM
I am pleased that dialogue continues between the East and the West.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 15, 2010, 11:34:02 PM
The more I hear about this upcoming "Great and Holy Council" the more nervous it makes me.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 15, 2010, 11:47:29 PM
The more I hear about this upcoming "Great and Holy Council" the more nervous it makes me.

They've been trying to put this Council together for nearly 50 years now. When will it happen... 2060?  ;)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 15, 2010, 11:53:08 PM
The more I hear about this upcoming "Great and Holy Council" the more nervous it makes me.

They've been trying to put this Council together for nearly 50 years now. When will it happen... 2060?  ;)
Lord willing, never.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 12:14:02 AM

The more I hear about this upcoming "Great and Holy Council" the more nervous it makes me.

Why?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 16, 2010, 04:15:21 AM

The more I hear about this upcoming "Great and Holy Council" the more nervous it makes me.

Why?

The Patriarch of Micklegarth Bartholomew I is dead keen on holding this Great and Holy Council.  Some of us find his enthusiasm surprising.

At the time this agenda was created at Constantinople's Chambesy Centre in the 1970s many of the Churches were under the heel of Communist and Socialist regimes.   It was expected that their participation in the proposed Great and Holy Council (possibly to be accepted as the 8th Ecumenical) would be fairly minimal and any delegates selected and controlled by their home governments.

Now the situation is much different.  The once unhappy situation of Russia and Serbia and Bulgaria has been reversed.  These are now Churches bouncing with a new vitality and Russia in particular has increased its membership by millions of faithful, tens of thousands of churches and priests and hundreds of bishops.

There is a possibility that Russia will mount a strong challenge at the Council to the ranking of the Churches in the diptychs.  I would not expect it to go for first place, supplanting Constantinople, but I wouldn't be surprised if it tries for second place, pushing Alexandria down to 3rd place.

Moscow will also want to closely examine the whole question of "primacy" in Orthodoxy.  Constantinople has made this inevitable since it promoted it so strongly in Ravenna in 2007 at the 10th meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  Two years earlier at the 9th meeting in Belgrade it was also pushing the primacy issue.   The dispute created at Ravenna 2007 about the introduction of a "Global Protos" or "Global Primus" for Orthodoxy will spill over into the Great Council.   Constantinople may find itself rebuked and even under outright attack for this new claim which would alter orthodox ecclesiology.  It is not just a matter of administration but a foundational alteration to our theology.   We live in interesting times.

Russia will also place the matter of the Bp Basil Osborne affair on the agenda.  This will involve hard decisions being adopted about the scope of Constantinople's claimed right of "eccliton" in the modern world.

All in all, the Council promises to cause utter chaos among the Orthodox Churches.  This is the reason Fr Justin Popovic wrote so strongly against calling this Council.  It will serve to introduce major tensions and even schism into the Church.  I agree with Fr Justin.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  We don't need this Council.

People in the New World get upset with the idea of abandoning the proposed Council.  They expect it to resolve the administrative overlapping in America.   It may and it may not.   The American Church constitutes less than 1% of global Orthodoxy.   Its problems simply do not need the convocation of an Ecumenical Council.  They can be handled on a much lower level.

A part of me, the untamed Irish part which enjoys a donnybrook, will enjoy the brawling which is likely to erupt when the Great Council gets to consider the diptychs.  The speech at Holy Cross in March of last year by the Very Reverend Archimandrite Elpidophoros is just one of Constantinople's opening salvos.   The other part of me trembles, as did the holy Father Justin (Popovic)* for the damage which the Patriarchs could do to the holy Church and her unity.

Well, there you are... thoughts from Middle Earth.

-oOo-

* "On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church"
Archimandrite Justin Popovich
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx

 

 
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: augustin717 on January 16, 2010, 04:22:48 AM
Quote
There is a possibility that Russia will mount a strong challenge at the Council to the ranking of the Churches in the diptychs.  I would not expect it to go for first place, supplanting Constantinople, but I wouldn't be surprised if it tries for second place, pushing Alexandria down to 3rd place
.
That is NEVER gonna' happen, but some people love daydreaming.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 04:59:06 AM
Well, actually, Alexandria being bumped down has happened already once before in history.

Also, I don't understand why such a thing has to be so dramatic. I didn't get the sense that the 1965 pan-Oriental conference was anywhere near this dramatic.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 16, 2010, 06:03:56 AM

Also, I don't understand why such a thing has to be so dramatic. I didn't get the sense that the 1965 pan-Oriental conference was anywhere near this dramatic.

Deus,

I don't know a thing about this pan-Oriental conference.  Is there something I could read on the Web?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 16, 2010, 11:07:33 AM
The question of the OO and EO could also be on the agenda.  The calendar most certainly will be.

I doubt that Alexandria will get bumped, and if there is a EO-OO reunion, it certainly won't.  What will tip the scales is the growing population of Africa-all of which is, without jurisidictional squabble, under Alexandria-and the spread of Orthoodoxy.  With the OO, the Ethiopian Church is surpassed in size only by Russia, and the Orthodox of Egypt itself is larger than most E0 Churches.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 16, 2010, 11:11:13 AM
There were a bunch of items for the agenda announced somewhere. I remember they included the "diaspora", fasting rules in the modern world, the calendar, ecumenism, and some other stuff. The Non-Chalcedonians weren't mentioned and I doubt that this council would be able to resolve that issue. 
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 16, 2010, 02:21:44 PM
There were a bunch of items for the agenda announced somewhere. 

1. The Orthodox diaspora, where the jurisdiction over the Orthodox flock beyond national borders will be defined. According to the canons now in effect, before the growth in the phenomenon of emigration the faithful outside of their home country belong to the ecumenical patriarchate.

2. The manner of recognizing the status of an autocephalous Church.

3. The manner of recognizing the status of Church autonomy.

4. Dyptichs, meaning the rules of mutual canonical recognition among the Orthodox Churches.

5. Establishing a common calendar for feasts. For example, some Churches celebrate the Nativity on December 25, others 13 days later.

6. Impediments and canonicity of the sacrament of matrimony.

7. The question of fasting in the contemporary world.

8. Relationships with the other Christian confessions.

9. The ecumenical movement.

10. The contribution of the Orthodox in affirming the Christian ideals of peace, fraternity, and freedom.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 04:16:18 PM

Also, I don't understand why such a thing has to be so dramatic. I didn't get the sense that the 1965 pan-Oriental conference was anywhere near this dramatic.

Deus,

I don't know a thing about this pan-Oriental conference.  Is there something I could read on the Web?

Here's a pretty good source:

http://orientalorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/12/addis-ababa-conference-1965.html

It's pretty long though. If you want a less extensive summary, just go ahead and ask.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 04:18:18 PM
The question of the OO and EO could also be on the agenda.  The calendar most certainly will be.

I doubt that Alexandria will get bumped, and if there is a EO-OO reunion, it certainly won't.  What will tip the scales is the growing population of Africa-all of which is, without jurisidictional squabble, under Alexandria-and the spread of Orthoodoxy.  With the OO, the Ethiopian Church is surpassed in size only by Russia, and the Orthodox of Egypt itself is larger than most E0 Churches.

Neither the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church nor its Eritrean sister are under the jurisdiction of Alexandria.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 16, 2010, 06:23:25 PM
The question of the OO and EO could also be on the agenda.  The calendar most certainly will be.

I doubt that Alexandria will get bumped, and if there is a EO-OO reunion, it certainly won't.  What will tip the scales is the growing population of Africa-all of which is, without jurisidictional squabble, under Alexandria-and the spread of Orthoodoxy.  With the OO, the Ethiopian Church is surpassed in size only by Russia, and the Orthodox of Egypt itself is larger than most E0 Churches.

Neither the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church nor its Eritrean sister are under the jurisdiction of Alexandria.
The OO aren't anymore, but that won't matter on point.  Btw, the Ethiopian EO etc. are still under the Pope of Alexandria.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 10:01:53 PM
The question of the OO and EO could also be on the agenda.  The calendar most certainly will be.

I doubt that Alexandria will get bumped, and if there is a EO-OO reunion, it certainly won't.  What will tip the scales is the growing population of Africa-all of which is, without jurisidictional squabble, under Alexandria-and the spread of Orthoodoxy.  With the OO, the Ethiopian Church is surpassed in size only by Russia, and the Orthodox of Egypt itself is larger than most E0 Churches.

Neither the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church nor its Eritrean sister are under the jurisdiction of Alexandria.
The OO aren't anymore, but that won't matter on point.  Btw, the Ethiopian EO etc. are still under the Pope of Alexandria.

It seemed that you were talking about both the EO and the OO at the time and said that all of Africa is under Alexandria.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 16, 2010, 11:54:28 PM
The question of the OO and EO could also be on the agenda.  The calendar most certainly will be.

I doubt that Alexandria will get bumped, and if there is a EO-OO reunion, it certainly won't.  What will tip the scales is the growing population of Africa-all of which is, without jurisidictional squabble, under Alexandria-and the spread of Orthoodoxy.  With the OO, the Ethiopian Church is surpassed in size only by Russia, and the Orthodox of Egypt itself is larger than most E0 Churches.

Neither the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church nor its Eritrean sister are under the jurisdiction of Alexandria.
The OO aren't anymore, but that won't matter on point.  Btw, the Ethiopian EO etc. are still under the Pope of Alexandria.

It seemed that you were talking about both the EO and the OO at the time and said that all of Africa is under Alexandria.
For the purposes of the OP, they are.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 17, 2010, 12:13:11 AM
The more I hear about this upcoming "Great and Holy Council" the more nervous it makes me.

"Do not be afraid to open Your heart to The Lord Jesus" (JPII)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 17, 2010, 01:46:41 AM
The more I hear about this upcoming "Great and Holy Council" the more nervous it makes me.

"Do not be afraid to open Your heart to The Lord Jesus" (JPII)
We're not afraid of Jesus, but a Spirit different from His.  That one also attends Councils.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 17, 2010, 10:36:35 AM
Quote
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
9/19/2009
Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Pope Benedict XVI announced this Synod during a meeting with Archbishops and Patriarchs of the East.
CASTEL GANDOLFO (AsiaNews) - Pope Benedict XVI has announced a special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010. The decision to hold the meeting was in response to the desire expressed for quite some time by the eastern catholic church. It was announced by the pope during a gathering held Saturday morning at Castel Gondolfo with the patriarchs and archbishops.

“During this brotherly meeting" - said Benedict XVI- "surely in your speeches, the issues that bother you will be expressed and you can find the adequate guidelines in the right place.

"I would like to assure you are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. I haven’t forgotten your appeal for peace that you placed in my hands at the end of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops last October.

"I would like to take this opportunity to announce the special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, convened by me from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010, and the theme shall be “ The Catholic church in the Middle East: communion and testimony: The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul (At 4,32)”.

He further added “Today’s meeting reminds me of that held on the 24th of April 2004 in the St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Back then during the first days of my pontificate I wanted an ideal pilgrimage in the heart of the Christian East: a pilgrimage that today had reached another important point and which I intend to continue.

"On other occasions you have asked for a more regular contact with the bishop of Rome to enforce the communion of your churches with the successor of St.Peter and to examine together any problems of significant importance.

"This proposal has been renewed even in the last Plenary Congregation for the Eastern churches and in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

As Asianews published yesterday, the patriarchs presented the pope with a note that underlines four points that are very important in the life of the Christians in that region: the growth of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the restlessness of the Christians, the importance of Muslim-Christian dialogue, the position of the oriental catholic patriarch in the universal church and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Kuwait and in the gulf countries.

The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,includingIraq, Iran and Lebanon; the problem of those who have emigrated and of a pastoral that helps his integration.; the presence of Christians in the social, cultural, religious and political fields and the education of the Christians so that they can fight for their rights on a political, social and cultural level.


I think that ther pope will review with Estern Catholics the way of an eventual union of ortohodoxy to catholicism.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 17, 2010, 11:17:04 AM
Quote
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
9/19/2009
Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Pope Benedict XVI announced this Synod during a meeting with Archbishops and Patriarchs of the East.
CASTEL GANDOLFO (AsiaNews) - Pope Benedict XVI has announced a special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010. The decision to hold the meeting was in response to the desire expressed for quite some time by the eastern catholic church. It was announced by the pope during a gathering held Saturday morning at Castel Gondolfo with the patriarchs and archbishops.

“During this brotherly meeting" - said Benedict XVI- "surely in your speeches, the issues that bother you will be expressed and you can find the adequate guidelines in the right place.

"I would like to assure you are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. I haven’t forgotten your appeal for peace that you placed in my hands at the end of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops last October.

"I would like to take this opportunity to announce the special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, convened by me from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010, and the theme shall be “ The Catholic church in the Middle East: communion and testimony: The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul (At 4,32)”.

He further added “Today’s meeting reminds me of that held on the 24th of April 2004 in the St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Back then during the first days of my pontificate I wanted an ideal pilgrimage in the heart of the Christian East: a pilgrimage that today had reached another important point and which I intend to continue.

"On other occasions you have asked for a more regular contact with the bishop of Rome to enforce the communion of your churches with the successor of St.Peter and to examine together any problems of significant importance.

"This proposal has been renewed even in the last Plenary Congregation for the Eastern churches and in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

As Asianews published yesterday, the patriarchs presented the pope with a note that underlines four points that are very important in the life of the Christians in that region: the growth of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the restlessness of the Christians, the importance of Muslim-Christian dialogue, the position of the oriental catholic patriarch in the universal church and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Kuwait and in the gulf countries.

The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,includingIraq, Iran and Lebanon; the problem of those who have emigrated and of a pastoral that helps his integration.; the presence of Christians in the social, cultural, religious and political fields and the education of the Christians so that they can fight for their rights on a political, social and cultural level.


I think that ther pope will review with Estern Catholics the way of an eventual union of ortohodoxy to catholicism.
the confession of the Orthodox Faith, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

What makes you think that the meeting has a hidden agenda, not announced in the news bit? ::) :police:
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Mivac on January 17, 2010, 02:37:25 PM
The more I hear about this upcoming "Great and Holy Council" the more nervous it makes me.

They've been trying to put this Council together for nearly 50 years now. When will it happen... 2060?  ;)
Lord willing, never.

I agree.  I look at history, seeing how in the west the Roman Bishop started down the road of "primacy" mind-set which evolved into a monster.    I do not want to see Orthodox go down that same road.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 17, 2010, 02:44:55 PM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 17, 2010, 03:45:21 PM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."

While I am glad a number of Hebrews are finally getting on board the ship of the Church, that does isoloate somewhat as it is now largely a Church of immigrants, and not of those who have been in the Land since Christ's time.

And as a whole, the Patriarchate is still majority Arab (Jordan is within its jurisdiction for one thing). So now we have another ethnic tension to deal with.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 17, 2010, 07:08:42 PM
The question of the OO and EO could also be on the agenda.  The calendar most certainly will be.

I doubt that Alexandria will get bumped, and if there is a EO-OO reunion, it certainly won't.  What will tip the scales is the growing population of Africa-all of which is, without jurisidictional squabble, under Alexandria-and the spread of Orthoodoxy.  With the OO, the Ethiopian Church is surpassed in size only by Russia, and the Orthodox of Egypt itself is larger than most E0 Churches.

Neither the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church nor its Eritrean sister are under the jurisdiction of Alexandria.
The OO aren't anymore, but that won't matter on point.  Btw, the Ethiopian EO etc. are still under the Pope of Alexandria.

It seemed that you were talking about both the EO and the OO at the time and said that all of Africa is under Alexandria.
For the purposes of the OP, they are.

 ???
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 12:09:14 AM
We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."

And as a whole, the Patriarchate is still majority Arab (Jordan is within its jurisdiction for one thing). So now we have another ethnic tension to deal with.

What would you say?  Probably 250,000 Arab Orthodox in Jordan, possibly less?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 12:49:57 AM
Quote
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
9/19/2009
Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Pope Benedict XVI announced this Synod during a meeting with Archbishops and Patriarchs of the East.
CASTEL GANDOLFO (AsiaNews) - Pope Benedict XVI has announced a special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010. The decision to hold the meeting was in response to the desire expressed for quite some time by the eastern catholic church. It was announced by the pope during a gathering held Saturday morning at Castel Gondolfo with the patriarchs and archbishops.

“During this brotherly meeting" - said Benedict XVI- "surely in your speeches, the issues that bother you will be expressed and you can find the adequate guidelines in the right place.

"I would like to assure you are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. I haven’t forgotten your appeal for peace that you placed in my hands at the end of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops last October.

"I would like to take this opportunity to announce the special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, convened by me from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010, and the theme shall be “ The Catholic church in the Middle East: communion and testimony: The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul (At 4,32)”.

He further added “Today’s meeting reminds me of that held on the 24th of April 2004 in the St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Back then during the first days of my pontificate I wanted an ideal pilgrimage in the heart of the Christian East: a pilgrimage that today had reached another important point and which I intend to continue.

"On other occasions you have asked for a more regular contact with the bishop of Rome to enforce the communion of your churches with the successor of St.Peter and to examine together any problems of significant importance.

"This proposal has been renewed even in the last Plenary Congregation for the Eastern churches and in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

As Asianews published yesterday, the patriarchs presented the pope with a note that underlines four points that are very important in the life of the Christians in that region: the growth of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the restlessness of the Christians, the importance of Muslim-Christian dialogue, the position of the oriental catholic patriarch in the universal church and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Kuwait and in the gulf countries.

The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,includingIraq, Iran and Lebanon; the problem of those who have emigrated and of a pastoral that helps his integration.; the presence of Christians in the social, cultural, religious and political fields and the education of the Christians so that they can fight for their rights on a political, social and cultural level.


I think that ther pope will review with Estern Catholics the way of an eventual union of ortohodoxy to catholicism.
the confession of the Orthodox Faith, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

What makes you think that the meeting has a hidden agenda, not announced in the news bit? ::) :police:

Don´t you think that in an eventual union of catholics and orthodox, they need to be involved?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 12:53:34 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 12:55:42 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."

While I am glad a number of Hebrews are finally getting on board the ship of the Church, that does isoloate somewhat as it is now largely a Church of immigrants, and not of those who have been in the Land since Christ's time.

And as a whole, the Patriarchate is still majority Arab (Jordan is within its jurisdiction for one thing). So now we have another ethnic tension to deal with.

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 01:18:52 AM
Quote
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
9/19/2009
Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Pope Benedict XVI announced this Synod during a meeting with Archbishops and Patriarchs of the East.
CASTEL GANDOLFO (AsiaNews) - Pope Benedict XVI has announced a special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010. The decision to hold the meeting was in response to the desire expressed for quite some time by the eastern catholic church. It was announced by the pope during a gathering held Saturday morning at Castel Gondolfo with the patriarchs and archbishops.

“During this brotherly meeting" - said Benedict XVI- "surely in your speeches, the issues that bother you will be expressed and you can find the adequate guidelines in the right place.

"I would like to assure you are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. I haven’t forgotten your appeal for peace that you placed in my hands at the end of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops last October.

"I would like to take this opportunity to announce the special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, convened by me from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010, and the theme shall be “ The Catholic church in the Middle East: communion and testimony: The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul (At 4,32)”.

He further added “Today’s meeting reminds me of that held on the 24th of April 2004 in the St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Back then during the first days of my pontificate I wanted an ideal pilgrimage in the heart of the Christian East: a pilgrimage that today had reached another important point and which I intend to continue.

"On other occasions you have asked for a more regular contact with the bishop of Rome to enforce the communion of your churches with the successor of St.Peter and to examine together any problems of significant importance.

"This proposal has been renewed even in the last Plenary Congregation for the Eastern churches and in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

As Asianews published yesterday, the patriarchs presented the pope with a note that underlines four points that are very important in the life of the Christians in that region: the growth of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the restlessness of the Christians, the importance of Muslim-Christian dialogue, the position of the oriental catholic patriarch in the universal church and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Kuwait and in the gulf countries.

The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,includingIraq, Iran and Lebanon; the problem of those who have emigrated and of a pastoral that helps his integration.; the presence of Christians in the social, cultural, religious and political fields and the education of the Christians so that they can fight for their rights on a political, social and cultural level.


I think that ther pope will review with Estern Catholics the way of an eventual union of ortohodoxy to catholicism.
the confession of the Orthodox Faith, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

What makes you think that the meeting has a hidden agenda, not announced in the news bit? ::) :police:

Don´t you think that in an eventual union of catholics and orthodox, they need to be involved?

The Vatican has excluded the Eastern Catholic Churches from participation in the talks with the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 01:21:20 AM
And as a whole, the Patriarchate is still majority Arab (Jordan is within its jurisdiction for one thing). So now we have another ethnic tension to deal with.

Historically Russian Orthodox and Arab Orthodox have got along very well, no?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 01:22:34 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."

While I am glad a number of Hebrews are finally getting on board the ship of the Church, that does isoloate somewhat as it is now largely a Church of immigrants, and not of those who have been in the Land since Christ's time.

And as a whole, the Patriarchate is still majority Arab (Jordan is within its jurisdiction for one thing). So now we have another ethnic tension to deal with.

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Here in New Zealand the Catholic Church holds separate services for Samoans and New Zealanders. 
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 01:24:36 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.

Wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict tried to sell off a piece of Vatican City State to MacDonald's in a secret deal?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:25:02 AM
Quote
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
9/19/2009
Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Pope Benedict XVI announced this Synod during a meeting with Archbishops and Patriarchs of the East.
CASTEL GANDOLFO (AsiaNews) - Pope Benedict XVI has announced a special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010. The decision to hold the meeting was in response to the desire expressed for quite some time by the eastern catholic church. It was announced by the pope during a gathering held Saturday morning at Castel Gondolfo with the patriarchs and archbishops.

“During this brotherly meeting" - said Benedict XVI- "surely in your speeches, the issues that bother you will be expressed and you can find the adequate guidelines in the right place.

"I would like to assure you are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. I haven’t forgotten your appeal for peace that you placed in my hands at the end of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops last October.

"I would like to take this opportunity to announce the special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, convened by me from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010, and the theme shall be “ The Catholic church in the Middle East: communion and testimony: The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul (At 4,32)”.

He further added “Today’s meeting reminds me of that held on the 24th of April 2004 in the St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Back then during the first days of my pontificate I wanted an ideal pilgrimage in the heart of the Christian East: a pilgrimage that today had reached another important point and which I intend to continue.

"On other occasions you have asked for a more regular contact with the bishop of Rome to enforce the communion of your churches with the successor of St.Peter and to examine together any problems of significant importance.

"This proposal has been renewed even in the last Plenary Congregation for the Eastern churches and in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

As Asianews published yesterday, the patriarchs presented the pope with a note that underlines four points that are very important in the life of the Christians in that region: the growth of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the restlessness of the Christians, the importance of Muslim-Christian dialogue, the position of the oriental catholic patriarch in the universal church and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Kuwait and in the gulf countries.

The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,includingIraq, Iran and Lebanon; the problem of those who have emigrated and of a pastoral that helps his integration.; the presence of Christians in the social, cultural, religious and political fields and the education of the Christians so that they can fight for their rights on a political, social and cultural level.


I think that ther pope will review with Estern Catholics the way of an eventual union of ortohodoxy to catholicism.
the confession of the Orthodox Faith, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

What makes you think that the meeting has a hidden agenda, not announced in the news bit? ::) :police:

Don´t you think that in an eventual union of catholics and orthodox, they need to be involved?

The Vatican has excluded the Easten Cathholic Churches from participation in talks with the Orthodox.

From conversations, not from catholic church, they need to be informed as well, because they are part of us as we want you to be. They were set apart from conversations because orthodoxy requested that to continue, but that didn't happened with Maronite.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:31:59 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."

While I am glad a number of Hebrews are finally getting on board the ship of the Church, that does isoloate somewhat as it is now largely a Church of immigrants, and not of those who have been in the Land since Christ's time.

And as a whole, the Patriarchate is still majority Arab (Jordan is within its jurisdiction for one thing). So now we have another ethnic tension to deal with.

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Here in New Zealand the Catholic Church holds separate services for Samoans and New Zealanders. 

Yes in USA in the same church Hispanics have spanish mases while white americans have their own english masses, not in every parish but in some of them. priests are making efforts to unite them. yet they share the same building and hispanics can go to englis masses and some of them do it , as well as some white catholics go to spanish masses, though it is more rare.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 01:32:33 AM
Quote
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
9/19/2009
Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Pope Benedict XVI announced this Synod during a meeting with Archbishops and Patriarchs of the East.
CASTEL GANDOLFO (AsiaNews) - Pope Benedict XVI has announced a special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010. The decision to hold the meeting was in response to the desire expressed for quite some time by the eastern catholic church. It was announced by the pope during a gathering held Saturday morning at Castel Gondolfo with the patriarchs and archbishops.

“During this brotherly meeting" - said Benedict XVI- "surely in your speeches, the issues that bother you will be expressed and you can find the adequate guidelines in the right place.

"I would like to assure you are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. I haven’t forgotten your appeal for peace that you placed in my hands at the end of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops last October.

"I would like to take this opportunity to announce the special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, convened by me from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010, and the theme shall be “ The Catholic church in the Middle East: communion and testimony: The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul (At 4,32)”.

He further added “Today’s meeting reminds me of that held on the 24th of April 2004 in the St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Back then during the first days of my pontificate I wanted an ideal pilgrimage in the heart of the Christian East: a pilgrimage that today had reached another important point and which I intend to continue.

"On other occasions you have asked for a more regular contact with the bishop of Rome to enforce the communion of your churches with the successor of St.Peter and to examine together any problems of significant importance.

"This proposal has been renewed even in the last Plenary Congregation for the Eastern churches and in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

As Asianews published yesterday, the patriarchs presented the pope with a note that underlines four points that are very important in the life of the Christians in that region: the growth of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the restlessness of the Christians, the importance of Muslim-Christian dialogue, the position of the oriental catholic patriarch in the universal church and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Kuwait and in the gulf countries.

The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,includingIraq, Iran and Lebanon; the problem of those who have emigrated and of a pastoral that helps his integration.; the presence of Christians in the social, cultural, religious and political fields and the education of the Christians so that they can fight for their rights on a political, social and cultural level.


I think that ther pope will review with Estern Catholics the way of an eventual union of ortohodoxy to catholicism.
the confession of the Orthodox Faith, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

What makes you think that the meeting has a hidden agenda, not announced in the news bit? ::) :police:

Don´t you think that in an eventual union of catholics and orthodox, they need to be involved?

The Vatican has excluded the Easten Cathholic Churches from participation in talks with the Orthodox.

From conversations, not from catholic church, they need to be informed as well, because they are part of us as we want you to be. They were set apart from conversations because orthodoxy requested that to continue, but that didn't happened with Maronite.

Could you say what Catholic-Orthodox meetings the Eastern Catholic have attended in the last, say, two decades.  

The only one I know is the Ukrainian Quadrilateral Commission, and the Ukrainian Eastern Catholics walked out of that and left it to the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.

Perhaps...

1)  Rome is afraid to include Eastern Catholics because things like that could go on happening

2)  Rome is afraid because, when push comes to shove,  Eastern Catholics may side with the Orthodox against Rome om some doctrinal matters.  This would spotlight the lack of doctrinal unity in the modern Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2010, 01:34:37 AM
We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."

And as a whole, the Patriarchate is still majority Arab (Jordan is within its jurisdiction for one thing). So now we have another ethnic tension to deal with.

What would you say?  Probably 250,000 Arab Orthodox in Jordan, possibly less?
Possibly more.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:42:42 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.

Wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict tried to sell off a piece of Vatican City State to MacDonald's in a secret deal?
Pope can do whatever he wants with the things there are in Vatican, he is the head of state. Just to give you an example, Pope John Paul II gave back St Gregory theologos and St John Chrisostomos bones to Bartolomeo, Do you think that all the church was happy of that?, no, for some catholics, Gregory and John where catholics when they lived, yet orthodoxy fell into cesaropapism, the very John Chrisostomos suffered for that reason. to many catholics those bones should have been given back only after reunification, not before, but for some others to be moreclose to Patriarch and to help him to convence you to be more positive to us, we needed to give back those bones, yet we have not reached full communion.

now, was the faith of orthodoxy under risk because of lands?, I don't think so, but you behave as if it were.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 02:03:01 AM
Quote
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
9/19/2009
Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Pope Benedict XVI announced this Synod during a meeting with Archbishops and Patriarchs of the East.
CASTEL GANDOLFO (AsiaNews) - Pope Benedict XVI has announced a special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010. The decision to hold the meeting was in response to the desire expressed for quite some time by the eastern catholic church. It was announced by the pope during a gathering held Saturday morning at Castel Gondolfo with the patriarchs and archbishops.

“During this brotherly meeting" - said Benedict XVI- "surely in your speeches, the issues that bother you will be expressed and you can find the adequate guidelines in the right place.

"I would like to assure you are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. I haven’t forgotten your appeal for peace that you placed in my hands at the end of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops last October.

"I would like to take this opportunity to announce the special Assembly of the Synod dedicated to the Middle East, convened by me from the 10th to the 24th of October 2010, and the theme shall be “ The Catholic church in the Middle East: communion and testimony: The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul (At 4,32)”.

He further added “Today’s meeting reminds me of that held on the 24th of April 2004 in the St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Back then during the first days of my pontificate I wanted an ideal pilgrimage in the heart of the Christian East: a pilgrimage that today had reached another important point and which I intend to continue.

"On other occasions you have asked for a more regular contact with the bishop of Rome to enforce the communion of your churches with the successor of St.Peter and to examine together any problems of significant importance.

"This proposal has been renewed even in the last Plenary Congregation for the Eastern churches and in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

As Asianews published yesterday, the patriarchs presented the pope with a note that underlines four points that are very important in the life of the Christians in that region: the growth of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the restlessness of the Christians, the importance of Muslim-Christian dialogue, the position of the oriental catholic patriarch in the universal church and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Kuwait and in the gulf countries.

The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,includingIraq, Iran and Lebanon; the problem of those who have emigrated and of a pastoral that helps his integration.; the presence of Christians in the social, cultural, religious and political fields and the education of the Christians so that they can fight for their rights on a political, social and cultural level.


I think that ther pope will review with Estern Catholics the way of an eventual union of ortohodoxy to catholicism.
the confession of the Orthodox Faith, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

What makes you think that the meeting has a hidden agenda, not announced in the news bit? ::) :police:

Don´t you think that in an eventual union of catholics and orthodox, they need to be involved?

The Vatican has excluded the Easten Cathholic Churches from participation in talks with the Orthodox.

From conversations, not from catholic church, they need to be informed as well, because they are part of us as we want you to be. They were set apart from conversations because orthodoxy requested that to continue, but that didn't happened with Maronite.

Could you say what Catholic-Orthodox meetings the Eastern Catholic have attended in the last, say, two decades. 

The only one I know is the Ukrainian Quadrilateral Commission, and the Ukrainian Eastern Catholics walked out of that and left it to the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.

Perhaps...

1)  Rome is afraid to include Eastern Catholics because things like that could go on happening

2)  Rome is afraid because, when push comes to shove,  Eastern Catholics may side with the Orthodox against Rome om some doctrinal matters.  This would spotlight the lack of doctrinal unity in the modern Catholic Church.
Well as you said, the only you know is not but a corner of the full picture, all other of your points are just mere speculation.

The real thing is that Orthodoxy requested to solve first the issue of Eastern Catholicism, before going any further, and Catholics through giving St John and St Gregory bones back to orthodoxy, made clear that we are sincere in our intensions. So orthodoxy no longer discussed about Eastern Catholics. And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy. The issue is that orthodoxy enjoys a lot its independency, not matter if it has caused and is causing much trouble between patriarchates, as Moscow and Constantinople issues about diaspora.

We also have to take into account that Constantinople Patriarchate feels the holding of Rome as the head patriarchate of orthodoxy, not matter if it is a church of just 2500 christians in Istanbul, and Moscow is a 150 million Christians church. 

Only if after the Council of Eastern Orthodoxy, Moscow reaches the head place of orthodoxy and Constantinople agrees, then the Catholics will speak with Russian Patriarchate as the head of orthodoxy. But by now Rome beholds Constantinople.

Constantinople now understands a bit what Rome felt in 1054, Rome is the see of St Peter, of St Paul, of the original Church of Jerusalem brought to Rome by Titus in 70 AD. and yet Constantinople pretended to be the principal see of Christianity just because it was the capital of the empire. Now Moscow is giving a taste of its own chocolate to Constantinople, defeating its primacy among orthodoxy and its potency over diaspora churches, Moscow climes to be the third and definitive Rome, no chance to any other to rice up.  Not matter if Constantinople was the see of many councils, and that Rome recognized it as second after itself before breaking.
 
That is why Constantinople understands that the church needs a primus to set order, beyond expansionistic intensions of national churches. That order in Catholicism is set by Rome, and we all either agree or disagree, we obey, something that doesn’t happen in Orthodoxy.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 02:03:55 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.

Wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict tried to sell off a piece of Vatican City State to MacDonald's in a secret deal?
Pope can do whatever he wants with the things there are in Vatican, he is the head of state.

Not really.  He takes an oath before he is consecrated (to use the traditional term) as Supreme Pontiff that he will not dispose of any property.  Imagine the horror if a Pope appeared who sold off Saint Peter's and went back to Saint John Lateran and the Quirinal Palace.   The Pope's have lived in the Vatican for only 130 years. 

 
Quote
now, was the faith of orthodoxy under risk because of lands?, I don't think so, but you behave as if it were.

Well, probably the faith of Roman Catholicism would not be under risk if the Pope sold off the Vatican but....  :laugh:
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 02:10:45 AM
And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as "papacy" in the Church of Christ.  It is an alien beast introduced by the Church of Rome.  There is NO element in the Church higher than a bishop and a synod of bishops.  

This "papacy" has to be deconstructed before real ecumenism can occur.


Saint Justin Popovich:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 02:21:02 AM

The real thing is that Orthodoxy requested to solve first the issue of Eastern Catholicism, before going any further, and Catholics through giving St John and St Gregory bones back to orthodoxy, made clear that we are sincere in our intensions. So orthodoxy no longer discussed about Eastern Catholics.

None of the above makes real sense to me.  It seems to be saying that the Orthodox were bought off by the gift of the relics of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Gregory.  A back room deal was done that the Orthodox would not talk about Eastern Catholicism if they got these relics back?   ???
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 18, 2010, 02:22:21 AM

To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,

They've lost less than you.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 18, 2010, 02:23:03 AM

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 18, 2010, 02:24:17 AM

The Vatican has excluded the Eastern Catholic Churches from participation in the talks with the Orthodox.

Sounds like a good idea. They've gone quite kooky.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 18, 2010, 02:26:57 AM

2)  Rome is afraid because, when push comes to shove,  Eastern Catholics may side with the Orthodox against Rome om some doctrinal matters.  This would spotlight the lack of doctrinal unity in the modern Catholic Church.

Bingo!
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2010, 02:30:09 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.

Wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict tried to sell off a piece of Vatican City State to MacDonald's in a secret deal?
Pope can do whatever he wants with the things there are in Vatican, he is the head of state. Just to give you an example, Pope John Paul II gave back St Gregory theologos and St John Chrisostomos bones to Bartolomeo, Do you think that all the church was happy of that?, no, for some catholics, Gregory and John where catholics when they lived, yet orthodoxy fell into cesaropapism,

LOL.  The pope is head of state, but we have fallen into caesaropapism.


Quote
the very John Chrisostomos suffered for that reason. to many catholics those bones should have been given back only after reunification, not before, but for some others to be moreclose to Patriarch and to help him to convence you to be more positive to us, we needed to give back those bones, yet we have not reached full communion.

now, was the faith of orthodoxy under risk because of lands?, I don't think so, but you behave as if it were.
Ahem, how did you get the relics of St. John Chrysostom again? ::)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 02:39:15 AM

Ahem, how did you get the relics of St. John Chrysostom again? ::)


The horrendous story of how these relics and many others were taken to the West


The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2010, 02:40:35 AM
Perhaps...

1)  Rome is afraid to include Eastern Catholics because things like that could go on happening

2)  Rome is afraid because, when push comes to shove,  Eastern Catholics may side with the Orthodox against Rome om some doctrinal matters.  This would spotlight the lack of doctrinal unity in the modern Catholic Church.
Well as you said, the only you know is not but a corner of the full picture, all other of your points are just mere speculation.

The real thing is that Orthodoxy requested to solve first the issue of Eastern Catholicism, before going any further, and Catholics through giving St John and St Gregory bones back to orthodoxy, made clear that we are sincere in our intensions. So orthodoxy no longer discussed about Eastern Catholics. And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy. The issue is that orthodoxy enjoys a lot its independency, not matter if it has caused and is causing much trouble between patriarchates, as Moscow and Constantinople issues about diaspora.

Because of course the Patriarchate of the West never had such problems.  What did you say about the French in the New World again?


Quote
We also have to take into account that Constantinople Patriarchate feels the holding of Rome as the head patriarchate of orthodoxy, not matter if it is a church of just 2500 christians in Istanbul, and Moscow is a 150 million Christians church. 

Only if after the Council of Eastern Orthodoxy, Moscow reaches the head place of orthodoxy and Constantinople agrees, then the Catholics will speak with Russian Patriarchate as the head of orthodoxy. But by now Rome beholds Constantinople.

Which shows Rome still hasn't learned how the Church operates.  That was the Vatican's same mistake at Lyons and Florence.



Quote
Constantinople now understands a bit what Rome felt in 1054, Rome is the see of St Peter, of St Paul, of the original Church of Jerusalem brought to Rome by Titus in 70 AD. and yet Constantinople pretended to be the principal see of Christianity just because it was the capital of the empire.

So was Rome.  And Titus was an emperor.


Quote
Now Moscow is giving a taste of its own chocolate to Constantinople, defeating its primacy among orthodoxy and its potency over diaspora churches, Moscow climes to be the third and definitive Rome, no chance to any other to rice up.  Not matter if Constantinople was the see of many councils, and that Rome recognized it as second after itself before breaking.

The Vatican claims otherwise now, that it did not recognize it until Lateran IV (1215).


Quote
That is why Constantinople understands that the church needs a primus to set order, beyond expansionistic intensions of national churches.
We've lasted 2000 years without one.


Quote
That order in Catholicism is set by Rome, and we all either agree or disagree, we obey, something that doesn’t happen in Orthodoxy.
Doesn't happen under the Vatican either. Look at the mess after Vatican I and II.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 10:47:14 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.

Wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict tried to sell off a piece of Vatican City State to MacDonald's in a secret deal?
Pope can do whatever he wants with the things there are in Vatican, he is the head of state.

Not really.  He takes an oath before he is consecrated (to use the traditional term) as Supreme Pontiff that he will not dispose of any property.  Imagine the horror if a Pope appeared who sold off Saint Peter's and went back to Saint John Lateran and the Quirinal Palace.   The Pope's have lived in the Vatican for only 130 years. 

 
Quote
now, was the faith of orthodoxy under risk because of lands?, I don't think so, but you behave as if it were.

Well, probably the faith of Roman Catholicism would not be under risk if the Pope sold off the Vatican but....  :laugh:

I had no idea of that oath, but I don´t think that it is taken now a days, after all I gave you a good example of the pope giving something more important than many buildings, the bones of St John Chrisostomo and the bones of St Gregory Theologos. Their bones were in the altar of St Peter, near to St Peter himself bones. Was the pope anatemized?, was he expeled?, did catholicism was at risk? No.

About St Peter's Basilica, It happens that even before any basilica in Constantinople, the grounds of the new Basilica (500 years old) are a laberint of the first sanctuary dedicated to St Peter dated to the first century of our age. So what would be tha case to sell St Peter's basilica?, Would russian orthodoxy purchase it?, would Constantinople orthodoxy purchase it? who may purchase it?

Many treasures of the Vatican are sold continuously, in the same rate that they arrive as gifts from all over the world. in fact some times it happens that many lads who purchase those gifts, once they die they return those objects to Vatican. In fact the Vatican has many troubles in managing those treasures because they are very xpensive to keep renewed. You may have to remember that when Sixtine Chapel was renewed, it was paid by a Japanese company who covered the expenses.

Now, St John of Letran is the oldest and more important church of all christianity, no doubt, that is the see of the bishop of Rome, St Peter is not the Cathedral of Rome, it is St John of Letran. And in fact it is part of the Holly See, as State. the same that St Mary Major, and St Paul Fori le Mura (Out of Walls). However, St Peter's complex allows the pope to be closer to many of the sacred congregations of The Catholic Church.

It has been a question that I have been wondering an acurate answer, Why Pope don't sale St Peter's Basilica?. And the answer I have reached is that whom ever purchase that Basilica, he would be required  to sell it again, and if he does so, the one who purchase it would be required to sell it again. So, the real issue is that those who want Pope to sell St Peter's Basilica, wont be happy until there is no Basilica. sold in Parts for museums, as it happenes with Partenon in Athens. But, Would that be the will of God?

The question then turns to those who would like to Pope to sell St Peter's Basilica, What would be the intention prosecuted by selling St Peter's Basilica?, we will realize that the intention is to satisfy their hate to Papacy.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 10:55:31 AM
And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as "papacy" in the Church of Christ.  It is an alien beast introduced by the Church of Rome.  There is NO element in the Church higher than a bishop and a synod of bishops. 

This "papacy" has to be deconstructed before real ecumenism can occur.


Saint Justin Popovich:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


Well, I just inform you, you may split to old calendarist if you like. But the bishop of Rome would be once again the Primus of the church, until our Lord Jesus comes back, including oriental churches.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 10:58:36 AM

The real thing is that Orthodoxy requested to solve first the issue of Eastern Catholicism, before going any further, and Catholics through giving St John and St Gregory bones back to orthodoxy, made clear that we are sincere in our intensions. So orthodoxy no longer discussed about Eastern Catholics.

None of the above makes real sense to me.  It seems to be saying that the Orthodox were bought off by the gift of the relics of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Gregory.  A back room deal was done that the Orthodox would not talk about Eastern Catholicism if they got these relics back?   ???

No, hte gift of Relics was to stablish that beyond Eastern Catholicism issues in orthodoxy, we catholics really want orthodoxy to come back to us.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 11:00:26 AM

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.

Yes, sure....
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 11:03:56 AM

2)  Rome is afraid because, when push comes to shove,  Eastern Catholics may side with the Orthodox against Rome om some doctrinal matters.  This would spotlight the lack of doctrinal unity in the modern Catholic Church.

Bingo!

Doctrinal matters are not under dicusion, but Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and in fact Eastern Orthodoxy about this issue of primacy, is with The Catholic Church, other way they wuld be part of orthodox clergy, and they are not.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 11:07:49 AM

The real thing is that Orthodoxy requested to solve first the issue of Eastern Catholicism, before going any further, and Catholics through giving St John and St Gregory bones back to orthodoxy, made clear that we are sincere in our intensions. So orthodoxy no longer discussed about Eastern Catholics.

None of the above makes real sense to me.  It seems to be saying that the Orthodox were bought off by the gift of the relics of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Gregory.  A back room deal was done that the Orthodox would not talk about Eastern Catholicism if they got these relics back?   ???

No, hte gift of Relics was to stablish that beyond Eastern Catholicism issues in orthodoxy, we catholics really want orthodoxy to come back to us.

It is happening. I have every hope that we will see the Triumph of Catholicism in our time. Much in part to those Bishops who, listening to the Holy Spirit, elected Pope Benedict XVI to that office of Navigator of the Ark of Salvation, the Church. SI, MOLTO SI!!! VIVA IL PAPA BENDETTO XVI!

 http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/01/canizares-interview-part-i.html (http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/01/canizares-interview-part-i.html)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 11:08:26 AM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.

Wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict tried to sell off a piece of Vatican City State to MacDonald's in a secret deal?
Pope can do whatever he wants with the things there are in Vatican, he is the head of state. Just to give you an example, Pope John Paul II gave back St Gregory theologos and St John Chrisostomos bones to Bartolomeo, Do you think that all the church was happy of that?, no, for some catholics, Gregory and John where catholics when they lived, yet orthodoxy fell into cesaropapism,

LOL.  The pope is head of state, but we have fallen into caesaropapism.


Quote
the very John Chrisostomos suffered for that reason. to many catholics those bones should have been given back only after reunification, not before, but for some others to be moreclose to Patriarch and to help him to convence you to be more positive to us, we needed to give back those bones, yet we have not reached full communion.

now, was the faith of orthodoxy under risk because of lands?, I don't think so, but you behave as if it were.
Ahem, how did you get the relics of St. John Chrysostom again? ::)

Yes, Cesaropapism, relates Pope to the secular governor, while the Holly See guaranty the real independence of the Catholic church despite government in Italy, Is that the same independence that enjoys the Patriarchate of Constantinople?, Last I know is that Turks, don't allow any  one not Turkish to be the Patriarch of Istambul. Is that independency?, while the pope in The Catholic Church can be any one from whatever country, it happens the the Primus of orthodoxy just can be turkish.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 11:24:19 AM

Ahem, how did you get the relics of St. John Chrysostom again? ::)


The horrendous story of how these relics and many others were taken to the West


The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

At least we save them from turkish muslims who destroyed the church where they rested before they were taken to Rome. Now that it is more secure for them to go back to Constantinople, they are back.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 18, 2010, 11:26:31 AM
If the charge of caesaropapism were true, we would be united with Rome now, as many emperors supported this. The councils of Lyon and Florence were both backed by Byzantine emperors.

Why should the Orthodox re-unite with Rome, when you cannot even unite amongst yourselves? Why should we join a body that has been fragmenting and self-destructing since (at least) the 1960's, where bishops, priests, and laity openly question or reject Catholic dogmas with impunity? When I approach the chalice for communion, I can be reasonably sure that the persons in front of and behind me believe, as I do, that this is the genuine Body and Blood of Christ. The same can't be said in the average Catholic church.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 11:43:19 AM
If the charge of caesaropapism were true, we would be united with Rome now, as many emperors supported this. The councils of Lyon and Florence were both backed by Byzantine emperors.

If the Emperors couldn't curb the hatred of Greeks toward Latins in the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, how do you think that these weak Emperors would have any such influence on the people?

Quote
Why should the Orthodox re-unite with Rome, when you cannot even unite amongst yourselves? Why should we join a body that has been fragmenting and self-destructing since (at least) the 1960's, where bishops, priests, and laity openly question or reject Catholic dogmas with impunity? When I approach the chalice for communion, I can be reasonably sure that the persons in front of and behind me believe, as I do, that this is the genuine Body and Blood of Christ. The same can't be said in the average Catholic church.

The See of Rome could have asked the same question during the Iconoclasm... but it didn't.

You seem to look at division with a sense of joy. You seen to take pride that you are separate. Do you really think that you are apart from such sins? We are talking about individual sins and you are projecting that to a whole Church. My guess is, you and your tradition is not without it's own sins. Some sins are very visable, others are hidden from our eyes. Visable sin make us humble, while hidden sins make us prideful. Be careful that you don't fall in to such errors.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 18, 2010, 12:01:49 PM
If the charge of caesaropapism were true, we would be united with Rome now, as many emperors supported this. The councils of Lyon and Florence were both backed by Byzantine emperors.

If the Emperors couldn't curb the hatred of Greeks toward Latins in the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, how do you think that these weak Emperors would have any such influence on the people?

Unfortunate as it is, none of this contradicts my basic point: the charge of caesaropapism is nonsense.


Quote
Quote
Why should the Orthodox re-unite with Rome, when you cannot even unite amongst yourselves? Why should we join a body that has been fragmenting and self-destructing since (at least) the 1960's, where bishops, priests, and laity openly question or reject Catholic dogmas with impunity? When I approach the chalice for communion, I can be reasonably sure that the persons in front of and behind me believe, as I do, that this is the genuine Body and Blood of Christ. The same can't be said in the average Catholic church.

The See of Rome could have asked the same question during the Iconoclasm... but it didn't.

The See of Rome was still united to the Church then. In the East there were many martyrs and confessors against iconoclasm- the struggle was one of life or death. The Orthodox did not sit back and ignore iconoclasm- they fiercely opposed it from the beginning. The same can hardly be said for the post Vatican II madness. For example, has the Pope so much as uttered a peep against the Zoghbyites?

Quote
You seem to look at division with a sense of joy.

I admit it, I am happy when Truth is divided from Error and that my Church is not in communion with heresy.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2010, 12:10:37 PM
And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as "papacy" in the Church of Christ.  It is an alien beast introduced by the Church of Rome.  There is NO element in the Church higher than a bishop and a synod of bishops. 

This "papacy" has to be deconstructed before real ecumenism can occur.


Saint Justin Popovich:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


Well, I just inform you, you may split to old calendarist if you like. But the bishop of Rome would be once again the Primus of the church, until our Lord Jesus comes back, including oriental churches.
How can he once again be what he never was?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: John Larocque on January 18, 2010, 12:12:41 PM
But who gets the bones of St. Nicholas?

This was a hilarious read, from an ultra-Protestant with a huge case of Pope Benedict Derangement Syndrome.  I think the piece was written before the Turkish government decided it wanted them.

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=benedict1
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 12:15:13 PM

I admit it, I am happy when Truth is divided from Error and that my Church is not in communion with heresy.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. ~ St. Paul

let us say that you have Truth... without Charity... it is nothing. Truth can't be separate from the Virtues of the Spirit, it is the Virtues of the Spirit. You think that because you belief you have Truth that you are better than the average Catholic... but you make it appear otherwise by your actions.

I don't see virtue in this.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 18, 2010, 12:20:16 PM
let us say that you have Truth... without Charity... it is nothing. Truth can't be separate from the Virtues of the Spirit, it is the Virtues of the Spirit. You think that because you belief you have Truth that you are better than the average Catholic...

If I ever said or implied anywhere here that I am personally "better" than the average Catholic, I sincerely apologize. Please indicate where I said such things so I can have these remarks removed.

 
Quote
but you make it appear otherwise by your actions.

I am humbled by your apparent clairvoyance in knowing what my "actions" are and being able to evaluate my personal spiritual life, despite the fact that you have never met me. You must be a very holy person.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2010, 12:22:04 PM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.

Wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict tried to sell off a piece of Vatican City State to MacDonald's in a secret deal?
Pope can do whatever he wants with the things there are in Vatican, he is the head of state.

Not really.  He takes an oath before he is consecrated (to use the traditional term) as Supreme Pontiff that he will not dispose of any property.  Imagine the horror if a Pope appeared who sold off Saint Peter's and went back to Saint John Lateran and the Quirinal Palace.   The Pope's have lived in the Vatican for only 130 years. 

 
Quote
now, was the faith of orthodoxy under risk because of lands?, I don't think so, but you behave as if it were.

Well, probably the faith of Roman Catholicism would not be under risk if the Pope sold off the Vatican but....  :laugh:

I had no idea of that oath, but I don´t think that it is taken now a days, after all I gave you a good example of the pope giving something more important than many buildings, the bones of St John Chrisostomo and the bones of St Gregory Theologos. Their bones were in the altar of St Peter, near to St Peter himself bones. Was the pope anatemized?, was he expeled?, did catholicism was at risk? No.

About St Peter's Basilica, It happens that even before any basilica in Constantinople, the grounds of the new Basilica (500 years old) are a laberint of the first sanctuary dedicated to St Peter dated to the first century of our age. So what would be tha case to sell St Peter's basilica?, Would russian orthodoxy purchase it?, would Constantinople orthodoxy purchase it? who may purchase it?

Actually, since it is the Metochion/Titular Church of Constantinople, the EP (the pope's cathedra is in St. John of the Lateran).

Quote
Many treasures of the Vatican are sold continuously, in the same rate that they arrive as gifts from all over the world. in fact some times it happens that many lads who purchase those gifts, once they die they return those objects to Vatican. In fact the Vatican has many troubles in managing those treasures because they are very xpensive to keep renewed. You may have to remember that when Sixtine Chapel was renewed, it was paid by a Japanese company who covered the expenses.

Now, St John of Letran is the oldest and more important church of all christianity, no doubt,

No, this is:
(http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-holy-sepulchre-pictures/edicule-c-damon-lynch.jpg)
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-holy-sepulchre-pictures/edicule-c-damon-lynch.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre

The most sacred spot on earth, and the Cathedral of the only cathedra called the Throne by the ancients (e.g. Eusebius, St. Epiphanios), the fullfillment on earth of the promise to David's throne.


Quote
that is the see of the bishop of Rome, St Peter is not the Cathedral of Rome, it is St John of Letran. And in fact it is part of the Holly See, as State. the same that St Mary Major, and St Paul Fori le Mura (Out of Walls). However, St Peter's complex allows the pope to be closer to many of the sacred congregations of The Catholic Church.

Which brings up the question: if St. Peter is the source of the supremacy, why is his see in Constantinople's Church?

Quote
It has been a question that I have been wondering an acurate answer, Why Pope don't sale St Peter's Basilica?. And the answer I have reached is that whom ever purchase that Basilica, he would be required  to sell it again, and if he does so, the one who purchase it would be required to sell it again. So, the real issue is that those who want Pope to sell St Peter's Basilica, wont be happy until there is no Basilica. sold in Parts for museums, as it happenes with Partenon in Athens. But, Would that be the will of God?

The question then turns to those who would like to Pope to sell St Peter's Basilica, What would be the intention prosecuted by selling St Peter's Basilica?, we will realize that the intention is to satisfy their hate to Papacy.
No, to return it to Orthodoxy, and put back those silver plaques on the doors with the unadulterated creed that Pope St. Leo III set up with the inscription «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith).
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 01:30:10 PM
let us say that you have Truth... without Charity... it is nothing. Truth can't be separate from the Virtues of the Spirit, it is the Virtues of the Spirit. You think that because you belief you have Truth that you are better than the average Catholic...

If I ever said or implied anywhere here that I am personally "better" than the average Catholic, I sincerely apologize. Please indicate where I said such things so I can have these remarks removed.

 You said: "When I approach the chalice for communion, I can be reasonably sure that the persons in front of and behind me believe, as I do, that this is the genuine Body and Blood of Christ. The same can't be said in the average Catholic church."

You appear to have Clairvoyance and yet you accuse me of such?

Quote
I am humbled by your apparent clairvoyance in knowing what my "actions" are and being able to evaluate my personal spiritual life, despite the fact that you have never met me. You must be a very holy person.

Nor you I or the vast majority of the 'average' Catholic Laity and yet you seem fine passing your judgments on them.

If the Western Church is in such error I would dare say that the only genuine Christian position to hold toward us is pity. Yet you and many other Orthodox can't seem to muster anything but disdain and your repeated polemics.

I find this the must unappealing aspect of Orthodoxy in the English Speaking world.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:39:39 PM
If the charge of caesaropapism were true, we would be united with Rome now, as many emperors supported this. The councils of Lyon and Florence were both backed by Byzantine emperors.

If the Emperors couldn't curb the hatred of Greeks toward Latins in the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, how do you think that these weak Emperors would have any such influence on the people?

Quote
Why should the Orthodox re-unite with Rome, when you cannot even unite amongst yourselves? Why should we join a body that has been fragmenting and self-destructing since (at least) the 1960's, where bishops, priests, and laity openly question or reject Catholic dogmas with impunity? When I approach the chalice for communion, I can be reasonably sure that the persons in front of and behind me believe, as I do, that this is the genuine Body and Blood of Christ. The same can't be said in the average Catholic church.

The See of Rome could have asked the same question during the Iconoclasm... but it didn't.

You seem to look at division with a sense of joy. You seen to take pride that you are separate. Do you really think that you are apart from such sins? We are talking about individual sins and you are projecting that to a whole Church. My guess is, you and your tradition is not without it's own sins. Some sins are very visable, others are hidden from our eyes. Visable sin make us humble, while hidden sins make us prideful. Be careful that you don't fall in to such errors.

I totally agree.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 18, 2010, 01:41:08 PM
You said: "When I approach the chalice for communion, I can be reasonably sure that the persons in front of and behind me believe, as I do, that this is the genuine Body and Blood of Christ. The same can't be said in the average Catholic church."

You appear to have Clairvoyance and yet you accuse me of such?

I speak from experience. Most of my family is Catholic. Why, just this last Christmas, my uncle (a former Jesuit priest, still a practicing Catholic) explained to the family why he doesn't think Hell exists. Over and over again I have met Catholics who openly denied basic aspects of their church's morality, theology, etc. In fact, I don't think I've met a single Catholic in my life who doesn't do this. My experience has been shared by countless other observers. I don't need clairvoyance to grasp what is common knowledge.


Quote
If the Western Church is in such error I would dare say that the only genuine Christian position to hold toward us is pity. Yet you and many other Orthodox can't seem to muster anything but disdain and your repeated polemics.

I do pity them, but there are certain times when a smackdown is called for, as St. Nicholas demonstrated with Arius.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:41:22 PM
And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as "papacy" in the Church of Christ.  It is an alien beast introduced by the Church of Rome.  There is NO element in the Church higher than a bishop and a synod of bishops. 

This "papacy" has to be deconstructed before real ecumenism can occur.


Saint Justin Popovich:


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


Well, I just inform you, you may split to old calendarist if you like. But the bishop of Rome would be once again the Primus of the church, until our Lord Jesus comes back, including oriental churches.
How can he once again be what he never was?

Just you wait...
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 18, 2010, 01:42:20 PM
And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as "papacy" in the Church of Christ.  It is an alien beast introduced by the Church of Rome.  There is NO element in the Church higher than a bishop and a synod of bishops. 

This "papacy" has to be deconstructed before real ecumenism can occur.


Saint Justin Popovich:


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


Well, I just inform you, you may split to old calendarist if you like. But the bishop of Rome would be once again the Primus of the church, until our Lord Jesus comes back, including oriental churches.
How can he once again be what he never was?

Just you wait...

Unless the Vatican has secretly mastered the powers of time travel, I'm not sure what you expect us to wait for...
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:46:04 PM
But who gets the bones of St. Nicholas?

This was a hilarious read, from an ultra-Protestant with a huge case of Pope Benedict Derangement Syndrome.  I think the piece was written before the Turkish government decided it wanted them.

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=benedict1


St Nicolas, is in Bari, saved from muslims who were at the doorstep of Myra. and in Bari Orthodox can have their liturgy as well as Catholics. If Turkey wants those bones for tourist atraction, as many muslims do in jerusalen, profiting from christians, so be it, but, Would that allow to his Beatitude Bartholomew I to have more freedom for christians?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:47:49 PM

I admit it, I am happy when Truth is divided from Error and that my Church is not in communion with heresy.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. ~ St. Paul

let us say that you have Truth... without Charity... it is nothing. Truth can't be separate from the Virtues of the Spirit, it is the Virtues of the Spirit. You think that because you belief you have Truth that you are better than the average Catholic... but you make it appear otherwise by your actions.

I don't see virtue in this.



I fully agree.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:56:41 PM
Pope calls a Special Synod for the Middle East in 2010
The proposal for an special assembly of the synod for the Middle East was made to the pope last January by the Iraqi Bishop Louis Sako. The Bishop said that another problem that must be solved is the continuous exodus of the Christians from the Middle East , especially from the Holy Land,

We may give thanks to Almighty God that the position of the Orthodox in the Holy Land is the antithesis to the postion of Catholics and other Churches.  Our ancient Church has been greatly strengthened by the arrival of between 150,000 to 300,000 Orthodox from Russia and the Ukraine.   The majority of the Patriarchate is now Jews.  These are Christian Jews who have come from the former Soviet Union.

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate
-- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics
indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they
outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."


To me it sounds quite fundamentalistic, But I assume that is the orthodox way, they have lost so much,  we just have to remember the case of Irineios patriarch of Jerusalen destituted because selling lands to jews.

Wonder what would happen if Pope Benedict tried to sell off a piece of Vatican City State to MacDonald's in a secret deal?
Pope can do whatever he wants with the things there are in Vatican, he is the head of state.

Not really.  He takes an oath before he is consecrated (to use the traditional term) as Supreme Pontiff that he will not dispose of any property.  Imagine the horror if a Pope appeared who sold off Saint Peter's and went back to Saint John Lateran and the Quirinal Palace.   The Pope's have lived in the Vatican for only 130 years. 

 
Quote
now, was the faith of orthodoxy under risk because of lands?, I don't think so, but you behave as if it were.

Well, probably the faith of Roman Catholicism would not be under risk if the Pope sold off the Vatican but....  :laugh:

I had no idea of that oath, but I don´t think that it is taken now a days, after all I gave you a good example of the pope giving something more important than many buildings, the bones of St John Chrisostomo and the bones of St Gregory Theologos. Their bones were in the altar of St Peter, near to St Peter himself bones. Was the pope anatemized?, was he expeled?, did catholicism was at risk? No.

About St Peter's Basilica, It happens that even before any basilica in Constantinople, the grounds of the new Basilica (500 years old) are a laberint of the first sanctuary dedicated to St Peter dated to the first century of our age. So what would be tha case to sell St Peter's basilica?, Would russian orthodoxy purchase it?, would Constantinople orthodoxy purchase it? who may purchase it?

Actually, since it is the Metochion/Titular Church of Constantinople, the EP (the pope's cathedra is in St. John of the Lateran).

Quote
Many treasures of the Vatican are sold continuously, in the same rate that they arrive as gifts from all over the world. in fact some times it happens that many lads who purchase those gifts, once they die they return those objects to Vatican. In fact the Vatican has many troubles in managing those treasures because they are very xpensive to keep renewed. You may have to remember that when Sixtine Chapel was renewed, it was paid by a Japanese company who covered the expenses.

Now, St John of Letran is the oldest and more important church of all christianity, no doubt,

No, this is:
(http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-holy-sepulchre-pictures/edicule-c-damon-lynch.jpg)
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-holy-sepulchre-pictures/edicule-c-damon-lynch.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre

The most sacred spot on earth, and the Cathedral of the only cathedra called the Throne by the ancients (e.g. Eusebius, St. Epiphanios), the fullfillment on earth of the promise to David's throne.


Quote
that is the see of the bishop of Rome, St Peter is not the Cathedral of Rome, it is St John of Letran. And in fact it is part of the Holly See, as State. the same that St Mary Major, and St Paul Fori le Mura (Out of Walls). However, St Peter's complex allows the pope to be closer to many of the sacred congregations of The Catholic Church.

Which brings up the question: if St. Peter is the source of the supremacy, why is his see in Constantinople's Church?

Quote
It has been a question that I have been wondering an acurate answer, Why Pope don't sale St Peter's Basilica?. And the answer I have reached is that whom ever purchase that Basilica, he would be required  to sell it again, and if he does so, the one who purchase it would be required to sell it again. So, the real issue is that those who want Pope to sell St Peter's Basilica, wont be happy until there is no Basilica. sold in Parts for museums, as it happenes with Partenon in Athens. But, Would that be the will of God?

The question then turns to those who would like to Pope to sell St Peter's Basilica, What would be the intention prosecuted by selling St Peter's Basilica?, we will realize that the intention is to satisfy their hate to Papacy.
No, to return it to Orthodoxy, and put back those silver plaques on the doors with the unadulterated creed that Pope St. Leo III set up with the inscription «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith).

I will not answer you as you may deserve for I don't want to give arguments of further divisionism. In stead I invite you to look inside your heart, if there is not love to catholics, as we catholics love you, then you must question yourself if your understanding of the faith is the one that the Lord wanted us to have, or if it is more alike to the faith of farisaic lads.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 01:58:13 PM
And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as "papacy" in the Church of Christ.  It is an alien beast introduced by the Church of Rome.  There is NO element in the Church higher than a bishop and a synod of bishops. 

This "papacy" has to be deconstructed before real ecumenism can occur.


Saint Justin Popovich:


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


Well, I just inform you, you may split to old calendarist if you like. But the bishop of Rome would be once again the Primus of the church, until our Lord Jesus comes back, including oriental churches.
How can he once again be what he never was?

Just you wait...

Unless the Vatican has secretly mastered the powers of time travel, I'm not sure what you expect us to wait for...

Just wait and pray for the union of Christianity.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: John Larocque on January 18, 2010, 02:08:51 PM
I had a talk with an Orthodox person who years ago, came across a quote from Justin Popovich, a saint of the Serbian church. He told me it shocked him when he first encountered it, but it obviously sank in with him.

There doesn't seem to be a direct version of it online but a Youtube poster encapsulated them this way:

>>
There were three Great falls in history: 1)The fall of Satan 2)The fall of Adam 3)The fall of the first Pope in 1054!
<<

The fall of the Roman Catholic church was described as one of the great falls.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 18, 2010, 02:18:56 PM
I had a talk with an Orthodox person who years ago, came across a quote from Justin Popovich, a saint of the Serbian church. He told me it shocked him when he first encountered it, but it obviously sank in with him.

There doesn't seem to be a direct version of it online but a Youtube poster encapsulated them this way:

>>
There were three Great falls in history: 1)The fall of Satan 2)The fall of Adam 3)The fall of the first Pope in 1054!
<<

The fall of the Roman Catholic church was described as one of the great falls.

Unlike Fr Justin to exaggerate!   I would have thought that the loss of the Church of Carthage, of the Church of the East and of the great Churches of the Orient were greater calamities than the loss of Rome.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 02:52:04 PM
You said: "When I approach the chalice for communion, I can be reasonably sure that the persons in front of and behind me believe, as I do, that this is the genuine Body and Blood of Christ. The same can't be said in the average Catholic church."

You appear to have Clairvoyance and yet you accuse me of such?

I speak from experience. Most of my family is Catholic. Why, just this last Christmas, my uncle (a former Jesuit priest, still a practicing Catholic) explained to the family why he doesn't think Hell exists. Over and over again I have met Catholics who openly denied basic aspects of their church's morality, theology, etc. In fact, I don't think I've met a single Catholic in my life who doesn't do this. My experience has been shared by countless other observers. I don't need clairvoyance to grasp what is common knowledge.

So you equate your family and the few inidividual Catholics you've met and dialogued with over the course of your life to yield the average Catholic out of a billion... ?

Your example, a former Jesuit Priest, who claims there to exist no Hell, in denial to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Sacred Text is proof that Catholicism is not true?

You seem to equate a lack of devotion in your own family to be evidence that the Catholic Faith is not true. With such reasoning we might conclude that Christianity is false because Christians continue to sin.

I don't follow that such evidence necessarily produces such a conclusion. I can and do understand that for one, such as you, surrounded by such deviation from the Catholic Teaching that finding a more reverent community, perhaps in the Orthodox Church, might aid you with your own Faith but there are those who desire to fight for the Western Church and defend it's Teaching out of a devotion to God.

I am personally very drawn to the reverence of the Orthodox communities in my area but I am also familiar with this attitude which stems from the pride it produces in many converts and I fear it. I have enough sin on my own than to exacerbate it with such an attitude of superiority to others. What good would that do me?


Quote
If the Western Church is in such error I would dare say that the only genuine Christian position to hold toward us is pity. Yet you and many other Orthodox can't seem to muster anything but disdain and your repeated polemics.

I do pity them, but there are certain times when a smackdown is called for, as St. Nicholas demonstrated with Arius.
[/quote]

So you equate yourself with that Great Saint of Myrna? My how high you hold yourself and your own personal orthodoxy.

Discernment in beginnings is true knowledge of themselves; in intermediate souls, it is a spiritual sense that faultlessly distinguishes what is truly good from what is of nature and opposed to it; and in the perfect, it is the knowledge which they have within by Divine illumination, and which can enlighten with its lamp what is dark in others. ~ Step 26 St. John Climacus

You appear to claim the Divine illumination of the Perfect... do you trust yourself so much? I don't. I don't trust myself to condemn the Western Church. I don't trust myself to know what Truth is. Because I know myself to be a babe in Christ. My virtue is lacking in the fruits of the Spirit and in that I know I am unprofitable with the Grace that God has given me. You and many others seem to think can exercise such discernment but I do not.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Marc1152 on January 18, 2010, 02:57:29 PM
And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as "papacy" in the Church of Christ.  It is an alien beast introduced by the Church of Rome.  There is NO element in the Church higher than a bishop and a synod of bishops. 

This "papacy" has to be deconstructed before real ecumenism can occur.


Saint Justin Popovich:


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


Well, I just inform you, you may split to old calendarist if you like. But the bishop of Rome would be once again the Primus of the church, until our Lord Jesus comes back, including oriental churches.
How can he once again be what he never was?

Just you wait...

Unless the Vatican has secretly mastered the powers of time travel, I'm not sure what you expect us to wait for...

I have a time machine in my home but it only goes foward and at normal speed.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 18, 2010, 03:21:07 PM
Unlike Fr Justin to exaggerate!   I would have thought that the loss of the Church of Carthage, of the Church of the East and of the great Churches of the Orient were greater calamities than the loss of Rome.

"In the history of the human race there have been three principle falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope. The principle characteristic of falling into sin is always the same: wanting to be good for one's own sake; wanting to be perfect for one's own sake; wanting to be God for one's own sake." - Fr. Justin Popovich, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, (Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1994), p. 105
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 18, 2010, 03:24:15 PM
I had a talk with an Orthodox person who years ago, came across a quote from Justin Popovich, a saint of the Serbian church.

Justin Popovich was my patron saint when I became Orthodox in 2001, and I sometimes refer to him as "St. Justin". Nonetheless, so far as I understand, it is perhaps imprecise to say that he is "a saint of the Serbian church," because only local veneration has been authorized, and he has not been officially glorified yet.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Andrew21091 on January 18, 2010, 05:11:48 PM
Speaking as an individual who was born into the Roman Catholic and observing what is going on in it now, it seems that the Roman church has been going even further down hill since Vatican II (which was an abandonment of many traditional practices) and it seems that Rome is becoming more modernist with the times. Also Roman Catholics think that it is only the Papacy that divides us but how about other theological issues such as the filioque, Imaculate Conception, Purgatory, Mary being the Co-redemtrix and mediator of all graces, and others but those are the ones that come right to mind. I love Roman Catholics and pretty much my entire family is Roman Catholic and hey, I would love it if we could be in communion but I don't want this communion if it betrays the Faith established by the Holy Apostles which is Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 05:39:19 PM
Speaking as an individual who was born into the Roman Catholic and observing what is going on in it now, it seems that the Roman church has been going even further down hill since Vatican II (which was an abandonment of many traditional practices) and it seems that Rome is becoming more modernist with the times. Also Roman Catholics think that it is only the Papacy that divides us but how about other theological issues such as the filioque, Imaculate Conception, Purgatory, Mary being the Co-redemtrix and mediator of all graces, and others but those are the ones that come right to mind. I love Roman Catholics and pretty much my entire family is Roman Catholic and hey, I would love it if we could be in communion but I don't want this communion if it betrays the Faith established by the Holy Apostles which is Orthodoxy.

I'm Roman Catholic, and I don't think anything of the sort. I am well aware of the multiple claims of disagreement by Orthodox Polemicists their historical roots and the multiple attempts to address them.

With the accusation of Modernist... it seems you're well versed in the extreme conservative claims of the SSPX and others and those Orthodox Polemicists whom use those 'interior' arguments to make similar claims.

Ultimately, I think if the Catholic Church was so modernist, it wouldn't have elected Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. In that very act, there is hope for the West yet.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 18, 2010, 06:20:42 PM
I see that much people of the forum were once in time catholics. What can I say about that?, that they were bad catholics, bad enough to abandon the truth faith, many catholics have brought here quotations from many eastern father exalting the church of Rome, and yet, the former catholics are more reckless to turn back to catholicism.

Now, it is also interesting, that if an eventual union between orthodoxy and catholicism, the greatest opponents are those who went out of Catholicism. Pity to see that the converted from Catholicism to orthodoxy are not but the waste of Catholicism, those who never were real catholics, those who never loved their church, and those who were more attracted to ritualistic than to righteousness.

We all know that the sin of Adam was his ego, and many here clime that pope is the product of the same ego, one has to be really idiot to conclude such a thing, one has to be blind by its own ego to see that in the papacy as an institution the ruling is ego. Don’t you see that pope is nothing but a man who was elected by his brothers? Was his egotistical desire the cause of his reaching there? Is his place something that he can heir to his sons? What sons? Papacy is a service, not more, from one who has chosen to give his life to God in the service of his brothers. He will never rest until die.

The Catholicism is the truth faith, the one of those that have understood that the submission of the ego to authority is the real way that Adam never understood. The independency of churches in east, the so called autocephalies, are not but the result of the nationalistic egocentricity of a full people, that has not reach to understand the meaning of  the words and desires of our Lord Jesus. May all be one.

Even more, patriarchates are so quoted by theirs flocks that they are democracies, Is God democratic? Once more we see that hellenistic elements are introduced in orthodoxy as the faith of those who were hellenized .  It is truth that in the beginning when apostles chose a substitute for Jude, they ask to the members gathered to present three candidates and Holy Spirit would decide. But Who was leading this event? St Peter.

We also see that the council of Jerusalem was discussing about circumcision of gentile, and then after much discussion St Peter took the word and spoke in his name and the name of the Holy Spirit. Then every body agree with him, and obeyed.

Of  course there were many who disagree driven by their ego, their selfishness, and then many formed separated communities, apostles knew of them and condemned them. Yet the Lord gave his word to Peter, His Church (the church of the Lord entrusted to Peter) will never fail, will never fall to hell.

We, brothers, the Catholic Church that you have left, is that church founded on the apostles, St Peter and St Paul and is really the result of the union of two churches, The one of Rome, founded by St Peter and St Paul, and the church of Jerusalem, driven as a slave church among the jews taken to Rome by Titus in 70 AD after the predicted destruction of Jerusalem.

We catholics understand that we are the focus of many attacks from all around because of our testimony of our Lord. We are no more than our master, we testify to one who was crucified.

Those who have left Catholicism are followers of their ego, their own desires of intellectual satisfaction. No humbleness in them. No desire of submission to the will of God in them. The same egocentricity that Luther tracked and that all the sects have followed. In fact, we can say that Luther was invited by orthodoxy to meet them, as the proof of the share of the same feeling of nationalistic egocentricity.

Nationalistic egocentricity is the reason of the lack of submission of Moscow patriarchate to Constantinople patriarchate in the diaspora communities. So yet orthodoxy became independent of Catholicism, they haven’t reached a point of managerial unity, of a unified testimony, of a unified church in diaspora.


Finally, Can we say that egocentric nationalism is the way that our Lord Jesus desired by, “May all be one”? Not at all, and yet tht is the fundament of administration in orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 18, 2010, 06:26:05 PM
Quote
I see that much people of the forum were once in time catholics. What can I say about that?, that they were bad catholics, bad enough to abandon the truth faith,

In my own case, while I was baptized Catholic as an infant, I was not raised Catholic. My parents, my grand parents, and my godparents, did not make sure I remained Catholic. So I didn't abandon the Catholic faith, the Catholic faith (via her members) abandoned me to a spiritual limbo for 18 years. You all should have indoctrinated me while you had the chance ;)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 18, 2010, 06:57:44 PM

So you equate your family and the few inidividual Catholics you've met and dialogued with over the course of your life to yield the average Catholic out of a billion... ?

Please. There are tons of Catholics, including priests and monastics, who openly and publicly deny basic Catholic teaching. There are entire groups, with a public existence, with the purpose of overthrowing certain aspects of Catholic tradition or dogma, for example, Dignity USA, or, virtually, the entire Melkite church. So my family is hardly an isolated example... you will hear countless such stories from Catholics around the world.

Quote
Your example, a former Jesuit Priest, who claims there to exist no Hell, in denial to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Sacred Text is proof that Catholicism is not true?

No, you miss the point. The fact that so many Catholics openly reject basic Catholic teaching, without fear of any repercussions, shows that the much-boasted unity which the Papacy supposedly brings is illusory.

Quote
I don't trust myself to condemn the Western Church. I don't trust myself to know what Truth is.

I don't trust myself either. I trust the Church, and the Church has plainly condemned the heresies of the Papacy. I would not be so bold as to question that judgment.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 18, 2010, 07:17:51 PM

I see that much people of the forum were once in time catholics.

Correction: they were at one time Romanists. Then they became Catholics.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2010, 07:22:01 PM
And now they are discussing about how will papacy work in a Catholic Church that will also include Eastern Orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as "papacy" in the Church of Christ.  It is an alien beast introduced by the Church of Rome.  There is NO element in the Church higher than a bishop and a synod of bishops. 

This "papacy" has to be deconstructed before real ecumenism can occur.


Saint Justin Popovich:


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


Well, I just inform you, you may split to old calendarist if you like. But the bishop of Rome would be once again the Primus of the church, until our Lord Jesus comes back, including oriental churches.
How can he once again be what he never was?

Just you wait...

Unless the Vatican has secretly mastered the powers of time travel, I'm not sure what you expect us to wait for...

I have a time machine in my home but it only goes foward and at normal speed.
LOL. I like that.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2010, 07:52:16 PM
I see that much people of the forum were once in time catholics. What can I say about that?, that they were bad catholics,

You mean followers of the Vatican? 

Quote
bad enough to abandon the truth faith,
Some came to it and became Orthodox.


Quote
many catholics have brought here quotations from many eastern father exalting the church of Rome, and yet, the former catholics are more reckless to turn back to catholicism.

No, they are not willing to do the Vatican twisting of said quotes.



Quote
Now, it is also interesting, that if an eventual union between orthodoxy and catholicism, the greatest opponents are those who went out of Catholicism.
They know something.

Quote
Pity to see that the converted from Catholicism to orthodoxy are not but the waste of Catholicism, those who never were real catholics, those who never loved their church, and those who were more attracted to ritualistic than to righteousness.

The Vatican has reduced the Faith to submission to its claims to supremacy.  Anything else is negotiable.  Some much for righteousness.

Quote
We all know that the sin of Adam was his ego, and many here clime that pope is the product of the same ego, one has to be really idiot to conclude such a thing, one has to be blind by its own ego to see that in the papacy as an institution the ruling is ego. Don’t you see that pope is nothing but a man who was elected by his brothers? Was his egotistical desire the cause of his reaching there? Is his place something that he can heir to his sons? What sons? Papacy is a service, not more, from one who has chosen to give his life to God in the service of his brothers. He will never rest until die.
Papal service:
(http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/PopeKissing_Feet.JPG/250px-PopeKissing_Feet.JPG)

Quote
The Catholicism is the truth faith, the one of those that have understood that the submission of the ego to authority is the real way that Adam never understood. The independency of churches in east, the so called autocephalies, are not but the result of the nationalistic egocentricity of a full people, that has not reach to understand the meaning of  the words and desires of our Lord Jesus. May all be one.

Autocephalous Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Cyprus and Jerusalem were founded by the Apostles in the same empire.

Not unity at any cost.  Christ has no fellowship with Belial.

Quote
Even more, patriarchates are so quoted by theirs flocks that they are democracies, Is God democratic? Once more we see that hellenistic elements are introduced in orthodoxy as the faith of those who were hellenized .  It is truth that in the beginning when apostles chose a substitute for Jude, they ask to the members gathered to present three candidates and Holy Spirit would decide. But Who was leading this event? St Peter.

We also see that the council of Jerusalem was discussing about circumcision of gentile, and then after much discussion St Peter took the word and spoke in his name and the name of the Holy Spirit. Then every body agree with him, and obeyed.

No.  St. James rendered his judgement, and his words were the ones which were agreed on and sent out. And obeyed.  Btw, St. Peter was in Antioch, and yet the Apostles went up to Jerusalem, St. James' see.

Quote
Of  course there were many who disagree driven by their ego, their selfishness, and then many formed separated communities, apostles knew of them and condemned them. Yet the Lord gave his word to Peter, His Church (the church of the Lord entrusted to Peter) will never fail, will never fall to hell.

You seem to be under the impression that you were baptised into Cephas.

Quote
We, brothers, the Catholic Church that you have left,


Our differences are datable to you, not us Catholics.

Quote
is that church founded on the apostles, St Peter and St Paul and is really the result of the union of two churches, The one of Rome, founded by St Peter and St Paul, and the church of Jerusalem, driven as a slave church among the jews taken to Rome by Titus in 70 AD after the predicted destruction of Jerusalem.

The Church at Jerusalem survived in Palestine, in Pella, and survives to this day.  Survived even the Crusades.

Quote
We catholics understand that we are the focus of many attacks from all around because of our testimony of our Lord. We are no more than our master, we testify to one who was crucified.


Your martyr complex is showing. And the Vatican has been quite good at creating martyrs too, including ours, e.g. St. Peter the Aleut, St. Athanasius of Brest-Lviv.

Quote
Those who have left Catholicism are followers of their ego, their own desires of intellectual satisfaction. No humbleness in them. No desire of submission to the will of God in them.


yes, for one thing, Cardinal Umbert had quite an ego.

Quote
The same egocentricity that Luther tracked and that all the sects have followed. In fact, we can say that Luther was invited by orthodoxy to meet them, as the proof of the share of the same feeling of nationalistic egocentricity.

Luther is your baby. We had nothing to do with him. And I say that as a former Lutheran.

Quote
Nationalistic egocentricity is the reason of the lack of submission of Moscow patriarchate to Constantinople patriarchate in the diaspora communities.


Ultramontanist pretentions of New Rome is the cause of the tensions.

Quote
So yet orthodoxy became independent of Catholicism, they haven’t reached a point of managerial unity, of a unified testimony, of a unified church in diaspora.
You're the one arguing with the French presence here.

Quote
Finally, Can we say that egocentric nationalism is the way that our Lord Jesus desired by, “May all be one”? Not at all, and yet tht is the fundament of administration in orthodoxy.
The Vatican is among the most egocentric, ethnocentric ecclesiologies there are: remember, everything in Latin?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 18, 2010, 08:07:50 PM
It's so interesting that Catholics sit around and scratch their heads to why there hasn't been a reunion between East-West, yet the superior attitude they take even on these forums gives a good sense to the Roman Church as a whole.  Rome may have re-written history a million times (Papacy, A LOT of theology, world history, where Eastern "Catholics" came from etc. etc.), but the Orthodox Church is getting the truth out to the world and people aren't buying Rome's baloney.  This could be a good reason to why conversions to Orthodoxy have been consistently going up, and the more exposure Orthodoxy gets, the more baptisms and chrismations we have each year.  Once Rome abolishes the whole Supremacy thing (theologically, ecclesiastically, and personally), perhaps then real talks can happen. 

Simply put, there will never be a reunion until Rome just admits the whole "Supreme Pontiff" non-sense was never really true to begin with.  I better stop there because the more I type, the more thinking I'm doing on how much Rome would need to get rid of and change before Orthodoxy would ever even consider taking them back. 
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Andrew21091 on January 18, 2010, 08:48:33 PM
I see that much people of the forum were once in time catholics. What can I say about that?, that they were bad catholics, bad enough to abandon the truth faith, many catholics have brought here quotations from many eastern father exalting the church of Rome, and yet, the former catholics are more reckless to turn back to catholicism.

Now, it is also interesting, that if an eventual union between orthodoxy and catholicism, the greatest opponents are those who went out of Catholicism. Pity to see that the converted from Catholicism to orthodoxy are not but the waste of Catholicism, those who never were real catholics, those who never loved their church, and those who were more attracted to ritualistic than to righteousness.

I was a young child when I converted and I didn’t care either way when I was that age but when I got older, I did some studying and saw clearly that Orthodoxy is the way. You also make an accusation that those who leave Rome left since they were attracted to ritual but that is a ridicules accusation. The Papacy, Papal infallibility, the filioque, Imaculate Conception, Purgatory, Mary being the Co-redemtrix and mediator of all graces, and the like are hardly small matters. They are not ritual reasons for leaving but are heresy. Should I ignore these heresies and submit to the Pope anyway?

Quote
We all know that the sin of Adam was his ego, and many here clime that pope is the product of the same ego, one has to be really idiot to conclude such a thing, one has to be blind by its own ego to see that in the papacy as an institution the ruling is ego. Don’t you see that pope is nothing but a man who was elected by his brothers? Was his egotistical desire the cause of his reaching there? Is his place something that he can heir to his sons? What sons? Papacy is a service, not more, from one who has chosen to give his life to God in the service of his brothers. He will never rest until die.

You say that the Pope is nothing but a man yet you confess him to be infallible. How can a mere man be infallible? History would lead me to believe otherwise. St. Peter was even a fallible human being. He denied Christ three times and not to mention he was reprimanded by St. Paul for not eating with the gentiles when people came from Jerusalem (Galatians 2). Not to mention, Popes have fallen into heresy before. It seems that the infallible claim contradicts itself since it is known that Pope Leo III opposed the filioque and the plaque he added in St. Peter’s has the Creed without the filioque and even wrote "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith” which shows that he recognized the Orthodox saying of the Creed was correct but he goes against other Popes in doing that so it would show that the Popes who supported the filioque were in error concerning a theological issue. Not to mention Honorius was condemned in the Sixth Ecumenical Council with the Monothelites, unless of course, Rome rejects the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which I know it does not). If a Pope was infallible, how could be anathema?

Quote
The Catholicism is the truth faith, the one of those that have understood that the submission of the ego to authority is the real way that Adam never understood. The independency of churches in east, the so called autocephalies, are not but the result of the nationalistic egocentricity of a full people, that has not reach to understand the meaning of  the words and desires of our Lord Jesus. May all be one.

You say that Rome has the true faith, though I have never seen this as so. Are you sure it was not egocentricity of Rome to have one fallible human being rule over the whole Church? I don’t know what kind of proof you have of this egocentricity.

Quote
Those who have left Catholicism are followers of their ego, their own desires of intellectual satisfaction. No humbleness in them. No desire of submission to the will of God in them. The same egocentricity that Luther tracked and that all the sects have followed. In fact, we can say that Luther was invited by orthodoxy to meet them, as the proof of the share of the same feeling of nationalistic egocentricity.

Ah, I see you can see right into my heart and soul and into every soul of Orthodox Christians since you seem to know for sure that we are only driven by our ego and intellectual satisfaction. You have us all figured out don’t you? I submit to the will of God working through the Church, not through a single man who made himself infallible and introduced heresies into the Church.

Quote
Finally, Can we say that egocentric nationalism is the way that our Lord Jesus desired by, “May all be one”? Not at all, and yet tht is the fundament of administration in orthodoxy.

Yes, I will keep my nationalism while I attend a church that is made up of Arabs, Serbs, Russians, Bulgarians, Eritreans, Armenians, Dutch, Irish, Polish, Congolese, and others. With all those people, we sure are big on nationalism (sarcasm). Whether it is the Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, Jerusalem, whatever, I can go to communion. We are one. There is One Church and I have come to believe that it is the Orthodox Church. I did not decide this because of ritual (if I was, why didn’t I just go to an Eastern Catholic church or one of the traditional Roman churches which are both present where I live?) but it was because of certain doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches that I feel it would be wrong to accept (I have already mentioned some of them).

Sorry if I was not able to touch on all parts of your post at this moment.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 18, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
I find it rather humorous that Romanists on online forums often start out expressing very charitable, accommodating, and ecumenical views towards the EO/OO, yet when they find out that we happen to not hold the same sort of views they, in anger, frustration and vengeance, switch around their views to a harsh Roman supremacist perspective. This is what has happened in this very thread.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 10:34:35 PM
I find it rather humorous that Romanists on online forums often start out expressing very charitable, accommodating, and ecumenical views towards the EO/OO, yet when they find out that we happen to not hold the same sort of views they, in anger, frustration and vengeance, switch around their views to a harsh Roman supremacist perspective. This is what has happened in this very thread.

I'm a 'Romanist' and I don't think you caricature fits.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 11:11:29 PM
Quote
I see that much people of the forum were once in time catholics. What can I say about that?, that they were bad catholics, bad enough to abandon the truth faith,

In my own case, while I was baptized Catholic as an infant, I was not raised Catholic. My parents, my grand parents, and my godparents, did not make sure I remained Catholic. So I didn't abandon the Catholic faith, the Catholic faith (via her members) abandoned me to a spiritual limbo for 18 years. You all should have indoctrinated me while you had the chance ;)

I don't think 'indoctrination' is honestly the goal of true Spiritual Catechesis. I know a lot of very fine indoctrination done by Muslims and it doesn't get me excited about being one....

What I find interesting if that we had a entire generation rebel against Western Culture and 'all' it's social mores and institutions and all that most of you can say is it's the Catholic Churches fault? This rebellion started in the English Speaking West (England and America) and was most prevalent in parts of of the West that "wasn't" under the enfluence of the Catholic Church and yet you seem to blame 'it' for such rebellion. I find that odd but I understand how and why Western Culture might desire to project such blame on the Western Church.

Ultimately we are a culture born out of rebellion. Such breeds such.

I am intrigue how Orthodoxy will fair once fully brought to light in the West. I don't wish Orthodoxy to fail but I honestly question it's bravado and it's hubris toward the Western Church. We shall see.

This kind of behavior doesn't encourage me though. It seems to belay a real lack of understanding of the corrosive effects of a passive enemy, like modernity.

For everyone who claims the Catholic Church has let them down, how many ask if they let the Catholic Church down? It seems your own responsibility isn't considered. It is far more important to claim victim to an uncaring parent, priest or parish. I'm not sure if I think the church is something 'outside'... but 'inside'. We make the Church. We make it present in our own lives. I only seek to learn how to make it more present in my own life and the life of my family. I have my own issues with the failings of the Church, especially in America and Ireland but I have to see those errors in context with the Culture and the times. I look toward the Eastern Church for help. I look to the my Orthodox Parish Priest for aid in the spiritual journey. For Westerners, Catholic or Converts to Orthodoxy, we are largely rebuilding a Faith tradition. I'm simply too old to make such simplistic conclusions as some polemicists present the choice before us. Simply converting doesn't make everything better. Maybe the challenge of being Catholic in the West is just too overwhelming especially with the divisions and abuses and whatnot. I, myself, on many occasions think it might be easier but then I think to myself that is the easy way out. I don't know. It's just a thought but I think Orthodoxy needs to recognize that the Western Church and the Western expression of the Faith has a legitimate right to it's expression. Perhaps if there was a Western Orthodox Parish nearby I might find it easier to convert but I like Western Culture and I like the Western Church. Frankly I really like Pope Benedict XVI and I look forward to a return of the West to a more authentic liturgical expression.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 18, 2010, 11:28:47 PM
Sorry, I was joking a bit with the word indoctrination. The tone I get from our friend Alonso here is a triumphalistic one, so I was trying to be sort of playfully sarcastic. (Though perhaps I should have included more than just a winking face indicating that). I didn't mean that I really felt spiritually abandoned or in limbo or anything like that. I actually respect and appreciate how certain family members dealt with my religious attendance/education. My grandfather, for example, who was my legal guardian for a few years, and who was a practicing Catholic, never insisted that I go to Church with him, and never tried to make me feel guilty about not going.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 18, 2010, 11:33:43 PM
Sorry, I was joking a bit with the word indoctrination. The tone I get from our friend Alonso here is a triumphalistic one, so I was trying to be sort of playfully sarcastic. (Though perhaps I should have included more than just a winking face indicating that). I didn't mean that I really felt spiritually abandoned or in limbo or anything like that. I actually respect and appreciate how certain family members dealt with my religious attendance/education. My grandfather, for example, who was my legal guardian for a few years, and who was a practicing Catholic, never insisted that I go to Church with him, and never tried to make me feel guilty about not going.

No problem. I find it ironic to see triumphal Catholics... maybe I'm just jaded.  :P
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 19, 2010, 01:15:14 AM
I find it rather humorous that Romanists on online forums often start out expressing very charitable, accommodating, and ecumenical views towards the EO/OO, yet when they find out that we happen to not hold the same sort of views they, in anger, frustration and vengeance, switch around their views to a harsh Roman supremacist perspective. This is what has happened in this very thread.

I'm a 'Romanist' and I don't think you caricature fits.

I know. I didn't have you in mind. Hence the qualifying "often".
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Robb on January 19, 2010, 01:41:49 AM
I have faith that the eventual, all great and holy council will eventually be called.  I hope that it accomplishes the reunion of all Christians under the truth of Orthodoxy.  The time is right for it.  There is no way to avoid the necessity of such a council to settle the many, many problems that the Church faces today and may face in the future.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 19, 2010, 11:28:41 AM
I have faith that the eventual, all great and holy council will eventually be called.  I hope that it accomplishes the reunion of all Christians under the truth of Orthodoxy.  The time is right for it.  There is no way to avoid the necessity of such a council to settle the many, many problems that the Church faces today and may face in the future.

If there is room for the Western Church. Amen.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 19, 2010, 02:22:32 PM
I was a young child when I converted and I didn’t care either way when I was that age but when I got older, I did some studying and saw clearly that Orthodoxy is the way. You also make an accusation that those who leave Rome left since they were attracted to ritual but that is a ridicules accusation. The Papacy, Papal infallibility, the filioque, Imaculate Conception, Purgatory, Mary being the Co-redemtrix and mediator of all graces, and the like are hardly small matters. They are not ritual reasons for leaving but are heresy. Should I ignore these heresies and submit to the Pope anyway?

Luther is your baby. We had nothing to do with him. And I say that as a former Lutheran.

Good, good, good, finally we can see it, the masks had fallen, it was necessary to induce people to show them selves as they really are with strong words and now we can see the truth.

By one side Andrew21091 shows how bad a catholic he was, bad enough to point his own parents as responsible of his lack of faith, he blames his parents not remembering that God calls to us to honor them. 

Exodus 20:12
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Were he a catholic, a real catholic, he would before look inside the Church of his parents, to honor them, but he denied to do that and went speedy feet to other confession, now he has been brain washed and has been tough to hate catholicism.

Many issues of doctrine you have quoted, and all of them have been clarified, and some of them are not official teachings as co-redemtrix, ¿Can you show us the articles teaching it in Catechism?

You arrogance drove you to condemn your parents rather than honor them, no humbleness, no submission, no selfdenying.

I the other hand we have “ialmisry”, the one we can see in its full image, the real one, he was a hater of Catholicism as Lutheran, and now he is a hater of Catholicism as new comer Orthodox.  As Lutheran he rejected Images, the Theotokos, the Saints, the Eucharist as the real presence of our lord in body and blood, the confession of sins to a priest, the baptism of child, etc.

Better later than never he saw the mistake of Protestantism, but yet he enjoyed and keep subject to protestant interpretation of apocalypse, he enjoy and keep subject to the idea of a mystical body of Jesus, not subjected to an order. He remains subject to anarchy as if every member of the only body acted as if there were no head, or in the better of cases, many heads, many autocephalies.

We pray to God , for driving him to the truth more ahead, allowing him to realize that the body of Christ doesn’t have many heads in conflict ( as Constantinople with Moscow), but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

Whomever states that Catholics have been baptized in the name of Peter, is far from truth, he knows it, and his heart fully tells us about its corruption.

No problem. I find it ironic to see triumphal Catholics... maybe I'm just jaded.  :P

Ignatius, I don’t know how old are you, but I can see that your salt is lacking of virtue,  it is almost as if you were losing your confidence in the promise of our Lord, to be with us every day until the ends of times,  I rather suggest you to lit again your fire, to be enthusiastic, to be confident,  if you lose your enthusiasm for the church, how are you going to give testimony of her?. I live in the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, We have the greatest seminary in world, 600 students in major seminary, and 1000 in minor seminary,  30 deacons are ordained every year, and some generations are up to 50, Do you think that this happens in a church of members lacking of enthusiasm?

You called me triumphal catholic, I call you to lit your fire.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Marc1152 on January 19, 2010, 02:46:43 PM
no humbleness, no submission, no selfdenying.


Black meet Kettle...Kettle meet Black
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 19, 2010, 03:08:11 PM
Ignatius, I don’t know how old are you, but I can see that your salt is lacking of virtue,  it is almost as if you were losing your confidence in the promise of our Lord, to be with us every day until the ends of times,  I rather suggest you to lit again your fire, to be enthusiastic, to be confident,  if you lose your enthusiasm for the church, how are you going to give testimony of her?. I live in the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, We have the greatest seminary in world, 600 students in major seminary, and 1000 in minor seminary,  30 deacons are ordained every year, and some generations are up to 50, Do you think that this happens in a church of members lacking of enthusiasm?

You called me triumphal catholic, I call you to lit your fire.

I seek Meekness not Bravado in our Faith, friend. Humility not Pride. I find Triumphalism on either side a stain to Virtue. If there be a light in me, it is that which enlightens my own waywardness and need to cast my eyes 'inwards' not 'outwards'.

To me this grasping on both sides that authority which is only given in Virtue is a Satanic Distraction to our pursuit of holiness. It puffs up and does not deflate the ego. We grasp at spiritual membership through institutional claims and not by the fruit of our virtues. It is a weight that holds us down and makes our spiritual labors weak and unfocused.

I am running the race but I am winded and tired but I strive ever forward to labor in my own garden to bear fruit pleasing to our God in Heaven. As yet I find that I am a very poor gardener. These debates pluck at my passions and drive into vice for I lack that which brings peace to my soul. When I find peace I will rejoice. God Willing.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Andrew21091 on January 19, 2010, 03:15:30 PM
Were he a catholic, a real catholic, he would before look inside the Church of his parents, to honor them, but he denied to do that and went speedy feet to other confession, now he has been brain washed and has been tough to hate catholicism.

I did fail to point out that I converted with my mother. If it were not for my mother, I would not be Orthodox. I don't think you should judge me (or anyone since Christ Himself condemns this) since you don't even know me (even if you did, you shouldn't judge). I never said I hated Catholicism either and I have not been brain washed to think such. None of my posts have shown any sort of hatred which you claim to have seen. I could say that it seems that you have been brain washed to hate Orthodoxy.

Quote
You arrogance drove you to condemn your parents rather than honor them, no humbleness, no submission, no selfdenying.

My mother's faith is Orthodox. Even if the rest of my family's faith is not Orthodox, I can still honor them. Why should I stay in a religion that I came to see has false teachings only for the sake of my family though? I think it is wrong to come on and start accusing people of being prideful and what not since you cannot see into the hearts of any person. Only God can. Did not Christ say that we should first remove the plank from our own eye then try to help remove the speck from our brother's eye?

Quote
Ignatius, I don’t know how old are you, but I can see that your salt is lacking of virtue,  it is almost as if you were losing your confidence in the promise of our Lord, to be with us every day until the ends of times,  I rather suggest you to lit again your fire, to be enthusiastic, to be confident,  if you lose your enthusiasm for the church, how are you going to give testimony of her?. I live in the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, We have the greatest seminary in world, 600 students in major seminary, and 1000 in minor seminary,  30 deacons are ordained every year, and some generations are up to 50, Do you think that this happens in a church of members lacking of enthusiasm?

I don't see how bragging about your particular diocese has a large seminary helps your case. Perhaps the Catholic churches in Ireland, France, and other countries in Western Europe (and the US) could use some of those priests since there are large priest shortages there (and a shortage of monastics). It seems like all of Western Europe lacks enthusiasm by your reasoning.


Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 19, 2010, 03:46:19 PM
Ignatius, I don’t know how old are you, but I can see that your salt is lacking of virtue,  it is almost as if you were losing your confidence in the promise of our Lord, to be with us every day until the ends of times,  I rather suggest you to lit again your fire, to be enthusiastic, to be confident,  if you lose your enthusiasm for the church, how are you going to give testimony of her?. I live in the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, We have the greatest seminary in world, 600 students in major seminary, and 1000 in minor seminary,  30 deacons are ordained every year, and some generations are up to 50, Do you think that this happens in a church of members lacking of enthusiasm?

You called me triumphal catholic, I call you to lit your fire.

I seek Meekness not Bravado in our Faith, friend. Humility not Pride. I find Triumphalism on either side a stain to Virtue. If there be a light in me, it is that which enlightens my own waywardness and need to cast my eyes 'inwards' not 'outwards'.

To me this grasping on both sides that authority which is only given in Virtue is a Satanic Distraction to our pursuit of holiness. It puffs up and does not deflate the ego. We grasp at spiritual membership through institutional claims and not by the fruit of our virtues. It is a weight that holds us down and makes our spiritual labors weak and unfocused.

I am running the race but I am winded and tired but I strive ever forward to labor in my own garden to bear fruit pleasing to our God in Heaven. As yet I find that I am a very poor gardener. These debates pluck at my passions and drive into vice for I lack that which brings peace to my soul. When I find peace I will rejoice. God Willing.

The only way you will find peace and rest is when you share your faith, ¿Were Apostles monastics? No. They pray a lot, really a lot, But the fire of the Holy Spirit in them was not to feel peace for themselves but to send them to pray for the Lord and his Church.

The only fruit pleasing to God, is the conversion , the evangelization the fruits are the new belivers in Christ you got, either by speach or by testimony of life. But faith is not for one alone, for selfish purposes, only in communion, of Material and spiritual goods we can find the plenitud of God blessings.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 19, 2010, 03:48:08 PM
Why do Catholics come on to this forum just so they can attempt to convert us or whatever they are doing?  Unlike most Catholics, who know near to nothing about Orthodoxy, most EO know a very large portion of Roman teaching.  We have seen it, and we don't like it.  Instead of having a good conversation on Ecumenism, all I am seeing is bitterness towards the Orthodox. 

Currently, many forces in our society seek to make it a post-religion world.  When people act like this, it adds much fuel to the anti-religion campaign.  I can't say I don't blame them when they see adults acting like children because people left "their" Church.  We are NOT Roman Catholic...we will NEVER be Roman Catholic (or Protestant, non-Christian, Atheist, etc..) AGAIN.  We are happy with that decision, and our conversions are part of our personal spirituality (which incidentally may not have truly existed until we found Orthodoxy) not up to 'certain' people on an internet forum. 

Recently, there was an inter-faith prayer service at a local Catholic Cathedral (the one where I had served many ordinations and been confirmed in) and how hard it was not to laugh when the Bishop said to my parish priest, "We Catholics and you Orthodox...we are like this..(closed his hand to a fist and shook it, with an eerie grin).  This is what I mean, we are not "like this", not yet anyway.  One thousand years ago, we were quite the same since we were one.  However, with a millennium of stain being put on the Pearl of Great Price, that is no longer true.  Somebody needs to clean the Pearl, and admit they stained it, and here is a hint...it's not "Us Orthodox".  That's just history, not my own opinion although I happen to agree with it. 

Look, I have a whole family of Catholics and my mother could have died when I converted after wanting to for 7 years.  I love them, and I love a lot of people who happen to be Catholics (know a plathora more Catholics than I do Orthodox), I'm not saying something along those same lines that I just went on and on about.  Perhaps the fact that the OC doesn't teach 'supremacy' is a reason for our disgust when we are told this.  Anyway, what I don't love, are many of the Catholic teachings. 

"Ecumenism" in Rome's eyes are all the other Christian churches submitting to the Pope and saying how they were so wrong to 'break up with them'.  Much like the stubborn boyfriend/girlfriend who thinks they have done nothing wrong and that taking their ex back is a real big favor.  We've all had that.  But I digress.

So please, don't come on here and throw catechism lessons at us, or Roman Canons or anything from Rome.  We don't care.  All of that is silly to us and you don't find us going to your house and laying the smack-down on how we feel about all of the oh so many doctrines we disagree with.  You look foolish when you do things like that, so stop for your own sakes.  It really just makes you look intolerable and unintelligent. 

This was definitely the longest post I have ever written on any forum, and certainly this one.  I apologize, but I just had a lot that I have wanted to say about all this for the longest time.   :laugh: 8) ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2010, 04:00:50 PM

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
I agree.  ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Robb on January 19, 2010, 04:15:10 PM
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.


Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Marc1152 on January 19, 2010, 04:18:39 PM

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
I agree.  ;D

Sometimes people get confused not only by the term "Orthodox" but also the jurisdictional designation ; "Russian Orthodox" or "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Serbian Orthodox".

The way I clear this up is by asking "Do you need to be Roman to be Roman Catholic or even Italian?
In the same manner you don't need to be Russian to be part of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2010, 04:20:28 PM
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 19, 2010, 04:24:19 PM
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome.  

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?

Papist, Robb is 100% right.  Read some documents from Vatican II and onward.  That is what the Catholic Church is now.  Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is gone....forever.  Catholics need to face this fact and if they want to call themselves Catholics, how about following what the Roman Church teaches NOW..not 5 decades ago.  

** A few (even a couple hundred) parishes using the Tridentine Rite isn't really anything.  Technically, a "Rite" isn't simply just the liturgy, it would include the old calendar, fasting days, etc. etc.  The fact that Benedict XVI allowed the Tridentine Rite liturgy doesn't make much sense when you consider everything that is supposed to go along with it.  The only thing it did was allow ultra-conservatives to further their cause that the "novus ordo" ought to be suppressed, among other things.**
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2010, 04:28:51 PM
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?

Papist, Robb is 100% right.  Read some documents from Vatican II and onward.  That is what the Catholic Church is now.  Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is gone....forever.  Catholics need to face this fact and if they want to call themselves Catholics, how about following what the Roman Church teaches NOW..not 5 decades ago. 
I do believe what the Catholic teaches now, just as I believe what she taught five decades ago. I am a traditionalist, and I see no disconnect. I think you guys desperately want it to be different so that you can point your fingers and say "SEE! SEE! Those dirty Catholics changed their teachings. Thank God that we are so much better than they are."
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 19, 2010, 04:43:46 PM

He remains subject to anarchy as if every member of the only body acted as if there were no head, or in the better of cases, many heads, many autocephalies.

We pray to God , for driving him to the truth more ahead, allowing him to realize that the body of Christ doesn’t have many heads in conflict ( as Constantinople with Moscow), but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

Actually, neither the Patriarch of Constantinople nor that of Moscow is a head of "the Body of Christ". They are each heads of limited sections of the ecumenical Church. The only head of the ecumenical Church is Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 19, 2010, 04:47:22 PM

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
I agree.  ;D

Good. I'm sure you understand that in the sense that "Romanism is Orthodoxy". But at least it is self-consistent.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 19, 2010, 04:49:26 PM

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
I agree.  ;D

Sometimes people get confused not only by the term "Orthodox" but also the jurisdictional designation ; "Russian Orthodox" or "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Serbian Orthodox".

The way I clear this up is by asking "Do you need to be Roman to be Roman Catholic or even Italian?
In the same manner you don't need to be Russian to be part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In the sense that Rome is the definer of the dogmatic tradition of their communion and that all of their members are ultimately subject to his authority, yes, one does need to be Roman.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 19, 2010, 04:53:55 PM
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?

Papist, Robb is 100% right.  Read some documents from Vatican II and onward.  That is what the Catholic Church is now.  Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is gone....forever.  Catholics need to face this fact and if they want to call themselves Catholics, how about following what the Roman Church teaches NOW..not 5 decades ago. 
I do believe what the Catholic teaches now, just as I believe what she taught five decades ago. I am a traditionalist, and I see no disconnect. I think you guys desperately want it to be different so that you can point your fingers and say "SEE! SEE! Those dirty Catholics changed their teachings. Thank God that we are so much better than they are."

But the Catholic Church doesn't teach the same things that it did 5 decades ago, so just being Catholic becomes a contradiction within itself, no?  Orthodox Christians are not the ones who have the history of acting supreme to every other Church, the quote you just made is something you have stated millions of times on this forum.  The only response you have to my previous post is to paraphrase me and direct it towards the Orthodox.  Pretty lame.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2010, 04:57:00 PM
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?

Papist, Robb is 100% right.  Read some documents from Vatican II and onward.  That is what the Catholic Church is now.  Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is gone....forever.  Catholics need to face this fact and if they want to call themselves Catholics, how about following what the Roman Church teaches NOW..not 5 decades ago. 
I do believe what the Catholic teaches now, just as I believe what she taught five decades ago. I am a traditionalist, and I see no disconnect. I think you guys desperately want it to be different so that you can point your fingers and say "SEE! SEE! Those dirty Catholics changed their teachings. Thank God that we are so much better than they are."

But the Catholic Church doesn't teach the same things that it did 5 decades ago, so just being Catholic becomes a contradiction within itself, no?  Orthodox Christians are not the ones who have the history of acting supreme to every other Church, the quote you just made is something you have stated millions of times on this forum.  The only response you have to my previous post is to paraphrase me and direct it towards the Orthodox.  Pretty lame.
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 19, 2010, 05:07:26 PM
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2010, 05:10:13 PM
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 19, 2010, 05:10:25 PM
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?  OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)

Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.

BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 19, 2010, 05:19:27 PM
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?  OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)

Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.

BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)

Please exercise some civility. Just present one or two topics to discuss and I'm sure we can address them.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2010, 05:24:56 PM
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?
Yup. So I suggest you stop lying about my Church.

 OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  
You know you are being silly.
1. Eating Meat on Fridays. It has never been an issue of divine law that Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Friday. Thus it was obviously could be changed because it was not a matter of revelation/divine law.
However, the only actual Church teaching that is related to this matter is Church authority. Does the Catholic Church have the authority to bind its faithful to certain penances and fasts? Of course she does and the Church has not changed its teaching that she has such authority. So you fail on this point.
2. Magical steeple? Please, my ninth grade students could come up with better arguements. That being said, yes the Church provides induglences and this is seen as nothing more than the exercise of the authority given by Christ when he told the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven." Thus a person can recieve an indulgence from the Church based on this authority. However, an indulgence doesn't keep a person out of hell. It only aides a soul in purgatory. Indulgences require repentance and penance.
3. Yes Purgatory exists.
4. Limbo. Now you are showing how incredibly uninformed you are about Catholic Dogma. The concept of Limbo has NEVER been a dogma of the Church. It is an acceptable theological opinion, and Catholics are still free to believe in the idea if they like, but they are not required to just as it has always been in Church history. No Change here.
What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)
We have always believed in some form of the concept of salvation still being possible for those who are in a state of invincible ignorance. Is the concept applied more liberally today by many Catholic theologians? Definitely, and that may not be the best thing but the Magesterium has not changed Catholic teaching on the matter.
Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.
First, I doubt you ever were Catholic or you would actual understand these concepts. But if you were a Catholic you must have had a pretty poor understanding of your faith if you can actually put such nonsensical arguements in print. Second, because not one of your arguements holds water, you have failed to defend your position.
BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)
I suppose if you think the sin of slander is awesome. Some how I doubt your communion approves of lying though.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 19, 2010, 05:27:29 PM

Look, I have a whole family of Catholics and my mother could have died when I converted after wanting to for 7 years.  I love them, and I love a lot of people who happen to be Catholics (know a plathora more Catholics than I do Orthodox), I'm not saying something along those same lines that I just went on and on about.  Perhaps the fact that the OC doesn't teach 'supremacy' is a reason for our disgust when we are told this.  Anyway, what I don't love, are many of the Catholic teachings. 
 

Ok, lets clarify, ¿why did you convert?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 19, 2010, 05:27:42 PM
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?

When Augustine reconverted Saxon Britain to Christianity he did so at the express behest of our Holy Father in Rome at the time. He ordered this new Catholic Church in Britain under two diocese in Canterbury and York with 12 Bishops under each and a Pallium given directly from the Pope as a physical show of their 'right' to rule over the Church in Britain. This was a novelty of the time and something utterly new. Isn't this common history?

The Council of Whitby was held between this reconstituted Church in Britain and the Celtic Church in Ireland. After which the Celtic Church fell under the sway of Rome and Britain. Again this is common history. I don't even know of one Catholic Historian who questions this.

My question is how should 'we' deal with this? How should we recognize it's validity or nullity?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2010, 05:28:54 PM
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?

When Augustine reconverted Saxon Britain to Christianity he did so at the express behest of our Holy Father in Rome at the time. He ordered this new Catholic Church in Britain under two diocese in Canterbury and York with 12 Bishops under each and a Pallium given directly from the Pope as a physical show of their 'right' to rule over the Church in Britain. This was a novelty of the time and something utterly new. Isn't this common history?

The Council of Whitby was held between this reconstituted Church in Britain and the Celtic Church in Ireland. After which the Celtic Church fell under the sway of Rome and Britain. Again this is common history. I don't even know of one Catholic Historian who questions this.

My question is how should 'we' deal with this? How should we recognize it's validity or nullity?
They both appear to be issues of Positive, rather Divine law.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 19, 2010, 05:37:36 PM
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?

When Augustine reconverted Saxon Britain to Christianity he did so at the express behest of our Holy Father in Rome at the time. He ordered this new Catholic Church in Britain under two diocese in Canterbury and York with 12 Bishops under each and a Pallium given directly from the Pope as a physical show of their 'right' to rule over the Church in Britain. This was a novelty of the time and something utterly new. Isn't this common history?

The Council of Whitby was held between this reconstituted Church in Britain and the Celtic Church in Ireland. After which the Celtic Church fell under the sway of Rome and Britain. Again this is common history. I don't even know of one Catholic Historian who questions this.

My question is how should 'we' deal with this? How should we recognize it's validity or nullity?
They both appear to be issues of Positive, rather Divine law.

So you and I, as Catholics should recognize that the See of Rome doesn't actually have the 'right' to appoint Archbishops, Bishops, etc... ?

Because, this is how the See of Rome rest this authority from the dioceses of the Western Church. The Church in Gaul was the next to fall under his influence in this manner.

Before this Bishops where elected 'locally' by popular acclaim even the Popes where elected this way in the early days of the Church...

When did all this change? Is it valid? Does the Orthodox Church have a valid criticism of these practices?

If unity will be seriously considered, I think it must rest on a restoration of the 'original' means of electing Bishops and the cessation of Papal appointments.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 19, 2010, 06:10:55 PM
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?

When Augustine reconverted Saxon Britain to Christianity he did so at the express behest of our Holy Father in Rome at the time. He ordered this new Catholic Church in Britain under two diocese in Canterbury and York with 12 Bishops under each and a Pallium given directly from the Pope as a physical show of their 'right' to rule over the Church in Britain. This was a novelty of the time and something utterly new. Isn't this common history?

The Council of Whitby was held between this reconstituted Church in Britain and the Celtic Church in Ireland. After which the Celtic Church fell under the sway of Rome and Britain. Again this is common history. I don't even know of one Catholic Historian who questions this.

My question is how should 'we' deal with this? How should we recognize it's validity or nullity?
They both appear to be issues of Positive, rather Divine law.

So you and I, as Catholics should recognize that the See of Rome doesn't actually have the 'right' to appoint Archbishops, Bishops, etc... ?

Because, this is how the See of Rome rest this authority from the dioceses of the Western Church. The Church in Gaul was the next to fall under his influence in this manner.

Before this Bishops where elected 'locally' by popular acclaim even the Popes where elected this way in the early days of the Church...

When did all this change? Is it valid? Does the Orthodox Church have a valid criticism of these practices?

If unity will be seriously considered, I think it must rest on a restoration of the 'original' means of electing Bishops and the cessation of Papal appointments.

I don't think so, election of bishops is not a mater for lay people, Jesus elected his apostles from the followers, the disciples, only Peter requested to people to present 3 guys to elect a substitute of Jude, but popular election is not found in Sacred Scripture, we don't want to see catholicism to go as anglicanism in USA Proclaming gay bishops just by popular vote.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 19, 2010, 06:18:50 PM
I don't think so, election of bishops is not a mater for lay people, Jesus elected his apostles from the followers, the disciples, only Peter requested to people to present 3 guys to elect a substitute of Jude, but popular election is not found in Sacred Scripture, we don't want to see catholicism to go as anglicanism in USA Proclaming gay bishops just by popular vote.

Those are very good points. So what you would say is that pre-6th 7th Century the Church in the East and the West elected Bishops by popular acclaim in error of Apostolic Tradition?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2010, 07:18:05 PM
I don't think so, election of bishops is not a mater for lay people, Jesus elected his apostles from the followers, the disciples, only Peter requested to people to present 3 guys to elect a substitute of Jude, but popular election is not found in Sacred Scripture, we don't want to see catholicism to go as anglicanism in USA Proclaming gay bishops just by popular vote.

Those are very good points. So what you would say is that pre-6th 7th Century the Church in the East and the West elected Bishops by popular acclaim in error of Apostolic Tradition?
Again, I think its a matter of positive law vs. divine law. As a matter of Divine Law the Pope does indeed have universal jurisdiction. This does not mean that he must exercise his authority in every Church matter. That is why we have priests and bishops. In the early Church because the different Churches were often separated by great distances with no internet or phone, sometimes matters were better left to the local Churches. Thus the Pope did not have to select each bishop from every province but had he wanted to, I think he most certainly could have.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: podkarpatska on January 19, 2010, 08:57:10 PM
I for one don't like the term 'ecumenism' as it has been tossed about so much that it has become a pejorative.  It seems as if the ultra-traditionalists in both the Roman and Orthodox world only view a final unity in terms of the abject surrender by one side to the other. I know that the Orthodox/Catholic consultations both in the States and in Europe have worked for the better part of the past three decades to better understand what the East and West were able to agree upon in the first millennium of Christianity and on areas of common agreement. Obviously the first millennial role of the papacy has been a source of great disagreement within these bodies. This is a tough task after 1000+ years of history, errors and mistrust, but it is a journey worth embarking upon.  With the secularization of the Western world and the threat from an expanding Islam, I believe that both the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches have to try - if only to reassert the common values and morality which we share.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 19, 2010, 09:03:48 PM
Again, I think its a matter of positive law vs. divine law. As a matter of Divine Law the Pope does indeed have universal jurisdiction. This does not mean that he must exercise his authority in every Church matter. That is why we have priests and bishops. In the early Church because the different Churches were often separated by great distances with no internet or phone, sometimes matters were better left to the local Churches. Thus the Pope did not have to select each bishop from every province but had he wanted to, I think he most certainly could have.

Papist,

So why did Leo the Great, after his election 'wait' to take his office until his election was approved by the Emperor? Frankly, I'm interested in when the Church 'needed' approval by the Emperor for it's elected Bishops? Surely, that was not the practice of the early Church. What right did the Emperor have approving elections of Bishops?

History is very curious.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 19, 2010, 09:30:47 PM
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?
Yup. So I suggest you stop lying about my Church.

 OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  
You know you are being silly.
1. Eating Meat on Fridays. It has never been an issue of divine law that Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Friday. Thus it was obviously could be changed because it was not a matter of revelation/divine law.
However, the only actual Church teaching that is related to this matter is Church authority. Does the Catholic Church have the authority to bind its faithful to certain penances and fasts? Of course she does and the Church has not changed its teaching that she has such authority. So you fail on this point.
2. Magical steeple? Please, my ninth grade students could come up with better arguements. That being said, yes the Church provides induglences and this is seen as nothing more than the exercise of the authority given by Christ when he told the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven." Thus a person can recieve an indulgence from the Church based on this authority. However, an indulgence doesn't keep a person out of hell. It only aides a soul in purgatory. Indulgences require repentance and penance.
3. Yes Purgatory exists.
4. Limbo. Now you are showing how incredibly uninformed you are about Catholic Dogma. The concept of Limbo has NEVER been a dogma of the Church. It is an acceptable theological opinion, and Catholics are still free to believe in the idea if they like, but they are not required to just as it has always been in Church history. No Change here.
What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)
We have always believed in some form of the concept of salvation still being possible for those who are in a state of invincible ignorance. Is the concept applied more liberally today by many Catholic theologians? Definitely, and that may not be the best thing but the Magesterium has not changed Catholic teaching on the matter.
Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.
First, I doubt you ever were Catholic or you would actual understand these concepts. But if you were a Catholic you must have had a pretty poor understanding of your faith if you can actually put such nonsensical arguements in print. Second, because not one of your arguements holds water, you have failed to defend your position.
BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)
I suppose if you think the sin of slander is awesome. Some how I doubt your communion approves of lying though.

1.Canon 1249 “All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.”

Canon 1250 “All Fridays throughout the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the universal Church.”

Canon 1251 “Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Canon 1252 “The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year.”

2. Actually, I doubt a 9th grader would be aware of the silly superstition that was rampant in Catholicism prior to the 1960s, and a little bit before then.  

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Dispositions necessary to gain an indulgence

The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e. "at least with a contrite heart", is the customary prescription. Regarding the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead, see PURGATORY. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must perform the good works — prayers, alms deeds, visits to a church , etc. — which are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence. For details see "Raccolta".

3. OK.

4. http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm

Where will unbaptized children (and aborted babies) go on the day of the Last Judgment?

It is not a doctrine of Faith that children dying with original sin only on their soul go to a special place or state called the children’s Limbo. However, it is the common opinion of the theologians. This is based upon the teaching of Pope Innocent III (and the Fathers of the Church) on the effects of baptism, in which he has this to say:

    The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. (Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780).

The state of Limbo is consequently a suffering from the pain of loss, or separation from God, but not of the pain of the senses. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches (De malo 5, 3), such a pain of loss is compatible with a certain natural happiness. At the last judgment, when the bodies will rise to share in the punishment or reward of heaven or hell, the bodies of those who are in Limbo will also rise. Although separated from God, in which way they share the punishment of the damned in hell, they will not be tormented by remorse nor will they suffer the pain of the sense which the damned suffer forever in hell.

The denial of this common teaching by the heretical council of Pistoia was condemned by Pope Pius VI as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." Here is his description of the erroneous doctrine:

    The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin, are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire... (Auctorem Fidei, Dz 1526).  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]


First, I doubt you ever were Catholic or you would actual understand these concepts. But if you were a Catholic you must have had a pretty poor understanding of your faith if you can actually put such nonsensical arguements in print. Second, because not one of your arguements holds water, you have failed to defend your position.

Actually, I was a seminarian at the Pontifical College Josephinum and much to Msgr. Paul Langsfeld's dismay, left following my freshmen year as I continued to fall in love with Orthodox Christianity.  In reality, I was on my to the Gregorian University.  What major seminary did you attend?  

Yup. So I suggest you stop lying about my Church.

THANK YOU!!  Wasn't I just talking about it being YOUR Church?  

I suppose if you think the sin of slander is awesome. Some how I doubt your communion approves of lying though.

Thanks for doing your job and proving my point (again, you can't seem to help yourself) that you are the one in judgment over me.

Matthew. 7:5
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 19, 2010, 10:42:28 PM
Cypriot Anti-Ecumenist Monks and Clergy Punished

This news comes following the uprising of various Orthodox against the recent meeting between Orthodox and Catholics in Paphos of Cyprus. The Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus, who met on November 4 and 5, has decided to punish the actions of the monastic and clerical protestors of the recent Dialogue which occurred in Paphos. Specifically the monks of the Holy Monastery of Stavrovouniou were penalized for two months to abstain from Holy Communion; while the clergy of the Holy Metropolis of Trimithountos have been penalized with the withholding of one months salary as well as a rebuke for their rebellion.

________________________________________________________

Any comment?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 19, 2010, 11:29:02 PM
Holy Protestors Force Cancellation of Catholic Wedding

By Charles Charalambous
Cyprus Mail
October 20, 2009

BANNER-WAVING Orthodox protestors yesterday put a stop to a Catholic wedding ceremony at Ayios Yiorgios church in Chlorakas after shouting a string of abuse at the priest and others in the church.

The protestors had gathered for the second day outside a conference of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

The small church is opposite the venue.

Protestors were incensed when the Catholic priest, who has permission from the Church of Cyprus to hold ceremonies, asked them to leave. Instead they heckled him to leave. “We peacefully call on you to leave and to have the wedding in a Catholic Church,” said one of the protestors.

When the priest told them he had permission, another said: “We are Orthodox Christians. It’s our church and you have no place here.”

The incident was caught on camera by Antenna television.

Another protestor outside the church said the Catholic priest had shown up with a key, entered the church and began moving things around “as if he was in a warehouse”.

“Some heretic....a Latin heretic...came and told us to go outside because there was a wedding, a papal wedding,” said the protestor.

He claimed it was all a plot to distort the history of Cyprus because the church in question was historically important in terms of the EOKA struggle when it was used as a drop-off point for weapons.

“They (Catholics) are not allowed to enter our church,” said the first protestor. “Aren’t you ashamed. You came to throw us out,” he said to the priest.

The Catholic priest then walked away, saying the wedding was cancelled.

The protestors who began demonstrating on Saturday oppose dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and claim that the aim of the dialogue between the two churches is the submission of the Orthodox Church to the Pope.

Archbishop Chrysostomos expressed his displeasure about the Saturday protest in scathing terms.

“The Church is certainly a place for healing, and people turn to it in order to be healed. But it is not an asylum, nor shall we allow it to become a home for the mentally-ill. The Church cannot be turned into a lunatic asylum” he said.

“For someone – whether a lay or clerical person – to place his opinion above the opinion and decisions of the local synods of the whole of the Orthodox faith amounts to vanity, and indeed satanic vanity.”

Inviting the protestors to “get their feet back on the ground and gain some redemptive humility”, he declared that all clerics and monks who took part in the protest would be punished, and told the participants to visit him in his office yesterday.

The Archbishop said that the clerics would face suspension and loss of pay, and the monks would be deprived of Holy Communion “for several weeks”.

“If they don’t like it, they should take off their robes and leave the formal Church. Let them go and set up their own church. This is why I will be very strict.”

The protestors responded by saying that instead of “convincing with theological arguments as a pastor”, the Archbishop was “using the powers of his office to issue threats” of disciplinary action against clerics involved in the protest.

Lavrentios de Giorgio, President of the Saint Kosmas Aitolos Orthodox Union, speaking for the protestors argued yesterday that the Archbishop did not have the authority to impose punishments on clergy belonging to the Kitium diocese, describing such actions as “a coup” by the Church leader.

In response, Paphos Bishop Georgios – who is in charge of the inter-faith dialogue – said that the protestors were “ultra-orthodox” people.

“Neither I nor the Synod nor anyone else is less Orthodox than them,” he said.

“People need to understand that we are all in dialogue with our fellow-man and we will not betray our faith or our values.”

The conference takes place every two years, and will end on Friday
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 19, 2010, 11:32:15 PM
Metropolitan Zizoulas Takes Despotic Stance Against Critics of Ecumenism

10/19/2009
by NAT da Polis

A call to all from John Zizoulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon, tenacious advocate of the value of dialogue.The second meeting for dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, taking place in Cyprus, sees strong protest and progress at a standstill for fear of "subjugating the Orthodox to the Pope in Rome." Even among Catholics there is dogmatic resistance.

Paphos (AsiaNews) - The 2nd round of dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox is being held in Paphos (Cyprus) from October 16 to 23. Progress, however, appears a distant goal. Two days ago, groups of traditionalist Orthodox monks and Orthodox priests from Larnaca interrupted the meeting of the Joint Commission, asking Archbishop Chrisostomos to stop it. They believe that dialogue between the two Churches is designed to "subjugate the Orthodox to the pope in Rome". Yet it is to this very island, a martyred land of ancient Christian traditions, divided by the last wall in Europe, the one between Greece and Turkey, that Benedict XVI will come on a papal visit in June 2010.

The dialogue of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches began in Ravenna in 2007 where a road map for process towards full unity was signed. The Ravenna document, of great importance, is based on the ecclesiology of the first millennium, when the two churches were in full communion, although even then differences arose from time to time.

The Ravenna document was not signed by the Russian Orthodox Church, which withdrew over differences with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on the question of the Church in Estonia. But these days it was involved in the work. Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople confirmed two days ago that "engaging in dialogue is our duty and obligation. Dialogue is a road of no return".

The issue of dialogue is the theme of an in depth interview that the Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizoulas, gave to Cypriot journalist Aris Viketos. Zizoulas is Co-chairman - along with the Cardinal Walter Kasper - of the Joint Commission, an eminent theologian and a charismatic figure, as well as a strong supporter of dialogue.

In ecumenical circles it is said that with this interview Zizoulas is sending an important signal to certain areas of the Orthodox world. They, although a minority, are loudly contesting the dialogue, because they themselves are victims of a traditionalist narcissism bordering on infallibility. The interview also criticizes certain sectors of the Catholic Church who impose a disproportionate dogmatic rationalism, and who want nothing to change.

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".

Dialogue and the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Returning to the interview, Zizoulas immediately clarifies that "the decision to participate in dialogue with the Catholic Church was unanimously made by all Orthodox churches. Therefore inveighing against dialogue, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and my person is unfair. All Orthodox churches were in agreement on the importance of dialogue and the fact that it must continue".

"The Ecumenical Patriarchate - he continues - as in all other Orthodox matters, has only a coordinating role and we, like the other members of the Commission, are the engaged executors, according to our own conscience, of the mandate that was assigned to us. We are open to criticism because we are not infallible, just as our critics are not infallible. Those who do not want dialogue, are opposed to the common will of all Orthodox churches. "

Regarding the positions of the monks of Mount Athos - staunchly opposed to dialogue - the Metropolitan of Pergamon is explicit: "I respect their opinion and their feelings on matters of faith. But why should they have the monopoly of truth on matters of faith? Are the other leaders of the churches perhaps lacking this sensitivity? All the faithful of the Church have the right to express their thoughts. But all opinions should be subject to scrutiny of the synods. If the great Father of the Church St. Basil put his opinion to the judgement of synods, we can do no less!".

Petrine primacy

The monks of Mount Athos and some conservative sectors of the Orthodox world accuse the Ecumenical Patriarchate of yielding to Rome on the question of Petrine primacy. Called upon to answer this question, Zizoulas says, "to the monks, whom I consider no less infallible than my own modest self, I would like to reply that the question of primacy is an ecclesiological one. And ecclesiology as we know, is part of dogma, part of faith. When we dialogue on this issue, we look at our own dogmatic divergence. There is no intention of neglecting other matters of dogma ... Quite simply, our experience has shown us that we must first agree on basic issues of ecclesiology, because the question of primacy has been fatal and tragic in relations between the Catholic and Orthodox world. "

"The Ravenna text" - continues Zizoulas - "is very important, but unfortunately it has not received due attention and disclosure. It was agreed that the primacy at any level it is exercised, should be understood in its synodal character. This is what the Orthodox Church maintains and applies and it has its roots in the 34th Apostolic Canon ... The Orthodox Church also has its primus, but they can not decide without the synod, nor the synod without them. This focal point was accepted at the Ravenna meeting, although it does not agree with [the concept of] the primate, as monarch. The second point of the Ravenna document is that the primate is linked to the concept of the pentarchy of the patriarchates [1]. This was true during the first millennium, and this should apply even if the remaining assumptions of the first millennium will retain their validity. Which is why their [the monks of Mount Athos] opposition to dialogue is incomprehensible. We all have to accept [these findings] and where the pope accepts the canonical structure of the Church as it was configured in the first millennium, we should all be happy ... The Ravenna text adopts the basic principles of the Church of the first millennium".

The Uniates

Regarding the Uniate question and the resulting differences that emerged with the Catholic Church, the Metropolitan of Pergamon responds that the Uniate question "has never ceased to be a serious issue for us Orthodox. There has been much discussion in the context of dialogue and we agree with the Catholic Church not to take uniatism as a model towards unity and not to use it as a model of proselytism. The Uniate issue will be taken into account when the issue of the primacy in the 2nd millennium is addressed, when in fact the phenomenon was born".

Ecumenism: Heresy?

Asked whether ecumenism is a heresy, Zizoulas replied: "In defining someone as a heretic, one must consider if that person rejects the principles endorsed by ecumenical synods. Among those Orthodox participating in the ecumenical dialogue I have not find any deviation from the principles of faith. Moreover knowing how to dialogue with those who oppose your beliefs does not make you a heretic. Ecumenical dialogue has nothing to hide and our journey is still a long one".

On the prospects of dialogue, Zizoulas concludes by saying: "History is guided by God. Those who proclaim that the Church's unity is impossible, are trying to take the place of God. Who are we to predetermine the future? We are called to tirelessly work so we all may be one. If we do not enact this, or we do so at the expense of the faith of our fathers, then we will be called to answer to God. The final outcome is in His hands. He will find a way to see His will is done, so we may all be one. We simply have to work for unity".

[1] The Church of the first millennium was administered by 5 Patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch. Rome held primacy.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 12:02:38 AM
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 20, 2010, 12:06:39 AM
"The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge"

So... basically... it's the same now as it's always been. Thanks for the news. :)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2010, 12:31:44 AM
I was a young child when I converted and I didn’t care either way when I was that age but when I got older, I did some studying and saw clearly that Orthodoxy is the way. You also make an accusation that those who leave Rome left since they were attracted to ritual but that is a ridicules accusation. The Papacy, Papal infallibility, the filioque, Imaculate Conception, Purgatory, Mary being the Co-redemtrix and mediator of all graces, and the like are hardly small matters. They are not ritual reasons for leaving but are heresy. Should I ignore these heresies and submit to the Pope anyway?

Luther is your baby. We had nothing to do with him. And I say that as a former Lutheran.

Good, good, good, finally we can see it, the masks had fallen,

What mask? My former church has never been a secret.


Quote
it was necessary to induce people to show them selves as they really are with strong words and now we can see the truth.

By one side Andrew21091 shows how bad a catholic he was, bad enough to point his own parents as responsible of his lack of faith, he blames his parents not remembering that God calls to us to honor them. 

Exodus 20:12
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Were he a catholic, a real catholic, he would before look inside the Church of his parents, to honor them, but he denied to do that and went speedy feet to other confession, now he has been brain washed and has been tough to hate catholicism.

Many issues of doctrine you have quoted, and all of them have been clarified, and some of them are not official teachings as co-redemtrix, ¿Can you show us the articles teaching it in Catechism?

You arrogance drove you to condemn your parents rather than honor them, no humbleness, no submission, no selfdenying.

I the other hand we have “ialmisry”, the one we can see in its full image, the real one, he was a hater of Catholicism as Lutheran, and now he is a hater of Catholicism as new comer Orthodox.  As Lutheran he rejected Images, the Theotokos, the Saints, the Eucharist as the real presence of our lord in body and blood, the confession of sins to a priest, the baptism of child, etc.

you got me on the first three (except images of Christ), but I always believed in the Real Presence (and took communion in the Latin church, btw) went to confession once and was baptized as a child.

Quote
Better later than never he saw the mistake of Protestantism, but yet he enjoyed and keep subject to protestant interpretation of apocalypse,

never was too concerned about the Book.

Quote
he enjoy and keep subject to the idea of a mystical body of Jesus, not subjected to an order. He remains subject to anarchy as if every member of the only body acted as if there were no head, or in the better of cases, many heads, many autocephalies.


Actually, I was active in getting our parish into promoting the union of all the Lutherans in North America.

Quote
We pray to God , for driving him to the truth more ahead, allowing him to realize that the body of Christ doesn’t have many heads in conflict ( as Constantinople with Moscow),

How about Cardinals Martini and Ratzinger?


Quote
but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

St. Peter's Catholic successor at present is our Patriarch Ignatius IV.

Quote
Whomever states that Catholics have been baptized in the name of Peter, is far from truth, he knows it, and his heart fully tells us about its corruption.


Well, you act it.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 01:03:09 AM

Quote
but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

St. Peter's Catholic successor at present is our Patriarch Ignatius IV.


Yes I guess I know whom do you speak of, though I got confused ¿Who is the succesor?

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6515/patriarcas.jpg)


Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 01:07:51 AM
Listen, I rather would like to speak about his excelency Zizoulas.

"The Ravenna text" - continues Zizoulas - "is very important, but unfortunately it has not received due attention and disclosure. It was agreed that the primacy at any level it is exercised, should be understood in its synodal character. This is what the Orthodox Church maintains and applies and it has its roots in the 34th Apostolic Canon ... The Orthodox Church also has its primus, but they can not decide without the synod, nor the synod without them. This focal point was accepted at the Ravenna meeting, although it does not agree with [the concept of] the primate, as monarch. The second point of the Ravenna document is that the primate is linked to the concept of the pentarchy of the patriarchates [1]. This was true during the first millennium, and this should apply even if the remaining assumptions of the first millennium will retain their validity.

______________________________________________________________________

¿What do you think? ¿is there any doctrinal issue with this?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 02:41:49 AM
Listen, I rather would like to speak about his excelency Zizoulas.

"The Ravenna text" - continues Zizoulas - "is very important, but unfortunately it has not received due attention and disclosure. It was agreed that the primacy at any level it is exercised, should be understood in its synodal character. This is what the Orthodox Church maintains and applies and it has its roots in the 34th Apostolic Canon ... The Orthodox Church also has its primus, but they can not decide without the synod, nor the synod without them. This focal point was accepted at the Ravenna meeting, although it does not agree with [the concept of] the primate, as monarch. The second point of the Ravenna document is that the primate is linked to the concept of the pentarchy of the patriarchates [1]. This was true during the first millennium, and this should apply even if the remaining assumptions of the first millennium will retain their validity.

______________________________________________________________________

¿What do you think? ¿is there any doctrinal issue with this?

As far as I know no Orthodox Church has ratified this ecumenical document.   Five have decisively rejected it - Jerusalem, Russia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria.

The Vatican also declined to ratify it because it contains ideas on ecclesiology which are alien to Roman Catholic teaching.

You may find the whole document on the vatican.va site with a discreeet caution in the introduction that it is only the work of theologians and not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 02:50:12 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 03:47:54 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?

These words of Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of London provide a perspective on the bipolar approach of the Church of Rome to the bilateral dialogue.  It's not a pleasant opinion from the Metropolitan but he is deadly honest about how he assesses matters.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg397335.html#msg397335
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 05:07:00 AM
Listen, I rather would like to speak about his excelency Zizoulas.

"The Ravenna text" - continues Zizoulas - "is very important, but unfortunately it has not received due attention and disclosure. It was agreed that the primacy at any level it is exercised, should be understood in its synodal character. This is what the Orthodox Church maintains and applies and it has its roots in the 34th Apostolic Canon ... The Orthodox Church also has its primus, but they can not decide without the synod, nor the synod without them. This focal point was accepted at the Ravenna meeting, although it does not agree with [the concept of] the primate, as monarch. The second point of the Ravenna document is that the primate is linked to the concept of the pentarchy of the patriarchates [1]. This was true during the first millennium, and this should apply even if the remaining assumptions of the first millennium will retain their validity.

______________________________________________________________________

¿What do you think? ¿is there any doctrinal issue with this?

Dear Alfonso,

Prior to the commencement of the Cyprus Meeting, the bishops of the various Orthodox bishops moved into a more pro-active and hands-on mode with regard to the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.

You can read about this, with statements from the Church of Greece and various bishops in this thread

"Disagreement on the October meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue "
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23726.html


The star of Metropolitan Zizioulas is probably waning now, especially after his threats to bishops who do not agree with his approach to the ecumenical dialogue.



Today (19 January) is the commemoration of St. Fillan of Strathfilan
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 20, 2010, 08:02:06 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?

Because he sees the talks as inevitably leading to our submission to Rome. Which kind of confirms the suspicions of the anti-ecumenists.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 10:11:40 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?

I speak to those catholics whose faith has weakened, I have said that I do respect born orthodox, but those who converted are my concern due to the fact that they were baptized as catholic, and they will be always catholic, though they are not asisting to church. If they have been rebaptized, they have comited sin, because St Paul clearly states "... One Baptism...", and no matter they believe they have been rebaptized, their baptism is Catholic, and they will be requested to answer about their acts.

not until we reach full communion we can say that it doesn't matter to asist to orthodox or catholic church, and that is why I keep tracking ecumenical movement, for i want that the desire of our Lord to be done.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 20, 2010, 10:30:41 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?

I speak to those catholics whose faith has weakened, I have said that I do respect born orthodox, but those who converted are my concern due to the fact that they were baptized as catholic, and they will be always catholic, though they are not asisting to church. If they have been rebaptized, they have comited sin, because St Paul clearly states "... One Baptism...", and no matter they believe they have been rebaptized, their baptism is Catholic, and they will be requested to answer about their acts.

not until we reach full communion we can say that it doesn't matter to asist to orthodox or catholic church, and that is why I keep tracking ecumenical movement, for i want that the desire of our Lord to be done.

My loyalty and obedience has been with the Western Church since my early days with my Grandfather attending Mass in Latin but far has the Church fallen and I have a family that should be raise with the support of those whom I believe will best aid me to teach them the Fear of God and to pursue a life of Virtue which is the Catholic Faith.

If the Priests are not loyal nor obedient to Holy Tradition which is the Canon of Christ, who then are we loyal to by bowing to their whim? I'm just asking?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 10:42:19 AM
This paragrph speaks of something that most catholics don´t know.

"The Orthodox Church found itself subject to the Turkish system of corruption. The patriarchal throne was frequently sold to the highest bidder, while new patriarchal investiture was accompanied by heavy payment to the government. In order to recoup their losses, patriarchs and bishops taxed the local parishes and their clergy. Nor was the patriarchal throne ever secure. Few patriarchs between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries died a natural death while in office. The forced abdications, exiles, hangings, drownings, and poisonings of patriarchs are well documented. But if the patriarch's position was precarious so was the hierarchy's. The hanging of patriarch Gregory V from the gate of the patriarchate on Easter Sunday 1821 was accompanied by the execution of two metropolitans and twelve bishops."

Now, to me this sounds like many of the acusations that some orthodox do to catholicism.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 11:02:56 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?
He's never "Romanist"; but he is always Catholic.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 11:04:38 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?

I speak to those catholics whose faith has weakened, I have said that I do respect born orthodox, but those who converted are my concern due to the fact that they were baptized as catholic, and they will be always catholic, though they are not asisting to church. If they have been rebaptized, they have comited sin, because St Paul clearly states "... One Baptism...", and no matter they believe they have been rebaptized, their baptism is Catholic, and they will be requested to answer about their acts.

not until we reach full communion we can say that it doesn't matter to asist to orthodox or catholic church, and that is why I keep tracking ecumenical movement, for i want that the desire of our Lord to be done.

My loyalty and obedience has been with the Western Church since my early days with my Grandfather attending Mass in Latin but far has the Church fallen and I have a family that should be raise with the support of those whom I believe will best aid me to teach them the Fear of God and to pursue a life of Virtue which is the Catholic Faith.

If the Priests are not loyal nor obedient to Holy Tradition which is the Canon of Christ, who then are we loyal to by bowing to their whim? I'm just asking?
Its so funny that you feel this way because this most certainly not my experience of the Priests i know. The priets I know are solidly orthodox (little 'o') and pratice the faith in a beautiful way.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 11:08:49 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?

I speak to those catholics whose faith has weakened, I have said that I do respect born orthodox, but those who converted are my concern due to the fact that they were baptized as catholic, and they will be always catholic, though they are not asisting to church. If they have been rebaptized, they have comited sin, because St Paul clearly states "... One Baptism...", and no matter they believe they have been rebaptized, their baptism is Catholic, and they will be requested to answer about their acts.

not until we reach full communion we can say that it doesn't matter to asist to orthodox or catholic church, and that is why I keep tracking ecumenical movement, for i want that the desire of our Lord to be done.

My loyalty and obedience has been with the Western Church since my early days with my Grandfather attending Mass in Latin but far has the Church fallen and I have a family that should be raise with the support of those whom I believe will best aid me to teach them the Fear of God and to pursue a life of Virtue which is the Catholic Faith.

If the Priests are not loyal nor obedient to Holy Tradition which is the Canon of Christ, who then are we loyal to by bowing to their whim? I'm just asking?

Tell me, have you ever gone to do spiritual exercises, those of St Ignatius of Loyola?, if your answer is negative,  there you have your answer, your faith is a faith founded on ritualistic, if your answer is yes, then what have you done to fight for Jeruslem, The establishment of the kingdom of our Lord in earth as it is in heaven?

Faith is not only about going to mass, and feeling nice, and also faith is not only about feeling peace inside, we can see it in the Sacred Scripture,  St Paul was in constant conflict, doing what he didn’t want to do. He never retired to a monastery, and never spoke of that as a way of salvation, neither did St Peter. None of them felt rest until they give their souls to our Lord. For it is only in the Lord that we may find rest. But in life, we have to persevere in faith; such is Our Lord’s command. 

Monastery is a way to live completely advocated to our Lord, but there are other ways to sanctify the life of each one. Have you ever met Opus Dei, St José María Escrivá de Valaguer? Though I don’t belong to Opus Dei, I recognize that father José María has thought to live in sanctity in each one occupation, in each one routine,  you don´t have to be a priest, neither you have to be a monk, you can sanctify your life through your personal life. Doing everything  to glorify our Lord.

I finally want to remember you the word of the Greates Lady  Saint Afte the most holy Virgin Mary, I am speaking of Teresa de Ávila:

I live without living in myself,
and in such a way do I hope,
that I die because I do not die.
 
I live now outside of myself
for I die of love;
because I live in the Lord
who claimed me for himself;
when I gave him my heart
I put in it this sign:
I die because I do not die.
 
This divine prison of love
with which I live
has made God my captive,
and my heart free;
and to see God as my prisoner
causes in me such a passion
that I die because I do not die.
 
Oh, how long is this life!
How hard these exiles,
this jail, these iron bars
in which the soul is put!
Just awaiting my departure
causes in me such a pain,
that I die because I do not die.
 
Oh, how bitter this life
where one does not enjoy the Lord!
For if love is sweet,
long waiting is not.
God, take this burden from me,
more heavy than steel,
for I die because I do not die.
 
I live only with the confidence
that I have to die,
because upon dying, my hope
assures me of life.
Death, where living extends itself,
do not delay, for I await you,
for I die because I do not die.
 
See that love is strong,
life, be not bothersome to me;
see that the only thing that is left for you
to gain yourself is to loose yourself.
Let sweet death come now,
death come swiftly,
for I die because I do not die.
 
That life above
is the true life;
until this life dies,
one doesn’t savor being alive.
Death, don’t evade me;
live dying first,
for I die because I do not die.
 
Life, what can I give
my God, who lives in me,
if not the loosing of you,
to enjoy him more?
I want to attain him dying,
for so much do I love my Lover,
that I die because I do not die.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 11:13:15 AM
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?
Yup. So I suggest you stop lying about my Church.

 OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  
You know you are being silly.
1. Eating Meat on Fridays. It has never been an issue of divine law that Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Friday. Thus it was obviously could be changed because it was not a matter of revelation/divine law.
However, the only actual Church teaching that is related to this matter is Church authority. Does the Catholic Church have the authority to bind its faithful to certain penances and fasts? Of course she does and the Church has not changed its teaching that she has such authority. So you fail on this point.
2. Magical steeple? Please, my ninth grade students could come up with better arguements. That being said, yes the Church provides induglences and this is seen as nothing more than the exercise of the authority given by Christ when he told the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven." Thus a person can recieve an indulgence from the Church based on this authority. However, an indulgence doesn't keep a person out of hell. It only aides a soul in purgatory. Indulgences require repentance and penance.
3. Yes Purgatory exists.
4. Limbo. Now you are showing how incredibly uninformed you are about Catholic Dogma. The concept of Limbo has NEVER been a dogma of the Church. It is an acceptable theological opinion, and Catholics are still free to believe in the idea if they like, but they are not required to just as it has always been in Church history. No Change here.
What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)
We have always believed in some form of the concept of salvation still being possible for those who are in a state of invincible ignorance. Is the concept applied more liberally today by many Catholic theologians? Definitely, and that may not be the best thing but the Magesterium has not changed Catholic teaching on the matter.
Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.
First, I doubt you ever were Catholic or you would actual understand these concepts. But if you were a Catholic you must have had a pretty poor understanding of your faith if you can actually put such nonsensical arguements in print. Second, because not one of your arguements holds water, you have failed to defend your position.
BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)
I suppose if you think the sin of slander is awesome. Some how I doubt your communion approves of lying though.

1.Canon 1249 “All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.”

Canon 1250 “All Fridays throughout the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the universal Church.”

Canon 1251 “Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Canon 1252 “The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year.”

2. Actually, I doubt a 9th grader would be aware of the silly superstition that was rampant in Catholicism prior to the 1960s, and a little bit before then.  

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Dispositions necessary to gain an indulgence

The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e. "at least with a contrite heart", is the customary prescription. Regarding the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead, see PURGATORY. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must perform the good works — prayers, alms deeds, visits to a church , etc. — which are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence. For details see "Raccolta".

3. OK.

4. http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm

Where will unbaptized children (and aborted babies) go on the day of the Last Judgment?

It is not a doctrine of Faith that children dying with original sin only on their soul go to a special place or state called the children’s Limbo. However, it is the common opinion of the theologians. This is based upon the teaching of Pope Innocent III (and the Fathers of the Church) on the effects of baptism, in which he has this to say:

    The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. (Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780).

The state of Limbo is consequently a suffering from the pain of loss, or separation from God, but not of the pain of the senses. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches (De malo 5, 3), such a pain of loss is compatible with a certain natural happiness. At the last judgment, when the bodies will rise to share in the punishment or reward of heaven or hell, the bodies of those who are in Limbo will also rise. Although separated from God, in which way they share the punishment of the damned in hell, they will not be tormented by remorse nor will they suffer the pain of the sense which the damned suffer forever in hell.

The denial of this common teaching by the heretical council of Pistoia was condemned by Pope Pius VI as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." Here is his description of the erroneous doctrine:

    The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin, are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire... (Auctorem Fidei, Dz 1526).  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]


First, I doubt you ever were Catholic or you would actual understand these concepts. But if you were a Catholic you must have had a pretty poor understanding of your faith if you can actually put such nonsensical arguements in print. Second, because not one of your arguements holds water, you have failed to defend your position.

Actually, I was a seminarian at the Pontifical College Josephinum and much to Msgr. Paul Langsfeld's dismay, left following my freshmen year as I continued to fall in love with Orthodox Christianity.  In reality, I was on my to the Gregorian University.  What major seminary did you attend?  

Yup. So I suggest you stop lying about my Church.

THANK YOU!!  Wasn't I just talking about it being YOUR Church?  

I suppose if you think the sin of slander is awesome. Some how I doubt your communion approves of lying though.

Thanks for doing your job and proving my point (again, you can't seem to help yourself) that you are the one in judgment over me.

Matthew. 7:5
If you can't understand the difference between Divine and Positive Law then I guess I can't help you. This only demonstrates your lack of understanding and knowledge. Sorry buddy.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 11:14:55 AM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?

I speak to those catholics whose faith has weakened, I have said that I do respect born orthodox, but those who converted are my concern due to the fact that they were baptized as catholic, and they will be always catholic, though they are not asisting to church. If they have been rebaptized, they have comited sin, because St Paul clearly states "... One Baptism...", and no matter they believe they have been rebaptized, their baptism is Catholic, and they will be requested to answer about their acts.

not until we reach full communion we can say that it doesn't matter to asist to orthodox or catholic church, and that is why I keep tracking ecumenical movement, for i want that the desire of our Lord to be done.

My loyalty and obedience has been with the Western Church since my early days with my Grandfather attending Mass in Latin but far has the Church fallen and I have a family that should be raise with the support of those whom I believe will best aid me to teach them the Fear of God and to pursue a life of Virtue which is the Catholic Faith.

If the Priests are not loyal nor obedient to Holy Tradition which is the Canon of Christ, who then are we loyal to by bowing to their whim? I'm just asking?

Tell me, have you ever gone to do spiritual exercises, those of St Ignatius of Loyola?, if your answer is negative,  there you have your answer, your faith is a faith founded on ritualistic, if your answer is yes, then what have you done to fight for Jeruslem, The establishment of the kingdom of our Lord in earth as it is in heaven?

Faith is not only about going to mass, and feeling nice, and also faith is not only about feeling peace inside, we can see it in the Sacred Scripture,  St Paul was in constant conflict, doing what he didn’t want to do. He never retired to a monastery, and never spoke of that as a way of salvation, neither did St Peter. None of them felt rest until they give their souls to our Lord. For it is only in the Lord that we may find rest. But in life, we have to persevere in faith; such is Our Lord’s command. 

Monastery is a way to live completely advocated to our Lord, but there are other ways to sanctify the life of each one. Have you ever met Opus Dei, St José María Escrivá de Valaguer? Though I don’t belong to Opus Dei, I recognize that father José María has thought to live in sanctity in each one occupation, in each one routine,  you don´t have to be a priest, neither you have to be a monk, you can sanctify your life through your personal life. Doing everything  to glorify our Lord.

I finally want to remember you the word of the Greates Lady  Saint Afte the most holy Virgin Mary, I am speaking of Teresa de Ávila:

I live without living in myself,
and in such a way do I hope,
that I die because I do not die.
 
I live now outside of myself
for I die of love;
because I live in the Lord
who claimed me for himself;
when I gave him my heart
I put in it this sign:
I die because I do not die.
 
This divine prison of love
with which I live
has made God my captive,
and my heart free;
and to see God as my prisoner
causes in me such a passion
that I die because I do not die.
 
Oh, how long is this life!
How hard these exiles,
this jail, these iron bars
in which the soul is put!
Just awaiting my departure
causes in me such a pain,
that I die because I do not die.
 
Oh, how bitter this life
where one does not enjoy the Lord!
For if love is sweet,
long waiting is not.
God, take this burden from me,
more heavy than steel,
for I die because I do not die.
 
I live only with the confidence
that I have to die,
because upon dying, my hope
assures me of life.
Death, where living extends itself,
do not delay, for I await you,
for I die because I do not die.
 
See that love is strong,
life, be not bothersome to me;
see that the only thing that is left for you
to gain yourself is to loose yourself.
Let sweet death come now,
death come swiftly,
for I die because I do not die.
 
That life above
is the true life;
until this life dies,
one doesn’t savor being alive.
Death, don’t evade me;
live dying first,
for I die because I do not die.
 
Life, what can I give
my God, who lives in me,
if not the loosing of you,
to enjoy him more?
I want to attain him dying,
for so much do I love my Lover,
that I die because I do not die.

I find the Love that Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross have for Jesus to be beautiful.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 20, 2010, 11:21:05 AM
If you can't understand the difference between Divine and Positive Law then I guess I can't help you. This only demonstrates your lack of understanding and knowledge. Sorry buddy.

Positive law
is a legal term that is sometimes understood to have more than one meaning. In the strictest sense, it is law made by human beings, that is, "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society." This term is also sometimes used to refer to the legal philosophy, legal positivism, as distinct from the schools of natural law and legal realism.

Various philosophers have put forward theories contrasting the value of positive law relative to natural law. The normative theory of law put forth by the Brno school gave pre-eminence to positive law because of its rational nature. Classical liberal and libertarian philosophers usually favor natural law over legal positivism.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 11:23:48 AM
If you can't understand the difference between Divine and Positive Law then I guess I can't help you. This only demonstrates your lack of understanding and knowledge. Sorry buddy.

Positive law
is a legal term that is sometimes understood to have more than one meaning. In the strictest sense, it is law made by human beings, that is, "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society." This term is also sometimes used to refer to the legal philosophy, legal positivism, as distinct from the schools of natural law and legal realism.

Various philosophers have put forward theories contrasting the value of positive law relative to natural law. The normative theory of law put forth by the Brno school gave pre-eminence to positive law because of its rational nature. Classical liberal and libertarian philosophers usually favor natural law over legal positivism.
And there is such a thing as positive Church Law. Certain fasts, prayers in the Liturgy, feast days on the Liturgical Calander. etc. are not matters of divine revelation but are put in place by the Church to aide in our spiritual growth.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 20, 2010, 11:26:20 AM
You've been proven wrong.  You contradict yourself continually, and you do not demonstrate any real knowledge, just arrogance with a side of ignorance.  

Can't say I've ever heard a priest or theologian speak of Positive Law.  I have heard lawyers and judges speak of it, when I interned at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Anyway, who cares?  Some psychological defect in you goes rampant whenever you go about on internet forums insulting a religion different than yours.  
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 11:30:13 AM
You've been proven wrong.  You contradict yourself continually, and you do not demonstrate any real knowledge, just arrogance with a side of ignorance.  

Can't say I've ever heard a priest or theologian speak of Positive Law.  I have heard lawyers and judges speak of it, when I interned at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Anyway, who cares?  Some psychological defect in you goes rampant whenever you go about on internet forums insulting a religion different than yours.  
Quite frankly I think you are immature and uneducated. I will not discuss this with you further until you decide to grow up. BTW, I would like you to point out one post in this thread in which I have insulted the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you cannot do so, then  you have moved from slandering my Church to slandering me.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 20, 2010, 11:37:42 AM
You have no reason to come to those conclusions and, like a little child, are trying to get me fired up.  Frankly, from the look at all of your posts, perhaps you do not instruct 9th graders, you simply just are one. 

Have a nice day Papist.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 20, 2010, 12:50:03 PM
ah, so much for 'Ecumenism'...  ;)

I think somewhere we have become uncharitable.  :police:

Church discipline developed... the Liturgy developed... our Creeds developed. I understand the idea of the Deposit of Faith but we also must recognize that our practices have developed through the life of the Church. I think that is Papists point with Positive Law. I believe that he is saying that just because we have development doesn't make it illegitimate or a novelty.

Many Orthodox think that the Divine Liturgy of 1460AD in Constantinople was how the Apostles worshiped and dressed. Many think that Jesus literally dressed in Roman Imperial grab because that is how he is depicted in Iconography. Some even see Jesus as more of a Socrates than as the Jewish Rabbi that he was.

I know Orthodox Priests and I dialogue with them weekly and I don't know 'any' who deny the kinds of things some Orthodox virulently deny here on this forum to win an argument or to demean Catholic views on a subject. To a certain extent I understand Papists criticisms.

History is challenging and we can't simply claim authority because we attended a seminary or have a degree... it must be proven through rational discourse and evidence.

Let us be patient and peaceable with one another and reason together. Let us ask questions of one another and not simply couch everything as we wish it to be to support our own claims. I think that is fair.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2010, 01:28:13 PM
This paragrph speaks of something that most catholics don´t know.

"The Orthodox Church found itself subject to the Turkish system of corruption. The patriarchal throne was frequently sold to the highest bidder, while new patriarchal investiture was accompanied by heavy payment to the government. In order to recoup their losses, patriarchs and bishops taxed the local parishes and their clergy. Nor was the patriarchal throne ever secure. Few patriarchs between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries died a natural death while in office. The forced abdications, exiles, hangings, drownings, and poisonings of patriarchs are well documented. But if the patriarch's position was precarious so was the hierarchy's. The hanging of patriarch Gregory V from the gate of the patriarchate on Easter Sunday 1821 was accompanied by the execution of two metropolitans and twelve bishops."

Now, to me this sounds like many of the acusations that some orthodox do to catholicism.
Bad as the Turcocratia was, it was imposed from without, and no matter its corrupting influence, never came from within, and never got to these depths:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VII_1870.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2010, 01:30:44 PM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?

Because he sees the talks as inevitably leading to our submission to Rome. Which kind of confirms the suspicions of the anti-ecumenists.
(https://www.msu.edu/user/socomm/bullseye.gif)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2010, 01:34:45 PM

Quote
but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

St. Peter's Catholic successor at present is our Patriarch Ignatius IV.


Yes I guess I know whom do you speak of, though I got confused ¿Who is the succesor?

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6515/patriarcas.jpg)
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic One:


(http://www.enjoyturkey.com/images/Ignatius_IV.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 01:43:27 PM
This paragrph speaks of something that most catholics don´t know.

"The Orthodox Church found itself subject to the Turkish system of corruption. The patriarchal throne was frequently sold to the highest bidder, while new patriarchal investiture was accompanied by heavy payment to the government. In order to recoup their losses, patriarchs and bishops taxed the local parishes and their clergy. Nor was the patriarchal throne ever secure. Few patriarchs between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries died a natural death while in office. The forced abdications, exiles, hangings, drownings, and poisonings of patriarchs are well documented. But if the patriarch's position was precarious so was the hierarchy's. The hanging of patriarch Gregory V from the gate of the patriarchate on Easter Sunday 1821 was accompanied by the execution of two metropolitans and twelve bishops."

Now, to me this sounds like many of the acusations that some orthodox do to catholicism.
Bad as the Turcocratia was, it was imposed from without, and no matter its corrupting influence, never came from within, and never got to these depths:

You gave me the reason.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 01:44:50 PM

Quote
but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

St. Peter's Catholic successor at present is our Patriarch Ignatius IV.


Yes I guess I know whom do you speak of, though I got confused ¿Who is the succesor?

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6515/patriarcas.jpg)
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic One:



Yes, he is sited at left of the Pope, ¿Wouldn´t he deserve to sit in the center? my lutheran friend
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 20, 2010, 01:51:57 PM
I could be wrong, but it looks like this event is being held in a Catholic Church.  If so, the Pope sitting in the middle would be the correct decorum. 
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 05:00:05 PM

but those who converted are my concern due to the fact that they were baptized as catholic,

Huh? I converted to EOy on Holy Saturday of '08 and had never been a Romanist.


If they have been rebaptized, they have comited sin, because St Paul clearly states "... One Baptism...",

It's not that common for converts from Romanism to be baptized. They are usually chrismated.

But even if they were, as some are, it is not necessarily rebaptism, because they regard the baptism in your ecclesia as being Sacramentally illegitimate.

But none of this really answers my question. Why does it seem you keep changing your attitude towards the EO
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 05:01:32 PM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?
He's never "Romanist"; but he is always Catholic.

Romanism is a legitimate categorization of your religion regardless of whether Catholicism also is or not.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 05:06:33 PM
It's actually this one:

(http://www.manjinikkaradayara.org/photos/HHZakah1.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
It's actually this one:


Though he is sited at right of the Pope in the mirror position to Eastern Orthodox.

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6515/patriarcas.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 06:27:30 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7504/petersuccesor.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 07:08:20 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?


One of your Churches, ther Chaldean Catholic Church, claims they are somewhere in Baghdad.   This seems to be a minority opinion.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 07:09:07 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?


One of your Churches, ther Chaldean Catholic Church, claims they are somewhere in Baghdad.   This seems to be a minority opinion.
Sad how wrong they are.  ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 07:09:43 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7504/petersuccesor.jpg)
I am not worried. I know the successor of St. Peter is in Rome.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 20, 2010, 07:15:00 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7504/petersuccesor.jpg)
I am not worried. I know the successor of St. Peter is in Rome.

I fully agree
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 07:19:06 PM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?
He's never "Romanist"; but he is always Catholic.

Romanism is a legitimate categorization of your religion regardless of whether Catholicism also is or not.
No really, since I don't worship Rome.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 07:29:02 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?

I am not worried. I know the successor of St. Peter is in Rome.

Well, the Pope says himself that the successors of Saint Peter are found in three cities: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.


Pope Gregory the Great  teaches that the three Patriarchates which existed in his time -Rome, Alexandria and Antioch-  founded by Peter, were equal in power and authority.   This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and is connected with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.

Note well:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.


For more context and the papal teaching:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg380287.html#msg380287
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 07:30:35 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?

I am not worried. I know the successor of St. Peter is in Rome.

Well, the Pope says himself that the successors of Saint Peter are found in three cities: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.


Pope Gregory the Great  teaches that the three Patriarchates which existed in his time -Rome, Alexandria and Antioch-  founded by Peter, were equal in power and authority.   This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and is connected with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.

Note well:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.


For more context and the papal teaching:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg380287.html#msg380287
Father, do you really think that I don't know about this? That's why its such a big deal that Constantinople pushed its way to second place.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 07:42:11 PM
An Orthodox article on the danger of the Orthodox contemplating union with Rome in light of Rome's perilous state with its liturgy..

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Orthodox/2000/10/Lets-Keep-Our-Distance.aspx
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 07:43:26 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?

I am not worried. I know the successor of St. Peter is in Rome.

Well, the Pope says himself that the successors of Saint Peter are found in three cities: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.


Pope Gregory the Great  teaches that the three Patriarchates which existed in his time -Rome, Alexandria and Antioch-  founded by Peter, were equal in power and authority.   This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and is connected with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.

Note well:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.


For more context and the papal teaching:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg380287.html#msg380287
Father, do you really think that I don't know about this? 

Yes, I know that you know.  The reference was for Alfonso who seems unaware of the papal teaching.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 08:11:04 PM
It's actually this one:


Though he is sited at right of the Pope in the mirror position to Eastern Orthodox.

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6515/patriarcas.jpg)

I was well aware that he was also in the original picture. What is your point?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 08:15:26 PM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?
He's never "Romanist"; but he is always Catholic.

Romanism is a legitimate categorization of your religion regardless of whether Catholicism also is or not.
No really, since I don't worship Rome.

Never said you did. Isms are not inherently indicated of what someone worships. "Romanism" refers to certain systematic relations to the Church of Rome, such as holding to its dogmatic tradition, submitting to its supposed supreme authority, etc.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2010, 08:16:34 PM
Alonso, why do you keep waffling from being ecumenical to being Romanist supremacist to being ecumenical again?
He's never "Romanist"; but he is always Catholic.

Romanism is a legitimate categorization of your religion regardless of whether Catholicism also is or not.
I think its a strange thing to call my church since her name is actually The Catholic Church.
No really, since I don't worship Rome.

Never said you did. Isms are not inherently indicated of what someone worships. "Romanism" refers to certain systematic relations to the Church of Rome, such as holding to its dogmatic tradition, submitting to its supposed supreme authority, etc.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 08:50:34 PM

I think its a strange thing to call my church since her name is actually The Catholic Church.

It is not strange if one realizes that I do not agree with the premise behind it naming itself that.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 20, 2010, 08:55:20 PM

I think its a strange thing to call my church since her name is actually The Catholic Church.

It is not strange if one realizes that I do not agree with the premise behind it naming itself that.

In the 19th Century it more normatively proclaimed itself 'The Holy Roman Church'.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 09:05:19 PM

I think its a strange thing to call my church since her name is actually The Catholic Church.

It is not strange if one realizes that I do not agree with the premise behind it naming itself that.

In the 19th Century it more normatively proclaimed itself 'The Holy Roman Church'.

Interesting. That seems to show that "Romanism" could be more than a descriptive term used to avoid using the term "Catholicism" but could even be considered as derived from the church referring to itself as the Roman church.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 20, 2010, 09:23:55 PM
Interesting. That seems to show that "Romanism" could be more than a descriptive term used to avoid using the term "Catholicism" but could even be considered as derived from the church referring to itself as the Roman church.

Honestly I think is a discourtesy to use labels toward another which they don't use of themselves. What you seem to be doing is attempting to insult Catholics without the real backbone to admit you are being rude toward guests on your forum.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 09:51:20 PM
Interesting. That seems to show that "Romanism" could be more than a descriptive term used to avoid using the term "Catholicism" but could even be considered as derived from the church referring to itself as the Roman church.

Honestly I think is a discourtesy to use labels toward another which they don't use of themselves. What you seem to be doing is attempting to insult Catholics without the real backbone to admit you are being rude toward guests on your forum.

No. That is a common assumption, but I am simply avoiding using "Catholic"/"Catholicism" out of a matter of conscience. I will apply it to the OO, and maybe the EO, but not Rome, at least not in a context where people are aware of the original usage of "Catholicism" in the period of the undivided Christendom.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 20, 2010, 10:11:47 PM
No. That is a common assumption, but I am simply avoiding using "Catholic"/"Catholicism" out of a matter of conscience. I will apply it to the OO, and maybe the EO, but not Rome, at least not in a context where people are aware of the original usage of "Catholicism" in the period of the undivided Christendom.

Ah, I see. So, your insult is motivated out of a self serving desire to be a peace with your conscience...  :D

You kids kill me.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 10:14:44 PM
No. That is a common assumption, but I am simply avoiding using "Catholic"/"Catholicism" out of a matter of conscience. I will apply it to the OO, and maybe the EO, but not Rome, at least not in a context where people are aware of the original usage of "Catholicism" in the period of the undivided Christendom.

Ah, I see. So, your insult is motivated out of a self serving desire to be a peace with your conscience...  :D

You kids kill me.

No, out of an objective respect for orthodoxy that compels us to not call Catholic what is not Catholic. It is not an insult.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 20, 2010, 10:34:39 PM
No, out of an objective respect for orthodoxy that compels us to not call Catholic what is not Catholic. It is not an insult.

My wife is Baptist... I could wake up every morning and out of an 'objective respect for Catholicism' I could be 'compelled' to label her an apostate but you know what...? I don't because my Faith isn't proven by my lack of respect toward others who honestly follow a path different from my own. I don't judge individuals by 'team shirts' but by their fruit we will know them.

I understand you are in the midst of your own 'conversion' and that often causes individuals to exercise intemperate zeal but your Spiritual Father should be exercising restraint on that... I'm frankly surprised so many here don't seem to have any sense of restraint on that. It breeds hubris and distracts one from their own sins as they project out error on to everyone else. I've seem this time and time again and I never find it compelling.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2010, 11:14:28 PM

My wife is Baptist... I could wake up every morning and out of an 'objective respect for Catholicism' I could be 'compelled' to label her an apostate

How is that comparable?

You make it sound as if you would do that out of spite.

I'm not doing this out of spite.

And I don't see what would be the problem with calling your wife a Baptist. How does your Catholicism compel you to not call her a Baptist?

The name "Catholic" is particularly problematic because it contains a truth claim that you are the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". There is no such bold truth claim in the name "Baptist".

Lastly, I told you what "Romanist" means. It conveys no real insulting meaning; it simply means that you are an adherent of the dogmatic tradition of Rome. "Apostate" is nowhere near as neutral.


I don't because my Faith isn't proven by my lack of respect toward others

My not willing to submit to your exclusive claim to be the Catholic Church of the Fathers has nothing to do with showing some general lack of respect.


I understand you are in the midst of your own 'conversion'

I already was Baptized and Chrismated into the EOC more than a year ago. The conversion I am currently undergoing is from EOy to OOy. A rather slight difference. So no, you've got the wrong impression.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2010, 11:53:00 PM

Quote
but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

St. Peter's Catholic successor at present is our Patriarch Ignatius IV.


Yes I guess I know whom do you speak of, though I got confused ¿Who is the succesor?

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6515/patriarcas.jpg)
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic One:



Yes, he is sited at left of the Pope, ¿Wouldn´t he deserve to sit in the center? my lutheran friend
I don't know what Lutheran friend you have, but yes HB Ignatius deserves to sit in the center.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2010, 11:54:41 PM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7504/petersuccesor.jpg)
Which one still confesses St. Peter's Faith?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 12:01:18 AM
The Pope
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 12:02:32 AM
Far from Middle east and oriental Europe, in China, Japan, India, Africa, South America, Oceania, western Europe and North, America, Every time you ask people for a Catholic Church, they immediately know that you refer to the communities linked to Pope.

The same happens in Holy Land, though, if you ask a fundamentalist from orthodoxy, he immediately knows what do you refer, but then he tries to correct you, saying "... You mean roman ..." but you don't intend to enter into a discussion, you know that he understand what you mean and just say: " …yes, Catholic…", then as he don't want to debate about he will point the place where you want to go.

Then everybody knows that Catholic is referred to christians linked to Pope, either they want to accept it or not
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 12:07:50 AM
The Pope
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07yIe2a2Cw5Hs/610x.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 12:08:48 AM

Quote
but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

St. Peter's Catholic successor at present is our Patriarch Ignatius IV.


Yes I guess I know whom do you speak of, though I got confused ¿Who is the succesor?

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6515/patriarcas.jpg)
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic One:



Yes, he is sited at left of the Pope, ¿Wouldn´t he deserve to sit in the center? my lutheran friend
I don't know what Lutheran friend you have, but yes HB Ignatius deserves to sit in the center.
You see, you know whom I am refering to.

If orthodox patriarch deservs to sit in the middle , I wouldn´t have as a patriarch acepted to be sited in a less honor place. Because I would be sending a false message. Don't you agree?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 12:09:28 AM
Far from Middle east and oriental Europe, in China, Japan, India, Africa, South America, Oceania, western Europe and North, America, Every time you ask people for a Catholic Church, they immediately know that you refer to the communities linked to Pope.

The same happens in Holy Land, though, if you ask a fundamentalist from orthodoxy, he immediately knows what do you refer, but then he tries to correct you, saying "... You mean roman ..." but you don't intend to enter into a discussion, you know that he understand what you mean and just say: " …yes, Catholic…", then as he don't want to debate about he will point the place where you want to go.

Then everybody knows that Catholic is referred to christians linked to Pope, either they want to accept it or not

So sure about that are you?  Have you been any of said places to test that out?  You imaginary conversation in the Holy Land seems to indicate you haven't.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 12:13:39 AM

Quote
but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

St. Peter's Catholic successor at present is our Patriarch Ignatius IV.


Yes I guess I know whom do you speak of, though I got confused ¿Who is the succesor?

(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6515/patriarcas.jpg)
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic One:



Yes, he is sited at left of the Pope, ¿Wouldn´t he deserve to sit in the center? my lutheran friend
I don't know what Lutheran friend you have, but yes HB Ignatius deserves to sit in the center.
You see, you know whom I am refering to.

If orthodox patriarch deservs to sit in the middle , I wouldn´t have as a patriarch acepted to be sited in a less honor place. Because I would be sending a false message. Don't you agree?
No. Mark 10:43.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 12:23:09 AM
Far from Middle east and oriental Europe, in China, Japan, India, Africa, South America, Oceania, western Europe and North, America, Every time you ask people for a Catholic Church, they immediately know that you refer to the communities linked to Pope.

The same happens in Holy Land, though, if you ask a fundamentalist from orthodoxy, he immediately knows what do you refer, but then he tries to correct you, saying "... You mean roman ..." but you don't intend to enter into a discussion, you know that he understand what you mean and just say: " …yes, Catholic…", then as he don't want to debate about he will point the place where you want to go.

Then everybody knows that Catholic is referred to christians linked to Pope, either they want to accept it or not

So sure about that are you?  Have you been any of said places to test that out?  You imaginary conversation in the Holy Land seems to indicate you haven't.

My Mother has been ther It happened to her.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 12:38:08 AM
Far from Middle east and oriental Europe, in China, Japan, India, Africa, South America, Oceania, western Europe and North, America, Every time you ask people for a Catholic Church, they immediately know that you refer to the communities linked to Pope.

The same happens in Holy Land, though, if you ask a fundamentalist from orthodoxy, he immediately knows what do you refer, but then he tries to correct you, saying "... You mean roman ..." but you don't intend to enter into a discussion, you know that he understand what you mean and just say: " …yes, Catholic…", then as he don't want to debate about he will point the place where you want to go.

Then everybody knows that Catholic is referred to christians linked to Pope, either they want to accept it or not

So sure about that are you?  Have you been any of said places to test that out?  You imaginary conversation in the Holy Land seems to indicate you haven't.

My Mother has been ther It happened to her.
Then she must have asked a tourist because in the Holy Land 1) yes your churches are called "kathuliiki": the Catholic Churches, as in our One, Holy, CATHOLIC Orthodox Church "jaami'i":"kathuliki" is only a foreign term for a foreign Church in the Holy Land 2) Ruumi, "Roman" means Greek.  The Patriarchates Official title is "Sacred Jerusalem Patriarchate of the Orthodox Romans"
http://www.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/ar/welcome.htm
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 12:47:12 AM
Now, Where are St Peter's bones?

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7504/petersuccesor.jpg)
Which one still confesses St. Peter's Faith?

The lefty.  ;)

Perhaps the righty as well. But that's a complicated issue.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 12:51:18 AM

Far from Middle east and oriental Europe, in China, Japan, India, Africa, South America, Oceania, western Europe and North, America, Every time you ask people for a Catholic Church, they immediately know that you refer to the communities linked to Pope.

The same happens in Holy Land, though, if you ask a fundamentalist from orthodoxy, he immediately knows what do you refer, but then he tries to correct you, saying "... You mean roman ..." but you don't intend to enter into a discussion, you know that he understand what you mean and just say: " …yes, Catholic…", then as he don't want to debate about he will point the place where you want to go.

Then everybody knows that Catholic is referred to christians linked to Pope, either they want to accept it or not

Only because you have stolen and monopolized the title. Not necessarily because they recognize you as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 12:53:32 AM
The Pope
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07yIe2a2Cw5Hs/610x.jpg)

LOL

&

(http://www.melbcopts.org.au/HH.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 01:03:33 AM
The Pope
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07yIe2a2Cw5Hs/610x.jpg)

LOL

&

(http://www.melbcopts.org.au/HH.jpg)
Yeah, him too (I have my Coptic Euchologion signed by His Holiness).  We pray for both.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 01:25:06 AM
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 01:30:28 AM

Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.

Why?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 01:39:00 AM

Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.

Why?

Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9010/tumbadepedro.png)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 01:41:14 AM
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?
(http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2000/Pics/StPetersRome.jpg)

I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kweFJm8yGGQ/StusbiQg4QI/AAAAAAAAC5s/860wtopE6No/s320/jerusalem-edicule-holy-sepulcher.jpg)(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6FYqnvQkn3s/SothbFhhB3I/AAAAAAAABJo/XtyXPrTILKE/s400/Tomb-of-the-Virgin.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 01:42:44 AM

Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.

Why?

Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9010/tumbadepedro.png)
As Father posted Pope St. Gregory claimed his place was in Rome, Alexandria and Anitoch.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 01:46:03 AM
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?
(http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2000/Pics/StPetersRome.jpg)

I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kweFJm8yGGQ/StusbiQg4QI/AAAAAAAAC5s/860wtopE6No/s320/jerusalem-edicule-holy-sepulcher.jpg)(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6FYqnvQkn3s/SothbFhhB3I/AAAAAAAABJo/XtyXPrTILKE/s400/Tomb-of-the-Virgin.jpg)


The empty tumb kept by muslims?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 01:48:04 AM
For your answer I guess that you read in bible that the fundaments of church were the empty tumb of Christ, ¿Do you?

1 cor 3:11

ef 2:20
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2010, 02:19:56 AM
Holy Protestors Force Cancellation of Catholic Wedding

By Charles Charalambous
Cyprus Mail
October 20, 2009

BANNER-WAVING Orthodox protestors yesterday put a stop to a Catholic wedding ceremony at Ayios Yiorgios church in Chlorakas after shouting a string of abuse at the priest and others in the church.


Unfortunately on Cyprus some churches rent out their premises fro "tourist weddings" which are hugely profitable for the churches and the bishop takes his percentage.   This abuse is the cause of this particular protest.

The Catholics have a very nice church of their own in this location and there is no need for them to rent Orthodox churches.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2010, 04:03:22 AM
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".


There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 04:12:10 AM

Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.

Why?

Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9010/tumbadepedro.png)

Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2010, 04:37:26 AM

Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.


Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 04:49:51 AM

Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.


Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2010, 04:55:05 AM

Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.


Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.

I wager $10 to a hundred that LBK is right now penning a message  ;D to say that our liturgical deposit gives equal honour to Peter and Paul as founders of the Church of Rome.  I would think that we can trust the liturgical deposit and our tradition on this point.  But I find the viewpoint of the Copts fascinating all the same.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: LBK on January 21, 2010, 05:40:03 AM
Father, you truly are clairvoyant!  ;D :laugh:

From the Vigil for Apostles Peter and Paul on the matter of Peter, Paul and Rome:

With what spiritual songs should we praise Peter and Paul? The sharp mouths of the dread sword of the Spirit that slaughter godlessness; the radiant ornaments of Rome; the delights of the whole inhabited world; the reasoning tablets, written by God, of the New Testament, which in Zion Christ proclaimed, who has great mercy.

A joyous feast has shone out today on the ends of the earth, the all-honoured memorial of the wisest Apostles and their princes, Peter and Paul; and so Rome dances and rejoices. Let us also, brethren, celebrate in songs and psalms this all-revered day, as we cry out to them: Hail, Peter, Apostle and true friend of your teacher, Christ our God. Hail, Paul, well-loved, herald of the faith and teacher of the inhabited world. Holy pair, chosen by God, as you have boldness, implore Christ our God that our souls may be saved.

What dungeon did not hold you prisoner? What Church did not have you as an orator? Damascus extols you, O Paul, for it knew you blinded by the Light; and Rome, which received your blood, boasts in you; but Tarsus, your birthplace, rejoices yet more with love and honour. O Peter, rock of the Faith, and Paul, boast of the whole world, coming together from Rome, make us steadfast.


As for their recognition as equals, IIRC there should be a post of mine where the equality of Peter and Paul is made clear through the Vigil text.

EDIT: Here it is: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14723.msg230684.html#msg230684
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 08:29:41 AM
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?
(http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2000/Pics/StPetersRome.jpg)

I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kweFJm8yGGQ/StusbiQg4QI/AAAAAAAAC5s/860wtopE6No/s320/jerusalem-edicule-holy-sepulcher.jpg)(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6FYqnvQkn3s/SothbFhhB3I/AAAAAAAABJo/XtyXPrTILKE/s400/Tomb-of-the-Virgin.jpg)


The empty tumb kept by muslims?
I got to stay a week in the one Church for a week.  The keepers were all Christian, though the polic officer was Druze.  What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 09:43:01 AM

Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.

Why?

Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9010/tumbadepedro.png)

Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.


Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.


Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints



We have no evidence of St. Peter founding the Church of Rome. As the above thread quotes the Apostolic Constitutions, "Pope" Linus was ordained by St. Paul (and predeceased St. Peter).  St. Paul, writing to the Romans in 55, doesn't include St. Peter among the long list of those he greets. According to Suetonius and the Bible (Acts 18:2), Christians had already appeared in Rome 6 years earlier.  Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 21, 2010, 09:53:48 AM
Quote
Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.

It's usually those who oppose Christianity, or sola scripturists, who use the "If it was really important the Bible would have said something about this..." argument. Interesting to hear it coming from an Orthodox Christian. :)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 10:03:48 AM
Quote
Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.

It's usually those who oppose Christianity, or sola scripturists, who use the "If it was really important the Bible would have said something about this..." argument. Interesting to hear it coming from an Orthodox Christian. :)
It just seems odd in the context that Revelation thinks it important to mention his martyrdom (John 21:18), his mission in Asia Minor (I Peter 1:1), his going to Jerusalem for St. James' judgement (Acts 15), his presence at Rome (I Peter 5:13) and a list of those in the Church of Rome c. 55 (Romans 15) doesn't mention a thing about the founding of the "papacy," which as dogma, the Bible would have to say something about it.John 20:30-21.  Not even an allusion to Rome becoming the axis of the Christian universe.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 21, 2010, 10:16:46 AM
Well, I'd agree that you've made a good point there.  :)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 10:18:05 AM
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".


There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.


We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.

(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1517/torontoi.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 21, 2010, 10:23:24 AM
Quote
we can see in orthodoxy areal mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses,

So you don't like historical realities of how Christianity actually worked in practice (for better or worse), but instead you prefer utopian theories of how you'd like it to work. I understand ;)

Quote
¿Is that correct that a single city cand be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence os diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

Yes. And it is not anything like, say, the times when multiple men all claimed to be Pope of Rome. It is not anything like it, because at least in the Orthodox case the bishops are in communion with each other, despite the mess having to do with who has rightful jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 10:29:09 AM
Quote
we can see in orthodoxy areal mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses,

So you don't like historical realities of how Christianity actually worked in practice (for better or worse), but instead you prefer utopian theories of how you'd like it to work. I understand

Quote
¿Is that correct that a single city cand be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence os diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

Yes. And it is not anything like, say, the times when multiple men all claimed to be Pope of Rome. It is not anything like it, because at least in the Orthodox case the bishops are in communion with each other, despite the mess having to do with who has rightful jurisdiction.

St Thomas More, spoke of Utopia as a city of equality, of armony, of prosperity, ¿Isn´t that the ideal that christianity porsues preachin Christ? ¿What do you understand by the establisment of the kingdom in earth as it is in heaven?, Catholicim is working to establish the kingdom of heaven despite ethnicity, orthodoxy is completly different.

You remembered the historical disputes of popes, which happened something like 400 years ago, but we are talking that such scandal happens today in orthodoxy, so, far from justification, you have given me the reason. And worst of all, is that no matter how many times have the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, called to order, all the other patriarch justify their actions by their independency of criteria, Oh yes, but they are in communion.

Catholicism in USA has Hispanic and Anglo speaking people, though they asist to the same church and the priest in charge is the same, and the bishop is the same for both, ¿don't you think that historicaly, Mexicans and greengos have more reason to be appart one from the other? and yet, we are together in the same parish as catholics.

Orthodoxy in diaspora is not a United Church, no matter how can you try to justificate it.´

Orthodoxy in Toronto.
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1517/torontoi.jpg)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 10:55:45 AM
Quote
we can see in orthodoxy areal mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses,

So you don't like historical realities of how Christianity actually worked in practice (for better or worse), but instead you prefer utopian theories of how you'd like it to work. I understand

Quote
¿Is that correct that a single city cand be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence os diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

Yes. And it is not anything like, say, the times when multiple men all claimed to be Pope of Rome. It is not anything like it, because at least in the Orthodox case the bishops are in communion with each other, despite the mess having to do with who has rightful jurisdiction.

St Thomas More, spoke of Utopia as a city of equality, of armony, of prosperity, ¿Isn´t that the ideal that christianity porsues preachin Christ? ¿What do you understand by the establisment of the kingdom in earth as it is in heaven?, Catholicim is working to establish the kingdom of heaven despite ethnicity, orthodoxy is completly different.

Yes, even the Greeks can evangelize peoples without Hellenizing them.  Latin America seems to prove Rome can't.

Quote
You remembered the historical disputes of popes, which happened something like 400 years ago,

If the papacy was such a great fount of unity, it shouldn't have happened at all.

And don't post things you will regret later: given the real fissures in the flock among conservatives and liberals nothing is going to prevent any one of the many claimants running around claiming to be the pope of Rome to restart a Great Western Schism.


Quote
but we are talking that such scandal happens today in orthodoxy, so, far from justification, you have given me the reason.

The NT talks about scandals in the days of the Apostles (and the Gospels in the days of Christ: John 6:66). So your point?


Quote
Catholicism in USA has Hispanic and Anglo speaking people, though they asist to the same church and the priest in charge is the same, and the bishop is the same for both, ¿don't you think that historicaly, Mexicans and greengos have more reason to be appart one from the other? and yet, we are together in the same parish as catholics.
Have you been to the USA, they are not as together as you portray.  Kate Michaelman, the founder of the Abortion rights NARAL points out that she left your church when she saw Mexican workers being segregated into the back of the church.

Btw, your acute priest shortage also helps to have "the priest in charge is the same."

Quote
Orthodoxy in diaspora is not a United Church, no matter how can you try to justificate it.´

Orthodoxy in Toronto.
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1517/torontoi.jpg)

So we have several Churches in Toronto.  May we have several Churches in every city from Alaska to Tierre del Fuego!

Speaking of a united Church, you do know the story of the Father of American Orthodoxy, Archb. Ireland, no?

The Vatican has several overlapping jurisdictions in America.  I think we have 5 here in Chicago.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 11:03:33 AM
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".


There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.


We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.

(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1517/torontoi.jpg)
Your Vatican has 3 (used to be four) Patriarchs all claiming to be the Patriarch of Antioch.  And none of them claim their orders from Paulinus, whom Jerome and Rome recognized as Patriarch of Antioch during the Meletian schism.

Common Apostalate?  Ever heard of Call to Action?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_Action

The Orthodox Church is diversified, like the Early Church, not dismembered. "The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided"
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 11:07:17 AM
We even have Mexicans:
http://www.orthodoxmysteries.com/chant-mexican.html
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ag_vn on January 21, 2010, 11:11:26 AM
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 21, 2010, 02:01:26 PM
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.

The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate,  But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together, don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: John Larocque on January 21, 2010, 02:11:53 PM
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1517/torontoi.jpg)

That looks like St. George's Antiochian in Richmond Hill on the far right. Haven't been there but I'm told about 25% of the service is conducted in Arabic. The Russian church is ROCOR, Holy Trinity, near U of T. (Most of the Russian parishes and missions here are OCA) St. George, another downtown parish near Ryerson university, used to be a Jewish synagogue but was bought out by the Greeks a long time ago. I'm not familiar with the Rumanian presence here. You should probably toss in the singular Carpatho-Ruthenian parish (mostly English/converts, I'm told), a couple of Ukrainian ones and a handful of Bulgarian and Serbian ones. The canonical issues in mainland Ukraine, for some reason, keep them from being listed on Orthodox parish pages, but all of them are aligned to Byzantium here.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 02:12:55 PM
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.

The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate, 
That's good to know because we keep on being told (mardukm etc.) by those in submission to the Vatican that the "Eastern Catholics" are free and sui juris with their own rights, right to have their patriarchs etc.  Nice to know (or rather have confirmed) the fine print.


Quote
But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together,
And yet the 8 Orthodox Patriarchs do...

Quote
don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.

Your mind is clouded with how it is among the Gentiles, and not how it is among the followers of Christ, though admittedly our own hiearchs forget that too. Mark 9:35.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2010, 02:38:20 PM

We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.

Let's see Catholicism in Sydney and its many many ethnic groups dismembered by many ethnic bishops who all have control overr the same patch of ground....

1. Maronite Catholic Church
2. Melkite Catholic Church
3. Greek Catholic Church
4. Ukranian Catholic Church
5. Armenian Catholic Church
6. Chaldean Catholic Church
7. Coptic Catholic Church
8. Ethiopian Catholic Church
9. Malabarese Catholic Church
10. Malankarese Catholic Church
11. Russian Catholic Church
12. Syrian Catholic Church

Sydney has 12 overlapping dioceses and/or bishops all based on one's racial origin.

And of course there is the 13th Church and bishop, the Roman Catholic.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2010, 02:47:07 PM
don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome",


Don't come here saying such nonsense.   Give us the proof from the church canons that Moscow ever was the Third Rome.   The idea comes from a monk writing in the 15th century after the fall of Byzantium at the time when Russia alone remained a strong Orthodox State.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 04:13:49 PM

Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Please have a look at this message.  

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.


Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.

I wager $10 to a hundred that LBK is right now penning a message  ;D to say that our liturgical deposit gives equal honour to Peter and Paul as founders of the Church of Rome.  I would think that we can trust the liturgical deposit and our tradition on this point.  But I find the viewpoint of the Copts fascinating all the same.

Father, you truly are clairvoyant!  ;D :laugh:

From the Vigil for Apostles Peter and Paul on the matter of Peter, Paul and Rome:

With what spiritual songs should we praise Peter and Paul? The sharp mouths of the dread sword of the Spirit that slaughter godlessness; the radiant ornaments of Rome; the delights of the whole inhabited world; the reasoning tablets, written by God, of the New Testament, which in Zion Christ proclaimed, who has great mercy.

A joyous feast has shone out today on the ends of the earth, the all-honoured memorial of the wisest Apostles and their princes, Peter and Paul; and so Rome dances and rejoices. Let us also, brethren, celebrate in songs and psalms this all-revered day, as we cry out to them: Hail, Peter, Apostle and true friend of your teacher, Christ our God. Hail, Paul, well-loved, herald of the faith and teacher of the inhabited world. Holy pair, chosen by God, as you have boldness, implore Christ our God that our souls may be saved.

What dungeon did not hold you prisoner? What Church did not have you as an orator? Damascus extols you, O Paul, for it knew you blinded by the Light; and Rome, which received your blood, boasts in you; but Tarsus, your birthplace, rejoices yet more with love and honour. O Peter, rock of the Faith, and Paul, boast of the whole world, coming together from Rome, make us steadfast.


As for their recognition as equals, IIRC there should be a post of mine where the equality of Peter and Paul is made clear through the Vigil text.

EDIT: Here it is: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14723.msg230684.html#msg230684

For one thing, this text doesn't really appear to say a whole lot about Peter in relation to Rome. The idea that Peter was a martyr of Rome but not the founder of it would appear consistent with it.

And I'm sure you can understand that as someone inclined to OOy I don't find the liturgical deposit of the EOC absolutely authoritative.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 04:18:05 PM
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?
(http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2000/Pics/StPetersRome.jpg)

I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kweFJm8yGGQ/StusbiQg4QI/AAAAAAAAC5s/860wtopE6No/s320/jerusalem-edicule-holy-sepulcher.jpg)(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6FYqnvQkn3s/SothbFhhB3I/AAAAAAAABJo/XtyXPrTILKE/s400/Tomb-of-the-Virgin.jpg)


The empty tumb kept by muslims?
I got to stay a week in the one Church for a week.  The keepers were all Christian, though the polic officer was Druze.  What are you talking about?

He might be talking about the family who holds the keys. I think they are Muslim. But that certainly wouldn't qualify such a simplistic statement as it being "kept by Muslims".
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 04:21:03 PM
Quote
Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.

It's usually those who oppose Christianity, or sola scripturists, who use the "If it was really important the Bible would have said something about this..." argument. Interesting to hear it coming from an Orthodox Christian. :)

I think it's a rather different sentiment. It seems like the Protestants, on the premise of sola scriptura, would say that if something was important enough as an aspect of our faith that God would have ensured that it be conveyed to us in the Bible. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 04:23:38 PM
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".


There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.


We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.

(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1517/torontoi.jpg)

Canonical deviations of ecclesiastical norms are much more permissible than dogmatical perversions.

Besides that, you Romanists also have jurisdictional overlaps in certain regions.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 04:29:06 PM
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.

The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate,  But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together, don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.

Now you're justifying jurisdictional overlap which you were just railing against. Great. This debate is pretty much dead.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2010, 04:47:06 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2010, 04:50:59 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2010, 04:58:22 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2010, 05:05:03 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 05:07:45 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?

*nods*  ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 07:28:57 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2010, 07:33:38 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 07:45:38 PM

No heresies here. Start again.

This is the sort of conversation that is bound to happen if we simply going around calling things heresies without having legitimate discussions as to why and how (no, I'm not singling you out as guilty in this).
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 08:00:28 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2010, 08:02:49 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 08:10:54 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Sorry, I didn't buy tickets for the Titanic.

We call our priests popes, we have the original Pope in Alexandria.  But the usurper of the title has limited to himself: bishops were banned from having the title by Rome in the first millennium, and today, although the Vatican has two patriarchs in submission at Alexandria, neither is allowed (as is usual with "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches," so as to lure the Orthodox) to have the title of their see "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."  When we speak of one Father, it ours in heaven. When you speak of your one father, it's the guy in the Vatican.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2010, 08:15:12 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Sorry, I didn't buy tickets for the Titanic.

We call our priests popes, we have the original Pope in Alexandria.  But the usurper of the title has limited to himself: bishops were banned from having the title by Rome in the first millennium, and today, although the Vatican has two patriarchs in submission at Alexandria, neither is allowed (as is usual with "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches," so as to lure the Orthodox) to have the title of their see "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."  When we speak of one Father, it ours in heaven. When you speak of your one father, it's the guy in the Vatican.
Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2010, 08:47:24 PM

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2010, 08:50:44 PM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Sorry, I didn't buy tickets for the Titanic.

We call our priests popes, we have the original Pope in Alexandria.  But the usurper of the title has limited to himself: bishops were banned from having the title by Rome in the first millennium, and today, although the Vatican has two patriarchs in submission at Alexandria, neither is allowed (as is usual with "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches," so as to lure the Orthodox) to have the title of their see "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."  When we speak of one Father, it ours in heaven. When you speak of your one father, it's the guy in the Vatican.
Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.
I went to a Latin school, spent lots of tlime in Latin churches with my friends.  When I heard "the Holy Father" (Father always capitalized), the reference was always to the pope in Rome.  Is this not so? Neither the Copts nor us Arabs or the Greeks, when we refer to our Pope as Father, there is no hint of exclusivity to that title (which is what Christ is speaking against), which the Vatican has legislated for itself.  Or can anyone else be called "Pope" or "the Holy Father" in the Vatican scheme of things.

Now when you say "Our Father who art in heaven," you are refering to God the Father. Of that there is no doubt.  If my comments are construed to say otherwise, I apologize.  But the fact remains, when the phrase in Orthodoxy "the Holy Father" is used, we don't know who is being refered to, as it has no exclusive claims.  When your church uses the phrase, everyone is made to know who is being refered to.  Under Christ's words, that's a problem, for we have only One Father, in Heaven.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 11:12:55 AM
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Sorry, I didn't buy tickets for the Titanic.

We call our priests popes, we have the original Pope in Alexandria.  But the usurper of the title has limited to himself: bishops were banned from having the title by Rome in the first millennium, and today, although the Vatican has two patriarchs in submission at Alexandria, neither is allowed (as is usual with "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches," so as to lure the Orthodox) to have the title of their see "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."  When we speak of one Father, it ours in heaven. When you speak of your one father, it's the guy in the Vatican.
Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.
I went to a Latin school, spent lots of tlime in Latin churches with my friends.  When I heard "the Holy Father" (Father always capitalized), the reference was always to the pope in Rome.  Is this not so? Neither the Copts nor us Arabs or the Greeks, when we refer to our Pope as Father, there is no hint of exclusivity to that title (which is what Christ is speaking against), which the Vatican has legislated for itself.  Or can anyone else be called "Pope" or "the Holy Father" in the Vatican scheme of things.

Now when you say "Our Father who art in heaven," you are refering to God the Father. Of that there is no doubt.  If my comments are construed to say otherwise, I apologize.  But the fact remains, when the phrase in Orthodoxy "the Holy Father" is used, we don't know who is being refered to, as it has no exclusive claims.  When your church uses the phrase, everyone is made to know who is being refered to.  Under Christ's words, that's a problem, for we have only One Father, in Heaven.


Then stop calling your priests Father, stop calling your Patriarchs Patriarchs, and stop calling your Popes Popes, otherwise you are a hypocrite. The only exclusivity that we have for the "Holy Father" is that he is the Pope and not just any old bishop. BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 22, 2010, 11:20:38 AM
BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".

I happen to still have the interview with Pat. Bartholomew from 60 Minutes saved on my DVR. Here is the first part of the interview:

Interviewer: "My first question is this: How should I refer to you? Your All Holiness? As Patriarch? As Ecumenical Patriarch? What is the proper way to address you?"

Pat. Bartholomew: "Bartholomew"

[Both Laugh]

Pat. Bartholomew: "The official title is Your All Holiness. But for me, Bartholomew is enough".

Out of respect, not out of insistence on the part of the Orthodox, the interviewer used the official title. Also, I'm not expert on Catholicism, but I've heard some titles that the Pope has used that go far beyond "Holy Father".  :angel:
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Then stop calling your priests Father, stop calling your Patriarchs Patriarchs, and stop calling your Popes Popes, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
No, only if we applied it exclusively.


Quote
The only exclusivity that we have for the "Holy Father" is that he is the Pope and not just any old bishop.

That's the point: a bishop is a bishop is a bishop.

Quote
BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".
His Divine Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodoros and others have the same.  Divine, btw, in the Greek Θειοτάτη means "God-protected."
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Fr. George on January 22, 2010, 12:31:19 PM
Then stop calling your priests Father, stop calling your Patriarchs Patriarchs, and stop calling your Popes Popes, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
No, only if we applied it exclusively.

Quote
The only exclusivity that we have for the "Holy Father" is that he is the Pope and not just any old bishop.
That's the point: a bishop is a bishop is a bishop.

Quote
BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".
His Divine Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodoros and others have the same.  Divine, btw, in the Greek Θειοτάτη means "God-protected."

Right.  From our POV, the various bishops do not have different charisms based on their title or position, only administrative responsibilities, which is a fundamental difference in POV between Orthodox ecclesiology (which sees the episcopacy as an ontological whole) and RC ecclesiology (which has special charisms present only in the Roman Bishop).  As my Metropolitan told us once, while he was an observer at Vatican II, he remembers the fanfare with the entrance of the Pope to the room, with the repetition of tu es Petrus.  And he said to himself, from the Orthodox mindset, "Wait - we (the faithful & esp. the hierarchs) are all Peter" (and Paul, Andrew, John, Philip, etc. as he later adds).
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 12:34:27 PM
Then stop calling your priests Father, stop calling your Patriarchs Patriarchs, and stop calling your Popes Popes, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
No, only if we applied it exclusively.


Quote
The only exclusivity that we have for the "Holy Father" is that he is the Pope and not just any old bishop.

That's the point: a bishop is a bishop is a bishop.

Quote
BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".
His Divine Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodoros and others have the same.  Divine, btw, in the Greek Θειοτάτη means "God-protected."
Well, stop calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "All Holy". Is he the Theotokos. And, no the Pope is not exclusively Father, since all of our priests and Bishops are Fathers who derive their paternity from God.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2010, 12:39:26 PM

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?

I cannot speak for Papist but I do hear 'Our Holy Father' used to refer to our Patriarch in Rome. That said I have met my Bishop several times and even had the opportunity to have him hear my confession. He is greeted with Your Excellency followed by a kissing of the ring.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 01:53:08 PM

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Fr. George on January 22, 2010, 02:54:32 PM

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.

I don't know if that's exactly true: I think the biggest hang-up is with the exclusivity conveyed by the inclusion of "the" before "Holy Father."  That, and from the Eastern POV God is Holy and also Beyond Holy, so thinking of human beings when "All Holy" is heard doesn't actually "demote" God for the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 03:32:56 PM

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.

I don't know if that's exactly true: I think the biggest hang-up is with the exclusivity conveyed by the inclusion of "the" before "Holy Father."  That, and from the Eastern POV God is Holy and also Beyond Holy, so thinking of human beings when "All Holy" is heard doesn't actually "demote" God for the Orthodox.
For Catholics its not a zero sum game. Just because we call the Pope "The Holy Father" Doesn't mean that there is not an infinitely more Holy Father than him. Its never a zero sum game for us.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2010, 03:39:26 PM

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.

I don't know if that's exactly true: I think the biggest hang-up is with the exclusivity conveyed by the inclusion of "the" before "Holy Father."  That, and from the Eastern POV God is Holy and also Beyond Holy, so thinking of human beings when "All Holy" is heard doesn't actually "demote" God for the Orthodox.
For Catholics its not a zero sum game. Just because we call the Pope "The Holy Father" Doesn't mean that there is not an infinitely more Holy Father than him. Its never a zero sum game for us.
Let's put it this way:what do YOU think Our Lord was referring to when He said "Call no man Father?"
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 04:28:36 PM
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Schultz on January 22, 2010, 04:32:35 PM
^ DON'T FEED THE TROLL, pls

kthxbye
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2010, 04:39:50 PM
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Fr. George on January 22, 2010, 05:01:13 PM
Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

The real shame is that (a) you're using what appears to be blatant trolling as an indication that Orthodox and RC cultures can't mix, and (b) you don't follow good advice, namely:

^ DON'T FEED THE TROLL

Oh, well - I don't know why you bother discussing topics when you've pre-determined that nothing can be gained.  And I don't know how "is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus" and "we can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West" are actually on point when discussing the rant that you were responding to, when the former is a charge you haven't proven, and the latter only follows the former by the slimmest, weakest thread.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 05:08:27 PM
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Don't you know that your church is heretical?
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Get out of here!

Brood of Vipers!
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2010, 05:23:23 PM
Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

The real shame is that (a) you're using what appears to be blatant trolling as an indication that Orthodox and RC cultures can't mix, and (b) you don't follow good advice, namely:

^ DON'T FEED THE TROLL

Oh, well - I don't know why you bother discussing topics when you've pre-determined that nothing can be gained.  And I don't know how "is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus" and "we can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West" are actually on point when discussing the rant that you were responding to, when the former is a charge you haven't proven, and the latter only follows the former by the slimmest, weakest thread.

I am 'here' to learn and dialogue with Orthodox and Catholics about those things that might aid me in being a better servant of God. I honestly don't seek to represent Catholicism nor attempt to further Ecumenism.

The fact that Orthodox has a more or less 'bottom/up' ecclesiastic authority in the sense of that 'voice of the people is the voice of God' would never allow such union. I've explained why a few times here in different threads. As long as there continues to be a culture which feels threatened and seeks to devalue the west as 'other', 'schismatic', 'herectical', and that continues to be taught at the ground level I don't see what purpose dialogue at the top levels real serves? I think the Roman Church and her Heirarches gravely misunderstood how the East view them. I think that goes all the way back to the Massacre of the Latins and even during the Crusades.

All that said I recognize the development of the Papacy, I think I share this with our Bishops and our Popes. There needs to be a return in the West to a vastly more Conciliar Church (i.e. Vatican II) but we all have seen what that kind of unbridled conciliatory can do in the modern west. Ugh.

That said I used to people saying that I'm not saved, going to hell, lost grace because of my works etc etc... I'm Catholic in the American Bible Belt  ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ozgeorge on January 22, 2010, 05:23:37 PM
Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Because they are welcome here.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!
Ignatius is a poster on OCnet, just like you.

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.
Get out of here!
Brood of Vipers!
You are new here, aren't you? We don't speak to people rudely here. We certainly don't come onto the forum and in our third post on the forum decide who can and cannot speak here. Its a bit ridiculous to say that Roman Catholics cannot speak in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue forum isn't it? Who are we supposed to dialogue with then?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 22, 2010, 05:25:37 PM
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Don't you know that your church is heretical?
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Get out of here!

Brood of Vipers!
As a first-time poster on any discussion forum, it is always a good idea to learn about the discussion community you're joining before you so rudely assert that some should not be speaking here.  For instance, the admins of this site actually permit Roman Catholics to post on OC.net.  They've even opened up this sub-board for the purpose of allowing dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  If you don't like this, then maybe this forum is not the right place for you.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2010, 05:40:42 PM

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?

I'm sure that you can search around for some of my posts and reach your own conclusion.  :)

Quote
Don't you know that your church is heretical?

Yes I have heard that by a few but most have pity toward us and don't use it to buff themselves up and kindly engage in dialogue to help us understand.

Quote
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?

I have heard such claims.

Quote
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?

Yes, I have also heard this. What does 'having' the true faith in your possession feel like?

Quote
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

I wasn't alive in 1054... how could 'I' have fallen away then?

Quote
We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

I have attended many Vesper Services with Orthodox Christians and dialogues for years with a local Orthodox Priest. Perhaps Orthodox have 'something' to do with us heretics, no?

Quote
Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Well, this is the Orthodox-Catholic Forum. I think it is here so that Catholics can discuss things with Orthodox Christians. Maybe it might be used to illuminate our error? That would lead to repentance and conversion or would you rather us not find Salvation?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2010, 05:43:19 PM
In all honesty I welcome dialogue with Get_Behind_Me_Satan. He doesn't offend me in the least. I've been on Baptist Forums and dialogued with Fundamentists so this isn't too bad.  :)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 05:45:14 PM
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Don't you know that your church is heretical?
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Get out of here!

Brood of Vipers!
We are here because our Orthodox hosts are gracious enough to allow us to be here to learn and dialogue. I have learned a great deal about Byzantine Christianity since I have been here. Likewise I have learned a great deal about my own faith and its helped me to see how the early Church was not purely western but both eastern and western. Heck, I have even begun to see certain things through eastern eyes. I would think you would welcome such.
Also, at times my Eastern Orthodox breatheren discuss the Catholic faith. Because not all of them have not grown up in the Catholic communion, they do not always know exactly what Catholics believe on a particular issue and I am happy to share what I know about the Catholic faith. That being said there are a few posters here who are even more informed about Catholicism than I am.  ;D

Occassionally the discussion gets heated but I can say that I have really benefited from my time here. I think its  helped me to learn to control my temper for one, and just learning more about my faith and our common heritage has been wonderful.


So to my Eastern Orthodox hosts, I have to say thank you for allowing me to be on this forum. Especially considering that I was not always the most well behaved guest. Thank you and please forgive me for those times in which I have crossed the lines.

PS I have to tell you that I have very warm feelings for Eastern spirituality and theology because of the influence of many on this forum.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 05:58:29 PM
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Don't you know that your church is heretical?
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Get out of here!

Brood of Vipers!
As a first-time poster on any discussion forum, it is always a good idea to learn about the discussion community you're joining before you so rudely assert that some should not be speaking here.  For instance, the admins of this site actually permit Roman Catholics to post on OC.net.  They've even opened up this sub-board for the purpose of allowing dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  If you don't like this, then maybe this forum is not the right place for you.

Im sorry but this is ridiculous, why should Orthodox Christians have any relationship with Catholics?
The Catholics are the ones who fell away, and now they want to be united again!?

It is a great horror that we have become so influenced and deluded by the Vatican.
They are the harlot church in Revelation, the heretic church.

Rev. 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Rev. 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Rev. 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
Rev. 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Rev. 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Rev. 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev. 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Rev. 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.


Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev. 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev. 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev. 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev. 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Rev. 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
Rev. 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Rev. 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev. 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Rev. 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Rev. 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Rev. 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
Rev. 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Rev. 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rev. 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev. 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Rev. 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Rev. 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
Rev. 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev. 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev. 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev. 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Rev. 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
Rev. 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
Rev. 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
Rev. 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
Rev. 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Rev. 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
Rev. 18:12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
Rev. 18:13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
Rev. 18:14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
Rev. 18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
Rev. 18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
Rev. 18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
Rev. 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
Rev. 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
Rev. 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
Rev. 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Rev. 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Rev. 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
Rev. 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Rev. 19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
Rev. 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
Rev. 19:3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.
Rev. 19:4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.
Rev. 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
Rev. 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Rev. 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Rev. 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev. 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Rev. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev. 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev. 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev. 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev. 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev. 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev. 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Rev. 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev. 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev. 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

The Revelation is a book which is meant to be studied

Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Rev. 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Rev. 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 06:01:32 PM
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Don't you know that your church is heretical?
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Get out of here!

Brood of Vipers!
As a first-time poster on any discussion forum, it is always a good idea to learn about the discussion community you're joining before you so rudely assert that some should not be speaking here.  For instance, the admins of this site actually permit Roman Catholics to post on OC.net.  They've even opened up this sub-board for the purpose of allowing dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  If you don't like this, then maybe this forum is not the right place for you.

Im sorry but this is ridiculous, why should Orthodox Christians have any relationship with Catholics?
The Catholics are the ones who fell away, and now they want to be united again!?

It is a great horror that we have become so influenced and deluded by the Vatican.
They are the harlot church in Revelation, the heretic church.

Rev. 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Rev. 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Rev. 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
Rev. 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Rev. 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Rev. 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev. 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Rev. 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.


Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev. 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev. 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev. 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev. 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Rev. 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
Rev. 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Rev. 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev. 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Rev. 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Rev. 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Rev. 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
Rev. 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Rev. 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rev. 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev. 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Rev. 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Rev. 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
Rev. 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev. 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev. 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev. 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Rev. 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
Rev. 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
Rev. 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
Rev. 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
Rev. 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Rev. 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
Rev. 18:12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
Rev. 18:13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
Rev. 18:14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
Rev. 18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
Rev. 18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
Rev. 18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
Rev. 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
Rev. 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
Rev. 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
Rev. 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Rev. 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Rev. 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
Rev. 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Rev. 19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
Rev. 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
Rev. 19:3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.
Rev. 19:4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.
Rev. 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
Rev. 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Rev. 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Rev. 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev. 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Rev. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev. 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev. 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev. 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev. 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev. 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev. 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Rev. 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev. 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev. 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

The Revelation is a book which is meant to be studied

Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Rev. 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Rev. 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
You are so hungry.  ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ms.hoorah on January 22, 2010, 06:09:13 PM

Im sorry but this is ridiculous, why should Orthodox Christians have any relationship with Catholics?
Because the mission of our Church requires that we speak/teach the Truth.  The greatest mistake we could make is to think that we should avoid involvement and responsibility to teach the Truth.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 06:17:32 PM

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?

I'm sure that you can search around for some of my posts and reach your own conclusion.  :)

Quote
Don't you know that your church is heretical?

Yes I have heard that by a few but most have pity toward us and don't use it to buff themselves up and kindly engage in dialogue to help us understand.

Quote
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?

I have heard such claims.

Quote
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?

Yes, I have also heard this. What does 'having' the true faith in your possession feel like?

Quote
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

I wasn't alive in 1054... how could 'I' have fallen away then?

Quote
We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

I have attended many Vesper Services with Orthodox Christians and dialogues for years with a local Orthodox Priest. Perhaps Orthodox have 'something' to do with us heretics, no?

Quote
Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Well, this is the Orthodox-Catholic Forum. I think it is here so that Catholics can discuss things with Orthodox Christians. Maybe it might be used to illuminate our error? That would lead to repentance and conversion or would you rather us not find Salvation?


Whats happening now is very sad. Orthodox christians are becoming deluded by poison spewed by the spirit of the Anti-Christ.

This should help your souls to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk&feature=PlayList&p=A5FB5BA9B8224F11&index=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOGQVvEU8vY&feature=related

Im sorry for all the negativity, but that's all i see these days, things are not how they seem, the church is being seiged but satan. If you are not orthodox this is very hard to see.
I'm not condeming any Catholics, but I just want them to see the truth.
And I don't want venom to be spewed out on orthodox christians.

The only reason we want union of religions is because of NWO (new world order). That is the Truth.
The Kingdom of the Antichrist is coming, He will take the place of Christ.

This is for all the Catholics

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/john_paul_ii_preached_the_gospel_of_the_antichrist.php

Rom. 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Have faith in our Lord
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 22, 2010, 06:18:42 PM
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Don't you know that your church is heretical?
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Get out of here!

Brood of Vipers!
As a first-time poster on any discussion forum, it is always a good idea to learn about the discussion community you're joining before you so rudely assert that some should not be speaking here.  For instance, the admins of this site actually permit Roman Catholics to post on OC.net.  They've even opened up this sub-board for the purpose of allowing dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  If you don't like this, then maybe this forum is not the right place for you.

Im sorry but this is ridiculous, why should Orthodox Christians have any relationship with Catholics?
I spoke of a decision by this site's administrators.  If you think their decision ridiculous and that this forum should not be entertaining Catholic guests at all, then I suggest that you take that up with Fr. Anastasios or with Fr. Chris in a private message.  You can access the messages interface by clicking the "My Messages" link toward the top of the page.  Until then, I suggest that you read and familiarize yourself with the rules governing this forum, which can be read HERE (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=rules) and HERE (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.0.html).

Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2010, 06:28:42 PM
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

So, I am to understand that we are pretty bad from all that. I've heard Fundamentalists use this kind of exegesis of the Scriptures but this is the first time I have seen used by Orthodox Christians. Is this commonly taught?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 06:30:27 PM
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

So, I am to understand that we are pretty bad from all that. I've heard Fundamentalists use this kind of exegesis of the Scriptures but this is the first time I have seen used by Orthodox Christians. Is this commonly taught?
I don't think so. I have never heard EOs refer to our Church in this way.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2010, 06:32:19 PM
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

So, I am to understand that we are pretty bad from all that. I've heard Fundamentalists use this kind of exegesis of the Scriptures but this is the first time I have seen used by Orthodox Christians. Is this commonly taught?
I don't think so. I have never heard EOs refer to our Church in this way.

He He He... in fairness I few heard are not so far off from his posts, they are just a bit more articulate.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 06:36:43 PM
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

So, I am to understand that we are pretty bad from all that. I've heard Fundamentalists use this kind of exegesis of the Scriptures but this is the first time I have seen used by Orthodox Christians. Is this commonly taught?
I don't think so. I have never heard EOs refer to our Church in this way.

He He He... in fairness I few heard are not so far off from his posts, they are just a bit more articulate.
Really? I am surprised. Usually I have only heard this from what most EOs would consider "non-cannonical" groups.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 06:40:09 PM
The discussion between Catholics and Orthodox should be, 'To be Correct and right, you must return from Catholicism, renounce the pope, and be baptized as an orthodox Christian'.
Thats the only way it can be discussed.
You shall not worship a man (pope) like he's God.
 
Orthodoxy is so, so, deep and rich in teachers and truth. the Fathers and saints of Orthodoxy are real vessels of the spirit.
I am so lucky to be Orthodox, i don't really feel like i deserve it.
But i am. And its the greatest thing I could ever imagine, to be a part of such truth and tradition.

But, 'There can be no compromise in things if the Orthodox Faith', St Mark Of Ephesus.



Orthodoxy is the only way, there can be no compromise.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 22, 2010, 06:44:56 PM
The discussion between Catholics and Orthodox should be, 'To be Correct and right, you must return from Catholicism, renounce the pope, and be baptized as an orthodox Christian'.
Thats the only way it can be discussed.
I think that many EOs here do try to "correct our erros.
You shall not worship a man (pope) like he's God.
I don't worship the Pope. 
Orthodoxy is so, so, deep and rich in teachers and truth. the Fathers and saints of Orthodoxy are real vessels of the spirit.
I agree for the most part.
I am so lucky to be Orthodox, i don't really feel like i deserve it.
Yup, you don't deserve it.
But i am. And its the greatest thing I could ever imagine, to be a part of such truth and tradition.
Are you? I am wondering if you are really part of an Orthodox Church, or are rather part of a non-cannonical group. What is your Jurisdiction exactly?
But, 'There can be no compromise in things if the Orthodox Faith', St Mark Of Ephesus.
I agree with Mark of Ephesus on this point.

Orthodoxy is the only way, there can be no compromise.
Very true.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 06:50:55 PM
I was baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ozgeorge on January 22, 2010, 06:53:18 PM
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7227/indexsd.png)
Oh! So you're one of those "Get_Behind_Me_Satan" ? :D
Welcome!
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2010, 07:08:09 PM
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church

1.  Welcome to the forum.   :)

2.  There is more than one Genuine Orthodox Church.  Which one do you represent?  ::)

3.  Try to lower your tone and talk like others on this forum, including others who identify with the Genuine Orthodox Church....

In Christ,

SolEX01
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 08:11:12 PM
I apologize for offending anyone, or the mental disturbances i may have caused.
I am just a proud fool, one who thinks he knows all.

Most of what i have said is true though.
Look into it, its all over the internet.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/john_paul_ii_preached_the_gospel_of_the_antichrist.php


I am sorry, forgive me for my unsympathetic remarks.


Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 08:18:30 PM
Here is a website for and Catholics.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 08:21:09 PM
Pope preaches the antichrist, sorry to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1nyeD9cY8U
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2010, 08:23:53 PM
Get_Behind_Me....  You can't call yourself Orthodox and keep referring to the website of some Roman Catholic monastery.  I am aware that the principals of said monastery receive Communion in a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church which doesn't make them, nor you, Orthodox Christians by any definition of the term.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 22, 2010, 08:57:31 PM

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?

I cannot speak for Papist but I do hear 'Our Holy Father' used to refer to our Patriarch in Rome. That said I have met my Bishop several times and even had the opportunity to have him hear my confession. He is greeted with Your Excellency followed by a kissing of the ring.

I think the fact that "Holy Father" means the Pope lends some amount of credibility to ialmisry's point.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 22, 2010, 08:59:16 PM

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.

Why? I do not have such an association with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Besides that, the charges were made by ialmisry, not me.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 22, 2010, 09:02:09 PM

Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You do not want the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to be the one world religion?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 22, 2010, 09:04:32 PM

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Don't you know that your church is heretical?
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Get out of here!

Brood of Vipers!

A Pharisee pretending to be anti-Pharisaic. How awful.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 22, 2010, 09:09:12 PM

Im sorry but this is ridiculous, why should Orthodox Christians have any relationship with Catholics?

For a number of reasons. But if you weren't such a Pharisee you would realize that this is the only way to accomplish their potential conversion. You're even too radically "traditional" to realize that.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 22, 2010, 09:12:15 PM

I'm not condeming any Catholics,

That's exactly the primary thing you've been doing in this thread!
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 22, 2010, 09:15:11 PM

The discussion between Catholics and Orthodox should be, 'To be Correct and right, you must return from Catholicism, renounce the pope, and be baptized as an orthodox Christian'.

More like return to Catholicism. But I suppose you're not traditional (in the legitimate and true sense) enough to realize that Orthodoxy is Catholicism. I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 22, 2010, 09:16:27 PM

I was baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church

Talk about ambiguous.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2010, 09:51:06 PM

The discussion between Catholics and Orthodox should be, 'To be Correct and right, you must return from Catholicism, renounce the pope, and be baptized as an orthodox Christian'.

More like return to Catholicism. But I suppose you're not traditional (in the legitimate and true sense) enough to realize that Orthodoxy is Catholicism. I'm not surprised.

In his defense, he is simply recongizing how the word is known and use in it's modern parlance. Not as politically correct as you have been attempting to be, but the individual is reacting to it's modern usage.

You two should be working together instead of bickering over these minor issues. Why not instead rest in the unity that you despise us.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 11:05:46 PM
Get_Behind_Me....  You can't call yourself Orthodox and keep referring to the website of some Roman Catholic monastery.  I am aware that the principals of said monastery receive Communion in a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church which doesn't make them, nor you, Orthodox Christians by any definition of the term.

Because it tells us about how evil the pope is from catholics themselves!
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 11:13:20 PM

Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You do not want the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to be the one world religion?

What I mean is the one church which was in the beginning, the church of the seventy apostles.
The Same Doctrines and Dogmas.
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

This ecuminism is anti-christ, it the anti-christ religion:
This man will tell you about what you REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGjxtEn_UXA

Please be careful
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 11:21:22 PM
These is what Catholics are not supposed to know about

http://v666.wordpress.com/category/vatican-satanism/
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2010, 11:27:52 PM
Get_Behind_Me....  You can't call yourself Orthodox and keep referring to the website of some Roman Catholic monastery.  I am aware that the principals of said monastery receive Communion in a Byzantine Greek Rite Catholic Church which doesn't make them, nor you, Orthodox Christians by any definition of the term.

Because it tells us about how evil the pope is from catholics themselves!

Those Roman Catholics who rejected Vatican II which I can probably count on the combined fingers and toes of members of this board (excluding Greek Rite Catholics).

Besides, you are posting websites related to conspiracy theories and the like.  During the last decade, I used to visit such sites and grew disgusted with them to the point that I no longer visit them.  Why visit a conspiracy website when I believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as recited in the Nicene Creed during every Sunday Divine Liturgy?   ???
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on January 22, 2010, 11:31:13 PM
When did Jack Chick start pretending to be Orthodox?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 11:40:45 PM
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

So, I am to understand that we are pretty bad from all that. I've heard Fundamentalists use this kind of exegesis of the Scriptures but this is the first time I have seen used by Orthodox Christians. Is this commonly taught?

Our Father among the Saints Andrew of Caesarea identifies the Harlot commentating on ch  17, Rev.

17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev. 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.  
Identification of the Harlot Ch17:1-2: 'Some consider this harlot to be old Rome, since she sits on seven hills, and the seven heads of the beast that carries [the harlot] to be the more ungodly kings from Domition to Diocletian who persecuted the church. However, we are guided as much as possible by the sequence and think that she is either the earthly kingdom generally, depicted as one body, or that city that is ruled until the arrival of the anti-christ, For old Rome lost the power of dominion a long time ago, and we do not suppose that the ancient status will again return to it. But should we grant this, the power that governs today will have been destroyed beforehand. For the revelation says, ''The woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.''

Those were the words from  St Andrew of Caesarea about Revelation Ch17.

From my perspective Rome has had that ancient status, its power, great power.

And they have killed Christians, (Papal Inquisition). remember?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 22, 2010, 11:46:34 PM
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7227/indexsd.png)
Oh! So you're one of those "Get_Behind_Me_Satan" ? :D
Welcome!

What does that supposed to mean?
Is my name funny?
Are Christ's words funny?

You can't be serious
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 23, 2010, 12:11:12 AM
Get_Behind_Me....  You can't call yourself Orthodox and keep referring to the website of some Roman Catholic monastery.  I am aware that the principals of said monastery receive Communion in a Byzantine Greek Rite Catholic Church which doesn't make them, nor you, Orthodox Christians by any definition of the term.

Because it tells us about how evil the pope is from catholics themselves!

Those Roman Catholics who rejected Vatican II which I can probably count on the combined fingers and toes of members of this board (excluding Greek Rite Catholics).

Besides, you are posting websites related to conspiracy theories and the like.  During the last decade, I used to visit such sites and grew disgusted with them to the point that I no longer visit them.  Why visit a conspiracy website when I believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as recited in the Nicene Creed during every Sunday Divine Liturgy?   ???

Oh man I used to be soooo involved in conspiracy theories that I ended up trying to murder myself because of the demons I let into my soul, like aliens and Illuminati, I ended up sacrificing myself to satan by overdosing on drugs because I thought my family and the world was taken over by aliens, but they were not aliens, they were demons, I tried to kill myself many times, I thought about it soo much, because I was sooooo scared that someone like the government or someone would kill me, or like my familiy was involved in it. The scariest thing that I could ever imagine had ever happened to me was because of that obsession.
Its madness if you dont go to church or have faith in Christ.

But through all of this I found the truth, I rediscovered my Orthodox Faith, my baptizm, and I found orthodox books that my mom bought that I never read like Monastic Wisdom, by Elder Joseph the Hesycast, the Philokalia,(the most sublime book, other than the Bible), a book that saved my life,(a book that should not be read by non-orthodox, a book that should be read very carefully, St Issac of Syria says, 'It is a great evil for someone to read  the most exalted spiritual writings, when in spiritual stature he is still an infant') The Art of Prayer,(another superb book) and the bible. I am sooo lucky to be alive after all the insanity i experienced.
Satan really wanted me to kill myself because I have let demons into my soul through the conspiracies, through my sexual immorality and drug abuse, I took ecstacy pills, lsd, Shrooms, marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, cigarretes.
I am so lucky that I am not still doing those evil, evil things, but I have utterly defiled my soul, and only Christ can heal me, He's the one who has given me sight, Its a miracle that I'm still alive.
I am born again!

Praise the Lord!
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2010, 12:35:32 AM
I am born again!

Praise the Lord!

Glory to God!

Welcome home.

Try to control your enthusiasm in the forum.   :)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 23, 2010, 12:54:26 AM
The discussion between Catholics and Orthodox should be, 'To be Correct and right, you must return from Catholicism, renounce the pope, and be baptized as an orthodox Christian'.
Thats the only way it can be discussed.

But, 'There can be no compromise in things if the Orthodox Faith', St Mark Of Ephesus.


Orthodoxy is the only way, there can be no compromise.


If you have read the important Russian Orthodox statement on Ecumenism issued in 2000 you will see that they are holding the same position as you.  (They probably would not baptize Catholics but would resort to economy.  Otherwise your positions match up.)

You can read the Russian Orthodox statement here:
http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 23, 2010, 02:37:06 AM
The discussion between Catholics and Orthodox should be, 'To be Correct and right, you must return from Catholicism, renounce the pope, and be baptized as an orthodox Christian'.
Thats the only way it can be discussed.

But, 'There can be no compromise in things if the Orthodox Faith', St Mark Of Ephesus.


Orthodoxy is the only way, there can be no compromise.


If you have read the important Russian Orthodox statement on Ecumenism issued in 2000 you will see that they are holding the same position as you.  (They probably would not baptize Catholics but would resort to economy.  Otherwise your positions match up.)

You can read the Russian Orthodox statement here:
http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

Knowing Catholicism is be servants of Satan, how is it that Orthodoxy so often fails to give Catholic Converts the graces of a proper and authentic Baptism? How do Orthodox Priests co-mingle the Rituals of this Church of Demons with that of Christ's Church?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 23, 2010, 02:52:22 AM
The discussion between Catholics and Orthodox should be, 'To be Correct and right, you must return from Catholicism, renounce the pope, and be baptized as an orthodox Christian'.
Thats the only way it can be discussed.

But, 'There can be no compromise in things if the Orthodox Faith', St Mark Of Ephesus.


Orthodoxy is the only way, there can be no compromise.


If you have read the important Russian Orthodox statement on Ecumenism issued in 2000 you will see that they are holding the same position as you.  (They probably would not baptize Catholics but would resort to economy.  Otherwise your positions match up.)

You can read the Russian Orthodox statement here:
http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

Knowing Catholicism is be servants of Satan, how is it that Orthodoxy so often fails to give Catholic Converts the graces of a proper and authentic Baptism? How do Orthodox Priests co-mingle the Rituals of this Church of Demons with that of Christ's Church?

"Knowing Catholicism is be servants of Satan,....Church of Demons..."    Are you for real or just playing games with poor GBMS? 
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 23, 2010, 03:29:31 AM
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

So, I am to understand that we are pretty bad from all that. I've heard Fundamentalists use this kind of exegesis of the Scriptures but this is the first time I have seen used by Orthodox Christians. Is this commonly taught?

Our Father among the Saints Andrew of Caesarea identifies the Harlot commentating on ch  17, Rev.

17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev. 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.  
Identification of the Harlot Ch17:1-2: 'Some consider this harlot to be old Rome, since she sits on seven hills, and the seven heads of the beast that carries [the harlot] to be the more ungodly kings from Domition to Diocletian who persecuted the church. However, we are guided as much as possible by the sequence and think that she is either the earthly kingdom generally, depicted as one body, or that city that is ruled until the arrival of the anti-christ, For old Rome lost the power of dominion a long time ago, and we do not suppose that the ancient status will again return to it. But should we grant this, the power that governs today will have been destroyed beforehand. For the revelation says, ''The woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.''

Those were the words from  St Andrew of Caesarea about Revelation Ch17.

From my perspective Rome has had that ancient status, its power, great power.

So when you read Old Rome, you equate that with the the See of Rome and not the Pagan Empire of Rome?

Quote
And they have killed Christians, (Papal Inquisition). remember?

I wonder who killed more, the Papal Inquisition or Constantinople during the Massacre of Latins in 1182? Remember? Know well that deeds of great violence have been done toward many in the name of Christ, be not so quick to point fingers at others.

I know it has been told that in all his pictures Arelius painted all faces after the manner and appearance of the women he loved, and so too everyone paints devotion according to his own passions and fancies. A man given to fasting thinks himself very devout if he fasts, although his heart may be filled with hatred. Much concerned with sobriety, he doesn't dare to wet his tongue with wine or even water but won't hesitate to drink deep of his neighbor's blood by detraction and calumny. Another man thinks himself devout because he daily recites a vast number of prayers, but after syaing them he utters the most disagreeble, arrogant, and harmful words at home and among the neighbros. Another gladly takes a coin out of his pocket and gives it to the poor, but he cannot extract kindness from his heart and forgive his enemies. Another forgives his enemies but never pays his creditors unless compelled to do so by force of law. All these men are usually considered to be devout, but they are by no means such. Saul's servants searched for David in his house but Michael had put a statue on his bed, covered it with David's clothes, and thus led them to think that it was David himself lying there sick and sleeping. In the same manner, many persons clothe themselves with certain outward actions connected with holy devotion and the world believes that they are truly devout and spiritual whereas they are in fact nothing but shadows and phantoms of true devotion. ~ St. Francis de Sales - Introduction to the Devout Life

I think I see far too many who claim to be truly devout but I fail to see the fruits which claim them as Christ's. I seem to see many who confuse 'zeal' with 'anger' toward his or her fellow man. Where is our 'Meekness' which gives us patience and peace which disposes us to control our anger when offended or to restrain resentment? I see far too many rationalize their own self-righteousness or anger or resentment toward individuals whom they personally don't know because of their own projections of who they are and what they lack by their own religious identity?

Whatever Catholicism is or was or will be... I think it is important that you first judge me and others by our fruit, how we live and how we love for it is by our fruit that you will know that we are Christ's. How much more would I be rewarded in heaven if I, without, the benefits of the 'true' Faith and actually learned Virtue from Demon's? How is it that we few learn the Virtues? How is it that we draw spiritual fruit from such a carnal tree as you are so quick to claim?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 23, 2010, 03:30:21 AM


"Knowing Catholicism is be servants of Satan,....Church of Demons..."    Are you for real or just playing games with poor GBMS? 

The later Father...  ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 23, 2010, 05:44:54 AM

Why not instead rest in the unity that you despise us.

I can't think of any indication I've given that I despise you.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 23, 2010, 05:46:56 AM

Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You do not want the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to be the one world religion?

What I mean is the one church which was in the beginning, the church of the seventy apostles.
The Same Doctrines and Dogmas.
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

This ecuminism is anti-christ, it the anti-christ religion:
This man will tell you about what you REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGjxtEn_UXA

Please be careful

You seemed to condemn in your original post the general idea of there being one world religion.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 23, 2010, 05:48:02 AM

When did Jack Chick start pretending to be Orthodox?

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 23, 2010, 01:25:48 PM

Why not instead rest in the unity that you despise us.

I can't think of any indication I've given that I despise you.

You don't despise 'me' because you don't 'see me' as a human being... you see me as a category... this is one of the real problems with polemics... it takes individuals and dehumanizes them into categories. I am not Francis-Christopher devout strugglers against his own personal sin through the Spiritual Traditions of the Western Church... I am a Romanist who is blindly serving a tyrannical upstart anti-Christ Church. Every sin, every evil that can be brought up to alienate and divide is done to separate and incriminate. To prove to yourself and others that I cannot be worthy of respect as a fellow Christian and follower of Christ. No, I must join 'you' and wear 'your' team shirt to be accepted. That is really where this kind of exclusivity leads. It creates a environment where everyone spends 'most' of their time worrying about the 'errors' of others and leaves us both poorer for the labor because we have ceased to see ourselves as on a spiritual journey seeking greater intimacy with God and we have projected our sense of holiness to our intellectual adherence to one side of a historic struggle to claim Christianity it's own private property.

I honestly can understand, because I too like to grasp at things. I want ownership too. It sates my ego to have it, it makes me feel like I am holy and good servant of the Lord. My only problem, and yours as well as others, is that Our Lord didn't say The Kingdom of God is 'out there'... He said 'The Kingdom of God is within you'. Because you want exclusive rights to that Kingdom, you must deny me and you must convince me that I lack something that you have. Only then will I agree with you and through that agreement I convince you that you have what I lack.

One of the earliest saints in Christianity, St. Stephen, said that "the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands" (Acts 7:48). The passage is a way of saying that reality is not limited to that which humans can comprehend, and God cannot be limited to the things of Earth. Though God is worshiped in temples and churches (actually, it was primarily in houses in the earliest days), His Reality exceeds anything in the world, for the world is characterized by limited comprehension. The Apostle Paul spoke similarly in Athens:

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by men (Acts 17:24).

Though He is originator and creator of all that lives, God lives beyond the world. Nothing in the limited experience of the human being is sufficiently great or expansive to hold the fullness of God. The body's eyes cannot see it, and the limited conceptual mind cannot get around it. The body's eyes see only bodies, the conceptual mind thinks only of itself, and the self is caught up in a circle closed upon itself. The sense-oriented tend to look for the Divine, if they look for it at all, in places it could not possibly be.

And so St. Paul states emphatically, "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? (1 Cor. 3:16).

God is Spirit, and so must His House be Spirit. This why St. Paul can say in another of his letters that the true Self, like the true dwelling place of God, is "a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" (2 Cor. 5:1). No earthly tend - neither the body nor the physical church - is required to worship God in the Spirit, though it might indeed be very helpful, for it could serve as a vehicle to the non-sensory understanding of oneself as a Spiritual Being with God.

This relationship is ultimately not determined by how many icons we have on our walls or even how wonderfully organized and well done our worship is. It is not ultimately determined by how much gold we have painted on our walls. All those things can do, is aid us or distract us from seeking Him where He is most profoundly discovered... within our hearts. This is what the Desert Fathers knew all too well and it is what they taught. Truth is not a something, that we possess because of our Traditions, no, Truth is somebody whom seizes us in the depth of our hearts and claims our Spirit as His and heals us from all this pettiness.

Ultimately, Ecumenism, true Ecumenism is this act amongst brothers and sisters. The rest is more or less garbage that scavengers fight over. We see them for what they are even when we think they are one of our own. When the Kingdom of God became the Empire of Rome, spiritual men and women shivered with fear because they knew that for the carnal man this would serve to blind them to the true Kingdom of God within. True Devotion to God mingled with Devotion to the empire, culture, and yes even race. I clearly see this in the slavish devotion Ultramontanists have for the Papacy but I also see thing in the slavish devotion the Orthodox have for the Romanticized vision of their Christian Empire in the East as well as their slavishness to outward signs of devotion.  :-\

As many of the Saints have warned us, Latin and Greek alike, to know 'true' devotion we must know our hearts. We sin in our pride just as easily making prostrations as we do lording over our co-workers when they ask us something that they don't know. I am not saying prostrations are bad, for they are not. As St. Paul says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful". For some Orthodoxy as a religion practice 'humbles' but for others it makes them prideful and haughty. I like a lot of the practices of Orthodox as well as it's antiquity but we cannot escape our own sinfulness by changing traditions. We cannot lose our vices by separating ourselves from the vices of others. I think many attempt this but in the end within personal spiritual labor we find ourselves unprofitable. Now if we find a community which takes seriously the spiritual life, we can find help on our journey I think that is a good thing. I don't pretend to think Catholicism is prefect... as one who frequents other religious community forums I am repeatedly reminded of the failings of the Roman Catholic Church and her Popes. My belief in God and in His Son Jesus Christ has never been shaken and that is a real blessing but it also means that my Faith is not determined by my worldly elegance to this side or that side of any political or cultural struggle. I try to walk by faith, personally, not through an institution surrogate. I am catholic because I am Christian, I am not Christian because I am catholic. I think many get this a bit confused. Where I find fidelity to the Christian way of life demonstrated in the fruits of the Spirit I rejoice, I don't attempt to explain it away so that I can claim exclusive rights to God's favor. I think that is most unChristian. We are to know them that are His by their fruits. I think this is way Ecumenism is so hated by many because it undermines our claims to exclusive rights to God and so Catholics and Orthodox start jumping up and down like little brats having a tantrum. It is not 'zeal' from which this is born, it is the passions and a lack of Meekness toward our brothers and sisters.

I am an Ecumenist not because I think all traditions are equally nourishing for the spiritual life but because we, as human beings, are all equally loved by God and called to live a virtuous life in His Spirit. Where I find those fruits and where I find them abundantly I rejoice and I seek to grow and be fruitful myself but this bitterness, and spite, and hatred is not of the Spirit in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 23, 2010, 08:09:49 PM

Why not instead rest in the unity that you despise us.

I can't think of any indication I've given that I despise you.

You don't despise 'me' because you don't 'see me' as a human being... you see me as a category... this is one of the real problems with polemics... it takes individuals and dehumanizes them into categories. I am not Francis-Christopher devout strugglers against his own personal sin through the Spiritual Traditions of the Western Church... I am a Romanist who is blindly serving a tyrannical upstart anti-Christ Church. Every sin, every evil that can be brought up to alienate and divide is done to separate and incriminate. To prove to yourself and others that I cannot be worthy of respect as a fellow Christian and follower of Christ. No, I must join 'you' and wear 'your' team shirt to be accepted. That is really where this kind of exclusivity leads. It creates a environment where everyone spends 'most' of their time worrying about the 'errors' of others and leaves us both poorer for the labor because we have ceased to see ourselves as on a spiritual journey seeking greater intimacy with God and we have projected our sense of holiness to our intellectual adherence to one side of a historic struggle to claim Christianity it's own private property.

I honestly can understand, because I too like to grasp at things. I want ownership too. It sates my ego to have it, it makes me feel like I am holy and good servant of the Lord. My only problem, and yours as well as others, is that Our Lord didn't say The Kingdom of God is 'out there'... He said 'The Kingdom of God is within you'. Because you want exclusive rights to that Kingdom, you must deny me and you must convince me that I lack something that you have. Only then will I agree with you and through that agreement I convince you that you have what I lack.

One of the earliest saints in Christianity, St. Stephen, said that "the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands" (Acts 7:48). The passage is a way of saying that reality is not limited to that which humans can comprehend, and God cannot be limited to the things of Earth. Though God is worshiped in temples and churches (actually, it was primarily in houses in the earliest days), His Reality exceeds anything in the world, for the world is characterized by limited comprehension. The Apostle Paul spoke similarly in Athens:

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by men (Acts 17:24).

Though He is originator and creator of all that lives, God lives beyond the world. Nothing in the limited experience of the human being is sufficiently great or expansive to hold the fullness of God. The body's eyes cannot see it, and the limited conceptual mind cannot get around it. The body's eyes see only bodies, the conceptual mind thinks only of itself, and the self is caught up in a circle closed upon itself. The sense-oriented tend to look for the Divine, if they look for it at all, in places it could not possibly be.

And so St. Paul states emphatically, "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? (1 Cor. 3:16).

God is Spirit, and so must His House be Spirit. This why St. Paul can say in another of his letters that the true Self, like the true dwelling place of God, is "a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" (2 Cor. 5:1). No earthly tend - neither the body nor the physical church - is required to worship God in the Spirit, though it might indeed be very helpful, for it could serve as a vehicle to the non-sensory understanding of oneself as a Spiritual Being with God.

This relationship is ultimately not determined by how many icons we have on our walls or even how wonderfully organized and well done our worship is. It is not ultimately determined by how much gold we have painted on our walls. All those things can do, is aid us or distract us from seeking Him where He is most profoundly discovered... within our hearts. This is what the Desert Fathers knew all too well and it is what they taught. Truth is not a something, that we possess because of our Traditions, no, Truth is somebody whom seizes us in the depth of our hearts and claims our Spirit as His and heals us from all this pettiness.

Ultimately, Ecumenism, true Ecumenism is this act amongst brothers and sisters. The rest is more or less garbage that scavengers fight over. We see them for what they are even when we think they are one of our own. When the Kingdom of God became the Empire of Rome, spiritual men and women shivered with fear because they knew that for the carnal man this would serve to blind them to the true Kingdom of God within. True Devotion to God mingled with Devotion to the empire, culture, and yes even race. I clearly see this in the slavish devotion Ultramontanists have for the Papacy but I also see thing in the slavish devotion the Orthodox have for the Romanticized vision of their Christian Empire in the East as well as their slavishness to outward signs of devotion.  :-\

As many of the Saints have warned us, Latin and Greek alike, to know 'true' devotion we must know our hearts. We sin in our pride just as easily making prostrations as we do lording over our co-workers when they ask us something that they don't know. I am not saying prostrations are bad, for they are not. As St. Paul says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful". For some Orthodoxy as a religion practice 'humbles' but for others it makes them prideful and haughty. I like a lot of the practices of Orthodox as well as it's antiquity but we cannot escape our own sinfulness by changing traditions. We cannot lose our vices by separating ourselves from the vices of others. I think many attempt this but in the end within personal spiritual labor we find ourselves unprofitable. Now if we find a community which takes seriously the spiritual life, we can find help on our journey I think that is a good thing. I don't pretend to think Catholicism is prefect... as one who frequents other religious community forums I am repeatedly reminded of the failings of the Roman Catholic Church and her Popes. My belief in God and in His Son Jesus Christ has never been shaken and that is a real blessing but it also means that my Faith is not determined by my worldly elegance to this side or that side of any political or cultural struggle. I try to walk by faith, personally, not through an institution surrogate. I am catholic because I am Christian, I am not Christian because I am catholic. I think many get this a bit confused. Where I find fidelity to the Christian way of life demonstrated in the fruits of the Spirit I rejoice, I don't attempt to explain it away so that I can claim exclusive rights to God's favor. I think that is most unChristian. We are to know them that are His by their fruits. I think this is way Ecumenism is so hated by many because it undermines our claims to exclusive rights to God and so Catholics and Orthodox start jumping up and down like little brats having a tantrum. It is not 'zeal' from which this is born, it is the passions and a lack of Meekness toward our brothers and sisters.

I am an Ecumenist not because I think all traditions are equally nourishing for the spiritual life but because we, as human beings, are all equally loved by God and called to live a virtuous life in His Spirit. Where I find those fruits and where I find them abundantly I rejoice and I seek to grow and be fruitful myself but this bitterness, and spite, and hatred is not of the Spirit in my humble opinion.

You're again making insane assumptions about me and my motivations.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 23, 2010, 10:11:30 PM

One of the earliest saints in Christianity, St. Stephen, said that "the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands" (Acts 7:48). The passage is a way of saying that reality is not limited to that which humans can comprehend, and God cannot be limited to the things of Earth.

That seems a really poor exegesis. It seems like the message is more simple and particular than that: an overthrow of the idea that God's presence was particular to the Holy of Holies in the Temple and that He know dwells in the body of the believers.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 23, 2010, 10:40:19 PM
Masons in orthodoxy, the church is on fire!
http://mymartyrdom.com/orthomason.htm
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 23, 2010, 10:45:54 PM
Pope + Papal Inquisition + Ecumenism = Religion of the Anti-Christ
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 23, 2010, 10:55:34 PM
All I can tell either one of you, is if and when I enter into Orthodoxy I will still think that you two are way too freaky for me to agree with. Sorry.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 23, 2010, 11:21:23 PM
This is the message from His Holyness Pope Benedict XVI in his audience of wednesday january 20th on the week of prayer forChristian Unity, the traduction to english is not yet available, as sonn as I get it I will bring it here.

UDIENZA GENERALE

Aula Paolo VI
Mercoledì, 20 gennaio 2010  

 [Video]

 

Settimana di Preghiera per l'Unità dei Cristiani

Cari fratelli e sorelle!

Siamo al centro della Settimana di Preghiera per l’Unità dei Cristiani, un’iniziativa ecumenica, che si è andata strutturando ormai da oltre un secolo, e che attira ogni anno l’attenzione su un tema, quello dell’unità visibile tra i cristiani, che coinvolge la coscienza e stimola l’impegno di quanti credono in Cristo. E lo fa innanzitutto con l’invito alla preghiera, ad imitazione di Gesù stesso, che chiede al Padre per i suoi discepoli “Siano uno, affinché il mondo creda” (Gv 17,21). Il richiamo perseverante alla preghiera per la piena comunione tra i seguaci del Signore manifesta l’orientamento più autentico e più profondo dell’intera ricerca ecumenica, perché l’unità, prima di tutto, è dono di Dio. Infatti, come afferma il Concilio Vaticano Secondo: “il santo proposito di riconciliare tutti i cristiani nell’unica Chiesa di Cristo, una e unica, supera tutte le forze umane” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 24). Pertanto, oltre al nostro sforzo di sviluppare relazioni fraterne e promuovere il dialogo per chiarire e risolvere le divergenze che separano le Chiese e le Comunità ecclesiali, è necessaria la fiduciosa e concorde invocazione al Signore.

Il tema di quest’anno è preso dal Vangelo di san Luca, dalle ultime parole del Risorto ai suoi discepoli “Di questo voi siete testimoni” (Lc 24,48). La proposta del tema è stata chiesta dal Pontificio Consiglio per la Promozione dell’Unità dei Cristiani, in accordo con la Commissione Fede e Costituzione del Consiglio Ecumenico delle Chiese, ad un gruppo ecumenico della Scozia. Un secolo fa la Conferenza Mondiale per la considerazione dei problemi in riferimento al mondo non cristiano ebbe luogo proprio ad Edimburgo, in Scozia, dal 13 al 24 giugno 1910. Tra i problemi allora discussi vi fu quello della difficoltà oggettiva di proporre con credibilità l’annuncio evangelico al mondo non cristiano da parte dei cristiani divisi tra loro. Se ad un mondo che non conosce Cristo, che si è allontanato da Lui o che si mostra indifferente al Vangelo, i cristiani si presentano non uniti, anzi spesso contrapposti, sarà credibile l’annuncio di Cristo come unico Salvatore del mondo e nostra pace? Il rapporto fra unità e missione da quel momento ha rappresentato una dimensione essenziale dell’intera azione ecumenica e il suo punto di partenza. Ed è per questo specifico apporto che quella Conferenza di Edimburgo rimane come uno dei punti fermi dell’ecumenismo moderno. La Chiesa Cattolica, nel Concilio Vaticano II, riprese e ribadì con vigore questa prospettiva, affermando che la divisione tra i discepoli di Gesù “non solo contraddice apertamente alla volontà di Cristo, ma anche è di scandalo al mondo e danneggia la santissima causa della predicazione del Vangelo ad ogni creatura” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1).

In tale contesto teologico e spirituale si situa il tema proposto in questa Settimana per la meditazione e la preghiera: l’esigenza di una testimonianza comune a Cristo. Il breve testo proposto come tema “Di questo voi siete testimoni” è da leggere nel contesto dell’intero capitolo 24 del Vangelo secondo Luca. Ricordiamo brevemente il contenuto di questo capitolo. Prima le donne si recano al sepolcro, vedono i segni della Risurrezione di Gesù e annunciano quanto hanno visto agli Apostoli e agli altri discepoli (v. 8); poi lo stesso Risorto appare ai discepoli di Emmaus lungo il cammino, appare a Simon Pietro e successivamente, agli “Undici e agli altri che erano con loro” (v. 33). Egli apre la mente alla comprensione delle Scritture circa la sua Morte redentrice e la sua Risurrezione, affermando che “nel suo nome saranno predicati a tutte le genti la conversione e il perdono dei peccati” (v. 47). Ai discepoli che si trovano “riuniti” insieme e che sono stati testimoni della sua missione, il Signore Risorto promette il dono dello Spirito Santo (cfr v. 49), affinché insieme lo testimonino a tutti i popoli. Da tale imperativo – “Di tutto ciò”, di questo voi siete testimoni (cfr Lc 24,48) -, che è il tema di questa Settimana per l’unità dei cristiani, nascono per noi due domande. La prima: cosa è “tutto ciò”? La seconda: come possiamo noi essere testimoni di “tutto ciò”?

Se vediamo il contesto del capitolo, “tutto ciò” vuole dire innanzitutto la Croce e la Risurrezione: i discepoli hanno visto la crocifissione del Signore, vedono il Risorto e così cominciano a capire tutte le Scritture che parlano del mistero della Passione e del dono della Risurrezione. “Tutto ciò” quindi è il mistero di Cristo, del Figlio di Dio fattosi uomo, morto per noi e risorto, vivo per sempre e così garanzia della nostra vita eterna.

Ma conoscendo Cristo – questo è il punto essenziale - conosciamo il volto di Dio. Cristo è soprattutto la rivelazione di Dio. In tutti i tempi, gli uomini percepiscono l’esistenza di Dio, un Dio unico, ma che è lontano e non si mostra. In Cristo questo Dio si mostra, il Dio lontano diventa vicino. “Tutto ciò” è quindi, soprattutto col mistero di Cristo, Dio che si è fatto vicino a noi. Ciò implica un’altra dimensione: Cristo non è mai solo; Egli è venuto in mezzo a noi, è morto solo, ma è risorto per attirare tutti sé. Cristo, come dice la Scrittura, si crea un corpo, riunisce tutta l’umanità nella sua realtà della vita immortale. E così, in Cristo che riunisce l’umanità, conosciamo il futuro dell’umanità: la vita eterna. Tutto ciò, quindi, è molto semplice, in ultima istanza: conosciamo Dio conoscendo Cristo, il suo corpo, il mistero della Chiesa e la promessa della vita eterna.

Veniamo ora alla seconda domanda. Come possiamo noi essere testimoni di “tutto ciò”? Possiamo essere testimoni solo conoscendo Cristo e, conoscendo Cristo, anche conoscendo Dio. Ma conoscere Cristo implica certamente una dimensione intellettuale - imparare quanto conosciamo da Cristo - ma è sempre molto più che un processo intellettuale: è un processo esistenziale, è un processo dell'apertura del mio io, della mia trasformazione dalla presenza e dalla forza di Cristo, e così è anche un processo di apertura a tutti gli altri che devono essere corpo di Cristo. In questo modo, è evidente che conoscere Cristo, come processo intellettuale e soprattutto esistenziale, è un processo che ci fa testimoni. In altre parole, possiamo essere testimoni solo se Cristo lo conosciamo di prima mano e non solo da altri, dalla nostra propria vita, dal nostro incontro personale con Cristo. Incontrandolo realmente nella nostra vita di fede diventiamo testimoni e possiamo così contribuire alla novità del mondo, alla vita eterna. Il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica ci dà un'indicazione anche per il contenuto di questo “tutto ciò”. La Chiesa ha riunito e riassunto l'essenziale di quanto il Signore ci ha donato nella Rivelazione, nel “Simbolo detto niceno-costantinopolitano, il quale trae la sua grande autorità dal fatto di essere frutto dei primi due Concili Ecumenici (325 e 381)” (CCC, n. 195). Il Catechismo precisa che questo Simbolo ”è tuttora comune a tutte le grandi Chiese dell’Oriente e dell’Occidente” (Ibid.). In questo Simbolo quindi si trovano le verità di fede che i cristiani possono professare e testimoniare insieme, affinché il mondo creda, manifestando, con il desiderio e l’impegno di superare le divergenze esistenti, la volontà di camminare verso la piena comunione, l’unità del Corpo di Cristo.

La celebrazione della Settimana di Preghiera per l’Unità dei Cristiani ci porta a considerare altri aspetti importanti per l’ecumenismo. Innanzitutto, il grande progresso realizzato nelle relazioni tra Chiese e Comunità ecclesiali dopo la Conferenza di Edimburgo di un secolo fa. Il movimento ecumenico moderno si è sviluppato in modo così significativo da diventare, nell’ultimo secolo, un elemento importante nella vita della Chiesa, ricordando il problema dell’unità tra tutti i cristiani e sostenendo anche la crescita della comunione tra loro. Esso non solo favorisce i rapporti fraterni tra le Chiese e le Comunità ecclesiali in risposta al comandamento dell’amore, ma stimola anche la ricerca teologica. Inoltre, esso coinvolge la vita concreta delle Chiese e delle Comunità ecclesiali con tematiche che toccano la pastorale e la vita sacramentale, come, ad esempio, il mutuo riconoscimento del Battesimo, le questioni relative ai matrimoni misti, i casi parziali di comunicatio in sacris in situazioni particolari ben definite. Nel solco di tale spirito ecumenico, i contatti sono andati allargandosi anche a movimenti pentecostali, evangelici e carismatici, per una maggiore conoscenza reciproca, benchè non manchino problemi gravi in questo settore.

La Chiesa cattolica, dal Concilio Vaticano II in poi, è entrata in relazioni fraterne con tutte le Chiese d’Oriente e le Comunità ecclesiali d’Occidente, organizzando, in particolare, con la maggior parte di esse, dialoghi teologici bilaterali, che hanno portato a trovare convergenze o anche consensi in vari punti, approfondendo così i vincoli di comunione. Nell’anno appena trascorso i vari dialoghi hanno registrato positivi passi. Con le Chiese Ortodosse la Commissione Mista Internazionale per il Dialogo Teologico ha iniziato, nell’XI Sessione plenaria svoltasi a Paphos di Cipro nell’ottobre 2009, lo studio di un tema cruciale nel dialogo fra cattolici e ortodossi: Il ruolo del vescovo di Roma nella comunione della Chiesa nel primo millennio, cioè nel tempo in cui i cristiani di Oriente e di Occidente vivevano nella piena comunione. Questo studio si estenderà in seguito al secondo millennio. Ho già più volte chiesto la preghiera dei cattolici per questo dialogo delicato ed essenziale per l’intero movimento ecumenico. Anche con le Antiche Chiese ortodosse d’Oriente (copta, etiopica, sira, armena) l’analoga Commissione Mista si è incontrata dal 26 al 30 gennaio dello scorso anno. Tali importanti iniziative attestano come sia in atto un dialogo profondo e ricco di speranze con tutte le Chiese d’Oriente non in piena comunione con Roma, nella loro propria specificità.

Nel corso dell’anno passato, con le Comunità ecclesiali di Occidente si sono esaminati i risultati raggiunti nei vari dialoghi in questi quarant’anni, soffermandosi, in particolare, su quelli con la Comunione Anglicana, con la Federazione Luterana Mondiale, con l’Alleanza Riformata Mondiale e con il Consiglio Mondiale Metodista. Al riguardo, il Pontificio Consiglio per la Promozione dell’Unità dei Cristiani ha realizzato uno studio per enucleare i punti di convergenza a cui si è giunti nei relativi dialoghi bilaterali, e segnalare, allo stesso tempo, i problemi aperti su cui occorrerà iniziare una nuova fase di confronto.

Tra gli eventi recenti, vorrei menzionare la commemorazione del decimo anniversario della Dichiarazione congiunta sulla dottrina della giustificazione, celebrato insieme da cattolici e luterani il 31 ottobre 2009, per stimolare il proseguimento del dialogo, come pure la visita a Roma dell’Arcivescovo di Canterbury, il Dottor Rowan Williams, il quale ha avuto anche colloqui sulla particolare situazione in cui si trova la Comunione Anglicana. Il comune impegno di continuare le relazioni e il dialogo sono un segno positivo, che manifesta quanto sia intenso il desiderio dell’unità, nonostante tutti i problemi che si oppongono. Così vediamo che c’è una dimensione della nostra responsabilità nel fare tutto ciò che è possibile per arrivare realmente all’unità, ma c’è l’altra dimensione, quella dell’azione divina, perché solo Dio può dare l’unità alla Chiesa. Una unità “autofatta” sarebbe umana, ma noi desideriamo la Chiesa di Dio, fatta da Dio, il quale quando vorrà e quando noi saremo pronti, creerà l’unità. Dobbiamo tenere presente anche quanti progressi reali si sono raggiunti nella collaborazione e nella fraternità in tutti questi anni, in questi ultimi cinquant’anni. Allo stesso tempo, dobbiamo sapere che il lavoro ecumenico non è un processo lineare. Infatti, problemi vecchi, nati nel contesto di un’altra epoca, perdono il loro peso, mentre nel contesto odierno nascono nuovi problemi e nuove difficoltà. Pertanto dobbiamo essere sempre disponibili per un processo di purificazione, nel quale il Signore ci renda capaci di essere uniti.

Cari fratelli e sorelle, per la complessa realtà ecumenica, per la promozione del dialogo, come pure affinché i cristiani nel nostro tempo possano dare una nuova testimonianza comune di fedeltà a Cristo davanti a questo nostro mondo, chiedo la preghiera di tutti. Il Signore ascolti l’invocazione nostra e di tutti i cristiani, che in questa settimana si eleva a Lui con particolare intensità

Week of Prayer for Christian Unity

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Today’s Audience takes place during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, when the Lord’s followers are asked to reflect on the tragedy of their divisions and to pray with him “that they may all be one ... that the world may believe” (cf. Jn 17:21). The theme chosen for this year – “You are witnesses of these things” (Lk 24:48) – brings out this close bond between Christian unity and evangelization. This was a major concern of the Edinburgh Conference, which marked the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement one hundred years ago. Today’s increasingly secularized society urgently requires a united witness to Jesus Christ grounded in a common profession of faith, as well as fraternal cooperation between separated Christians, dialogue and deeper reflection on the points of continuing divergence. During this Week I ask all of you to join me in praying for these intentions, in thanking God for the ecumenical progress made in the past year, and in asking that Christians of our time, by growing in unity, may offer an ever more convincing witness to the Risen Lord.

* * *

I extend warm greetings to all the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors here today, especially to the groups from Sweden, South Korea and the United States of America. In this Week of Prayer for Christian Unity it is a particular joy to welcome the members of the Continuation Committee of Ecumenism in the Twenty-first Century. Upon all of you and your families I cordially invoke God’s abundant blessings.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2010, 12:01:09 AM

All I can tell either one of you, is if and when I enter into Orthodoxy I will still think that you two are way too freaky for me to agree with. Sorry.

Well that's really more your fault than anyone else. You keep making extreme assumptions about my motivations, intentions, and thoughts and I try to correct you but you don't really listen.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 24, 2010, 01:34:22 PM
All I can tell either one of you, is if and when I enter into Orthodoxy I will still think that you two are way too freaky for me to agree with. Sorry.
:)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Marc1152 on January 24, 2010, 09:30:52 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 24, 2010, 09:47:34 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.

I think after seeing a series of very harsh polemical apologetics from Orthodox Converts I can't say I have any sympathy for you. You guys have asked for a fight... I don't think you'll see stuff coming out directly from the Vatican but I can only imagine there are Catholic Apologists out there that want to address some of these books and positions.

That said I'm largely in the Orthodox camp these days but that doesn't mean I'm going to wear the polemical team shirt and run around with Pom-Poms. I largely dislike the Orthodox tactic personally. That doesn't mean I don't think that they are correct or whatever... I just think they could be more Christian in there criticisms.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Iconodule on January 24, 2010, 09:54:56 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.

I think after seeing a series of very harsh polemical apologetics from Orthodox Converts I can't say I have any sympathy for you. You guys have asked for a fight... I don't think you'll see stuff coming out directly from the Vatican but I can only imagine there are Catholic Apologists out there that want to address some of these books and positions.

That said I'm largely in the Orthodox camp these days but that doesn't mean I'm going to wear the polemical team shirt and run around with Pom-Poms. I largely dislike the Orthodox tactic personally. That doesn't mean I don't think that they are correct or whatever... I just think they could be more Christian in there criticisms.

I think the persistent misunderstanding you demonstrate on this forum, is that you confuse doctrinal disagreement with personal enmity.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2010, 09:56:23 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.
Likoudis seems the only one they got, which is really sad.  I've never seen him on EWTN (but then I haven't been watching regularly for a year or so), and I've never heard EWTN's radio (I listen to Relevant Radio).
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 24, 2010, 10:04:30 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.

I think after seeing a series of very harsh polemical apologetics from Orthodox Converts I can't say I have any sympathy for you. You guys have asked for a fight... I don't think you'll see stuff coming out directly from the Vatican but I can only imagine there are Catholic Apologists out there that want to address some of these books and positions.

That said I'm largely in the Orthodox camp these days but that doesn't mean I'm going to wear the polemical team shirt and run around with Pom-Poms. I largely dislike the Orthodox tactic personally. That doesn't mean I don't think that they are correct or whatever... I just think they could be more Christian in there criticisms.

I think the persistent misunderstanding you demonstrate on this forum, is that you confuse doctrinal disagreement with personal enmity.

No. I've been hear for years and I've read just about all the modern English Orthodox Apologetics and they are pretty full of vitriol. Michael Whelton... Carlton... both mix personal anger in their criticisms of the Catholic Church. Perhaps with Carlton that appears to have softened, at least on his podcasts but there books are awfully polemical and angry and use traditionalist arguments to tap into Catholic discontent with Catholicism in an attempt to create doubt.

Can you imagine if the Western Church would have done something like that during the Iconclasm? Personally that is the way I see it. Knowing what I know about Orthodox Theology and the strength of their Tradition, Orthodox Apologetists don't need to stoop to that level to 'win converts' or even make their point. That is what I mean.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2010, 10:47:09 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.

I think after seeing a series of very harsh polemical apologetics from Orthodox Converts I can't say I have any sympathy for you. You guys have asked for a fight... I don't think you'll see stuff coming out directly from the Vatican but I can only imagine there are Catholic Apologists out there that want to address some of these books and positions.

That said I'm largely in the Orthodox camp these days but that doesn't mean I'm going to wear the polemical team shirt and run around with Pom-Poms. I largely dislike the Orthodox tactic personally. That doesn't mean I don't think that they are correct or whatever... I just think they could be more Christian in there criticisms.

I think the persistent misunderstanding you demonstrate on this forum, is that you confuse doctrinal disagreement with personal enmity.

No. I've been hear for years and I've read just about all the modern English Orthodox Apologetics and they are pretty full of vitriol. Michael Whelton... Carlton... both mix personal anger in their criticisms of the Catholic Church. Perhaps with Carlton that appears to have softened, at least on his podcasts but there books are awfully polemical and angry and use traditionalist arguments to tap into Catholic discontent with Catholicism in an attempt to create doubt.

Can you imagine if the Western Church would have done something like that during the Iconclasm? Personally that is the way I see it. Knowing what I know about Orthodox Theology and the strength of their Tradition, Orthodox Apologetists don't need to stoop to that level to 'win converts' or even make their point. That is what I mean.

Yet you keep making ridiculous accusations as to my emotions and intentions involved in this without any real rationale behind it.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 25, 2010, 12:04:51 AM
Yet you keep making ridiculous accusations as to my emotions and intentions involved in this without any real rationale behind it.

I'm not really following your reply from what I wrote?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 25, 2010, 12:37:10 AM
I was thinking about this this morning, as I was professing our Faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: Christ has only one Bride, not a harem.

There are those who conclude therefore, that any who claim Christ must be part of that Bride.  But, given the disarray of confessions, that is one schiezophrenic wife.

Then there is the idea that only one of them is the true spouse to the Bridegroom, the rest can only be her handmaidens.

There are those who confess "I believe in one baptism for remission of sins," and conclude that any baptism is valid.

And then there are those who point out that it makes a great deal of difference which Church you seek baptism from.

The answer to which interprets the Creed correctly doesn't rest on which one we think is nicer, more pleasant, or "fairer."  It rests how how the Fathers implemented it.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 25, 2010, 12:43:23 AM
Yet you keep making ridiculous accusations as to my emotions and intentions involved in this without any real rationale behind it.

I'm not really following your reply from what I wrote?

Iconodule accused you of confuting condemnation of a doctrinal tradition with enmity towards the persons who adhere to said tradition on this forum. You brought up off-board examples of where you perceive certain EO theologians of actually confuting the two. But that seemed to avoid the point about you doing it on this forum. So I again brought up what I perceived as unjust projections of anger and condemnation on my person.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ChristusDominus on January 25, 2010, 12:52:12 AM
All I can tell either one of you, is if and when I enter into Orthodoxy I will still think that you two are way too freaky for me to agree with. Sorry.
I agree with you. It's best to ignore instigators.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: stashko on January 25, 2010, 01:29:54 PM
I see Nothing wrong with these two individuals, Deusveritasest or  Get_Behind_Me_Satan ,
their only preaching in what they believe and know....
I agree with them in many things.....
Someone has to take a stand and defend the truth and Orthodox way.....

They Have My Vote... ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 25, 2010, 01:48:49 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.

Thanks for the information, now I know whom should I read.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 25, 2010, 01:56:02 PM
I see Nothing wrong with these two individuals, Deusveritasest or  Get_Behind_Me_Satan ,
their only preaching in what they believe and know....
I agree with them in many things.....
Someone has to take a stand and defend the truth and Orthodox way.....

They Have My Vote... ;D

I would still contend that extremism isn't zeal, and zeal isn't simply passions aroused for display. I doubt Get_Behind_Me_Satan would speak to anyone face to face as he has spoken toward people on this forum.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 25, 2010, 01:56:38 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.
Wasn't he Eastern Orthodox at one time?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 25, 2010, 01:58:23 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.
Wasn't he Eastern Orthodox at one time?

Greek Orthodox back in the day.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: stashko on January 25, 2010, 02:29:11 PM
I see Nothing wrong with these two individuals, Deusveritasest or  Get_Behind_Me_Satan ,
their only preaching in what they believe and know....
I agree with them in many things.....
Someone has to take a stand and defend the truth and Orthodox way.....

They Have My Vote... ;D

I would still contend that extremism isn't zeal, and zeal isn't simply passions aroused for display. I doubt Get_Behind_Me_Satan would speak to anyone face to face as he has spoken toward people on this forum.

God Bless ! Doesn't Holy Scripture tell us to be on fire for the faith ,and not to be luke warn in our walk, better to be cold instead .... 8)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 25, 2010, 03:33:30 PM
God Bless ! Doesn't Holy Scripture tell us to be on fire for the faith ,and not to be luke warn in our walk, better to be cold instead .... 8)

2Ti 4:2  Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.

You may be 'half' right but the patience part is lacking. Zeal is your desire to please the Lord in obedience not in one's anger toward others.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely, is not puffed up,
(1Co 13:1-4)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Mickey on January 25, 2010, 03:42:46 PM
You may be 'half' right but the patience part is lacking. Zeal is your desire to please the Lord in obedience not in one's anger toward others.

The only problem lies in the fact that it is impossible to get a true reading of a person's intentions over an internet forum.  :-\
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 25, 2010, 04:09:55 PM
You may be 'half' right but the patience part is lacking. Zeal is your desire to please the Lord in obedience not in one's anger toward others.

The only problem lies in the fact that it is impossible to get a true reading of a person's intentions over an internet forum.  :-\

That is true Mickey... so true. Without body language and inflection... our posts can come off as really alienating.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 25, 2010, 04:27:39 PM
Yet you keep making ridiculous accusations as to my emotions and intentions involved in this without any real rationale behind it.

I'm not really following your reply from what I wrote?

Iconodule accused you of confuting condemnation of a doctrinal tradition with enmity towards the persons who adhere to said tradition on this forum. You brought up off-board examples of where you perceive certain EO theologians of actually confuting the two. But that seemed to avoid the point about you doing it on this forum. So I again brought up what I perceived as unjust projections of anger and condemnation on my person.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 25, 2010, 04:57:18 PM
Iconodule accused you of confuting condemnation of a doctrinal tradition with enmity towards the persons who adhere to said tradition on this forum. You brought up off-board examples of where you perceive certain EO theologians of actually confuting the two. But that seemed to avoid the point about you doing it on this forum. So I again brought up what I perceived as unjust projections of anger and condemnation on my person.

If you feel that I am attacking 'you', I'm very sorry. I know that you and I have been sparring back and forth a lot but I don't want you to feel that I dislike 'you' personally. My criticism is largely aimed at what I perceive to be a smugness among Orthodox toward individuals who are very seriously walking their faith. Maybe I'm just too much of an individualist but I really chaff at the idea that just because someone is "Orthodox" that they are some kind of authority or more in God's Favor than someone, like my wife for example, who is a Baptist but is one of gentlest God Fearing individuals I know. She doesn't know a lick about the Doctrine of the Trinity nor any of the kind of stuff we read on this forum but she is a real 'gem' if I say so myself. My Orthodox Parish Priest just loves her and he isn't saying she lacks grace or is a heretic or any of the things that fly out of the mouths of some you. With regards to me, my Grandfather was Catholic and took me to Mass as well as my Mother. My affection toward the Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI doesn't stem from some slavish desire to serve the dark lord but because they have acts in many ways with virtue in their office of Servant of the Servants of God. Some of the historic fact you guys and gals bring up are things over 1000 years ago. By and large, for the Catholic on the ground that means nothing to us because we 'judge' the Popes as they have acted during 'our' lifetimes.

My problem with Catholicism isn't the modern Papacy... it's the Priests.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 25, 2010, 05:23:46 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.

Thanks for the information, now I know whom should I read.
LOL.  Enjoy reading the preacher's hymnal in the choir.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 25, 2010, 05:25:32 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.

Thanks for the information, now I know whom should I read.
LOL.  Enjoy reading the preacher's hymnal in the choir.
Oh, like you guys never read anti-Catholic stuff.    ::)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ChristusDominus on January 26, 2010, 12:44:23 AM
I see Nothing wrong with these two individuals, Deusveritasest or  Get_Behind_Me_Satan ,
their only preaching in what they believe and know....
I agree with them in many things.....
Someone has to take a stand and defend the truth and Orthodox way.....

They Have My Vote... ;D
Eccentrics always get your vote.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ChristusDominus on January 26, 2010, 01:05:50 AM
I see Nothing wrong with these two individuals, Deusveritasest or  Get_Behind_Me_Satan ,
their only preaching in what they believe and know....
I agree with them in many things.....
Someone has to take a stand and defend the truth and Orthodox way.....

They Have My Vote... ;D

I would still contend that extremism isn't zeal, and zeal isn't simply passions aroused for display. I doubt Get_Behind_Me_Satan would speak to anyone face to face as he has spoken toward people on this forum.
That's why I just say I am a baptized Catholic and not reveal which church I really attend. I don't want that to influence how others treat me. Catholicism has been my life but If I am not mistaken, I search deeper spirituality just like you do.

These two Jesters (I think a third one has joined the bandwagon) will not inluence my final decision. They are small stumbling blocks.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: stashko on January 26, 2010, 01:30:50 AM
I see Nothing wrong with these two individuals, Deusveritasest or  Get_Behind_Me_Satan ,
their only preaching in what they believe and know....
I agree with them in many things.....
Someone has to take a stand and defend the truth and Orthodox way.....

They Have My Vote... ;D

I would still contend that extremism isn't zeal, and zeal isn't simply passions aroused for display. I doubt Get_Behind_Me_Satan would speak to anyone face to face as he has spoken toward people on this forum.
That's why I just say I am a baptized Catholic and not reveal which church I really attend. I don't want that to influence how others treat me. Catholicism has been my life but If I am not mistaken, I search deeper spirituality just like you do.

These two Jesters (I think a third one has joined the bandwagon) will not inluence my final decision. They are small stumbling blocks.


Are you calling us the Three Stooges ...OH ! Ok which one am i.....Larry ,Curley or Moe....Theres another one too shemp......
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 26, 2010, 02:29:42 AM
Masons in orthodoxy, the church is on fire!
http://mymartyrdom.com/orthomason.htm
Quoting our own Hopeful Faithful?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 02:37:45 AM
Pagan Rome + Christian persecution + Roman Catholicism  +  Papal inquisitions (more Christian murders) + Ecumenism = NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE ANTI-CHRIST  

You have a brain, use it.




Psa. 7:9 Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.
Psa. 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Psa. 9:5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.
Psa. 9:16 The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.
Psa. 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
Psa. 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
Psa. 10:3 For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.
Psa. 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.
Psa. 10:13 Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? he hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it.
Psa. 10:15 Break thou the arm of the wicked and the evil man: seek out his wickedness till thou find none.
Psa. 11:2 For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart.
Psa. 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
Psa. 11:6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
Psa. 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
Psa. 17:9 From the wicked that oppress me, from my deadly enemies, who compass me about.
Psa. 17:13 Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:
Psa. 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Psa. 26:5 I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.
Psa. 27:2 When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
Psa. 28:3 Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts.
Psa. 31:17 Let me not be ashamed, O LORD; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave.
Psa. 32:10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the LORD, mercy shall compass him about.
Psa. 34:21 Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate.
Psa. 36:1 The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.
Psa. 36:11 Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked remove me.
Psa. 37:7 Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.
Psa. 37:10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
Psa. 37:12 The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.
Psa. 37:14 The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation.
Psa. 37:16 A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked.
Psa. 37:17 For the arms of the wicked shall be broken: but the LORD upholdeth the righteous.
Psa. 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
Psa. 37:21 The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth.
Psa. 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
Psa. 37:32 The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
Psa. 37:34 Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.
Psa. 37:35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.
Psa. 37:38 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off.
Psa. 37:40 And the LORD shall help them and deliver them: he shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him.
Psa. 39:1 I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue: I will keep my mouth with a bridle, while the wicked is before me.
Psa. 50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
Psa. 55:3 Because of the voice of the enemy, because of the oppression of the wicked: for they cast iniquity upon me, and in wrath they hate me.
Psa. 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Psa. 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
Psa. 59:5 Thou therefore, O LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah.
Psa. 64:2 Hide me from the secret counsel of the wicked; from the insurrection of the workers of iniquity:
Psa. 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
Psa. 71:4 Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked, out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man.
Psa. 73:3 For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
Psa. 74:19 O deliver not the soul of thy turtledove unto the multitude of the wicked: forget not the congregation of thy poor for ever.
Psa. 75:4 I said unto the fools, Deal not foolishly: and to the wicked, Lift not up the horn:
Psa. 75:8 For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.
Psa. 75:10 All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off; but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted.
Psa. 82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
Psa. 82:4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psa. 91:8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
Psa. 92:7 When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:
Psa. 92:11 Mine eye also shall see my desire on mine enemies, and mine ears shall hear my desire of the wicked that rise up against me.
Psa. 94:3 LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
Psa. 94:13 That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.
Psa. 97:10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psa. 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
Psa. 101:4 A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.
Psa. 101:8 I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the LORD.
Psa. 104:35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.
Psa. 106:18 And a fire was kindled in their company; the flame burned up the wicked.
Psa. 109:2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
Psa. 109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
Psa. 112:10 The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.
Psa. 119:53 Horror hath taken hold upon me because of the wicked that forsake thy law.
Psa. 119:61 The bands of the wicked have robbed me: but I have not forgotten thy law.
Psa. 119:95 The wicked have waited for me to destroy me: but I will consider thy testimonies.
Psa. 119:110 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts.
Psa. 119:119 Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies.
Psa. 119:155 Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.
Psa. 125:3 For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.
Psa. 129:4 The LORD is righteous: he hath cut asunder the cords of the wicked.
Psa. 139:19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
Psa. 139:24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
Psa. 140:4 Keep me, O LORD, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from the violent man; who have purposed to overthrow my goings.
Psa. 140:8 Grant not, O LORD, the desires of the wicked: further not his wicked device; lest they exalt themselves. Selah.
Psa. 141:4 Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practise wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties.
Psa. 141:10 Let the wicked fall into their own nets, whilst that I withal escape.
Psa. 145:20 The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.
Psa. 146:9 The LORD preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.
Psa. 147:6 The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground.
Prov. 2:14 Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked;
Prov. 2:22 But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it.
Prov. 3:25 Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh.
Prov. 3:33 The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.
Prov. 4:14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
Prov. 4:19 The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.
Prov. 5:22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins.
Prov. 6:12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.
Prov. 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Prov. 9:7 He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.
Prov. 10:3 The LORD will not suffer the soul of the righteous to famish: but he casteth away the substance of the wicked.
Prov. 10:6 Blessings are upon the head of the just: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.
Prov. 10:7 The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot.
Prov. 10:11 The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.
Prov. 10:16 The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.
Prov. 10:20 The tongue of the just is as choice silver: the heart of the wicked is little worth.
Prov. 10:24 The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him: but the desire of the righteous shall be granted.
Prov. 10:25 As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation.
Prov. 10:27 The fear of the LORD prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened.
Prov. 10:28 The hope of the righteous shall be gladness: but the expectation of the wicked shall perish.
Prov. 10:30 The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.
Prov. 10:32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness.
Prov. 11:5 The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way: but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness.
Prov. 11:7 When a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish: and the hope of unjust men perisheth.
Prov. 11:8 The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead.
Prov. 11:10 When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting.
Prov. 11:11 By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted: but it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked.
Prov. 11:18 The wicked worketh a deceitful work: but to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward.
Prov. 11:21 Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.
Prov. 11:23 The desire of the righteous is only good: but the expectation of the wicked is wrath.
Prov. 11:31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.
Prov. 12:2 A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.
Prov. 12:5 The thoughts of the righteous are right: but the counsels of the wicked are deceit.
Prov. 12:6 The words of the wicked are to lie in wait for blood: but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them.
Prov. 12:7 The wicked are overthrown, and are not: but the house of the righteous shall stand.
Prov. 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Prov. 12:12 The wicked desireth the net of evil men: but the root of the righteous yieldeth fruit.
Prov. 12:13 The wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips: but the just shall come out of trouble.
Prov. 12:21 There shall no evil happen to the just: but the wicked shall be filled with mischief.
Prov. 12:26 The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour: but the way of the wicked seduceth them.
Prov. 13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.
Prov. 13:9 The light of the righteous rejoiceth: but the lamp of the wicked shall be put out.
Prov. 13:17 A wicked messenger falleth into mischief: but a faithful ambassador is health.
Prov. 13:25 The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want.
Prov. 14:11 The house of the wicked shall be overthrown: but the tabernacle of the upright shall flourish.
Prov. 14:17 He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly: and a man of wicked devices is hated.
Prov. 14:19 The evil bow before the good; and the wicked at the gates of the righteous.
Prov. 14:32 The wicked is driven away in his wickedness: but the righteous hath hope in his death.
Prov. 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure: but in the revenues of the wicked is trouble.
Prov. 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
Prov. 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Prov. 15:26 The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.
Prov. 15:28 The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.
Prov. 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.
Prov. 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Prov. 17:4 A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.
Prov. 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Prov. 17:23 A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways of judgment.
Prov. 18:3 When the wicked cometh, then cometh also contempt, and with ignominy reproach.
Prov. 18:5 It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment.
Prov. 19:28 An ungodly witness scorneth judgment: and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity.
Prov. 20:26 A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.
Prov. 21:4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
Prov. 21:7 The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment.
Prov. 21:10 The soul of the wicked desireth evil: his neighbour findeth no favour in his eyes.
Prov. 21:12 The righteous man wisely considereth the house of the wicked: but God overthroweth the wicked for their wickedness.
Prov. 21:18 The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright.
Prov. 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?
Prov. 21:29 A wicked man hardeneth his face: but as for the upright, he directeth his way.
Prov. 24:15 Lay not wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous; spoil not his resting place:
Prov. 24:16 For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief.
Prov. 24:19 Fret not thyself because of evil men, neither be thou envious at the wicked;
Prov. 24:20 For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out.
Prov. 24:24 He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
Prov. 25:5 Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.
Prov. 25:26 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.
Prov. 26:23 Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd covered with silver dross.
Prov. 28:1 The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.
Prov. 28:4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.
Prov. 28:12 When righteous men do rejoice, there is great glory: but when the wicked rise, a man is hidden.
Prov. 28:15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.
Prov. 28:28 When the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase.
Prov. 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
Prov. 29:7 The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.
Prov. 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
Prov. 29:16 When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth: but the righteous shall see their fall.
Prov. 29:27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.
Eccl. 3:17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
Eccl. 7:15 All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.
Eccl. 7:17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?
Eccl. 8:10 And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity.
Eccl. 8:13 But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.
Eccl. 8:14 There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity.
Eccl. 9:2 All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.
Is. 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.
Is. 5:23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Is. 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Is. 13:11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
Is. 14:5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
Is. 26:10 Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the LORD.
Is. 32:7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
Is. 48:22 There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.
Is. 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Is. 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Is. 57:20 But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.
Is. 57:21 There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.
Jer. 2:33 Why trimmest thou thy way to seek love? therefore hast thou also taught the wicked ones thy ways.
Jer. 5:26 For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.
Jer. 5:28 They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.
Jer. 6:29 The bellows are burned, the lead is consumed of the fire; the founder melteth in vain: for the wicked are not plucked away.
Jer. 12:1 Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously?
Jer. 15:21 And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.
Jer. 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jer. 23:19 Behold, a whirlwind of the LORD is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked.
Jer. 25:31 A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth; for the LORD hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh; he will give them that are wicked to the sword, saith the LORD.
Jer. 30:23 Behold, the whirlwind of the LORD goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.
Ezek. 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Ezek. 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
Ezek. 7:21 And I will give it into the hands of the strangers for a prey, and to the wicked of the earth for a spoil; and they shall pollute it.
Ezek. 8:9 And he said unto me, Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here.
Ezek. 11:2 Then said he unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city:
Ezek. 13:22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
Ezek. 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Ezek. 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Ezek. 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Ezek. 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Ezek. 18:27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
Ezek. 20:44 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have wrought with you for my name’s sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.
Ezek. 21:3 And say to the land of Israel, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I am against thee, and will draw forth my sword out of his sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.
Ezek. 21:4 Seeing then that I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of his sheath against all flesh from the south to the north:
Ezek. 21:25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
Ezek. 21:29 Whiles they see vanity unto thee, whiles they divine a lie unto thee, to bring thee upon the necks of them that are slain, of the wicked, whose day is come, when their iniquity shall have an end.
Ezek. 30:12 And I will make the rivers dry, and sell the land into the hand of the wicked: and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the LORD have spoken it.
Ezek. 33:8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Ezek. 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
Ezek. 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Ezek. 33:12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
Ezek. 33:14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
Ezek. 33:15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Ezek. 33:19 But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.
Dan. 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Mic. 6:10 Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable?
Mic. 6:11 Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?
Nah. 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
Nah. 1:11 There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counseller.
Nah. 1:15 Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows: for the wicked shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.
Hab. 1:4 Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth.
Hab. 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?
Hab. 3:13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed; thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. Selah.
Zeph. 1:3 I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 26, 2010, 02:41:43 AM
Pagan Rome + Christian persecution + Roman Catholicism  +  Papal inquisitions (more Christian murders) + Ecumenism = NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE ANTI-CHRIST  

You have a brain, use it.
You think using our brains will automatically lead us to agree with you?  I've used my brain many times, and my reasoning has led me to be very wary of any argument that reads like a Jack Chick tract.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ozgeorge on January 26, 2010, 02:58:19 AM
Pagan Rome + Christian persecution + Roman Catholicism  +  Papal inquisitions (more Christian murders) + Ecumenism = NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE ANTI-CHRIST  Nothing New Under the Sun
There. I have fixed it. :)
We must not operate either out of fear nor panic, as I see most people with "apocalyptic" ideas do. Why should the Christians in the days of the Antichrist do anything different to the Christians of the first, second, third.......21st centuries? Our duty is is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and body and to love our neighbour as ourself. Nothing in this duty of ours changes even if we are standing in the throne-room of the Antichrist himself. Our duty as Christians is still the same no matter what, so why the panic? And if we are weak and experience panic in difficult situations, we should at least try not to communicate our panic to others.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ChristusDominus on January 26, 2010, 02:59:16 AM
I see Nothing wrong with these two individuals, Deusveritasest or  Get_Behind_Me_Satan ,
their only preaching in what they believe and know....
I agree with them in many things.....
Someone has to take a stand and defend the truth and Orthodox way.....

They Have My Vote... ;D

I would still contend that extremism isn't zeal, and zeal isn't simply passions aroused for display. I doubt Get_Behind_Me_Satan would speak to anyone face to face as he has spoken toward people on this forum.
That's why I just say I am a baptized Catholic and not reveal which church I really attend. I don't want that to influence how others treat me. Catholicism has been my life but If I am not mistaken, I search deeper spirituality just like you do.

These two Jesters (I think a third one has joined the bandwagon) will not inluence my final decision. They are small stumbling blocks.


Are you calling us the Three Stooges ...OH ! Ok which one am i.....Larry ,Curley or Moe....Theres another one too shemp......
Me, myself and I :)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Mickey on January 26, 2010, 09:51:44 AM
like my wife for example, who is a Baptist but is one of gentlest God Fearing individuals I know.

I have baptist in-laws who are like that.  :)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Tzimis on January 26, 2010, 11:04:29 AM
I see Nothing wrong with these two individuals, Deusveritasest or  Get_Behind_Me_Satan ,
their only preaching in what they believe and know....
I agree with them in many things.....
Someone has to take a stand and defend the truth and Orthodox way.....

They Have My Vote... ;D

I don't think god needs to be defended. He is god after all. If we Orthodox have the correct representation of him and know him we feel the same way as him.  "Not needing defense" It's when we ourselves have doubts we need reassuring of our position.  It's actually a health experience unless it gets out of hand and one overshoots salvation and replaces it with Pharisaic thought. Which our savior wholeheartedly despised as attested to in scripture.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 26, 2010, 01:18:42 PM
¿What do you think?
¿What should we think?

___________________________________

Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council – Relevant or Irrelevant Today?
PHILIP, Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of All North America
Jan 24, 2009, 10:00

Of all the canons dealing with Church authority and jurisdiction, there is probably none more controversial and debated in inter-Orthodox circles today than Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in the city of Chalcedon in the year 451. Those of us familiar with Church history know that the Ecumenical Council was called to put an end to the ongoing Christological debates of the time. While this was the main focus of the Council, like other councils before and after, it dealt with other pressing issues of the day. Canon 28 was not exception. It reads as follows:
 
Following in every detail all the decrees of the holy Fathers and knowing about the canon, just read, of the one hundred and fifty bishops dearly beloved of God, gathered together under Theodosius the Great, emperor of pious memory in the imperial city of Constantinople, New Rome, we ourselves have also decreed and voted the same things about the prerogatives of the very holy Church of this same Constantinople, New Rome. The Fathers in fact have correctly attributed the prerogatives (which belong) to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, the one hundred and fifty bishops beloved of God have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the city that is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying (within the civil order) the prerogatives equal to those of Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be as elevated as Old Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it. Consequently, the metropolitans and they alone of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, as well as the bishops among the barbarians of the aforementioned dioceses, are to be ordained by the previously mentioned very holy see of the very holy Church of Constantinople; that is, each metropolitan of the above-mentioned dioceses is to ordain the bishops of the province along with the fellow bishops of that province as has been provided for in the divine canons. As for the metropolitans of the previously mentioned dioceses, they are to be ordained, as has already been said, by the archbishop of Constantinople, after harmonious elections have taken place according to custom and after the archbishop has been notified.
 
The issue of the proper interpretation of Canon 28 and its relationship to the so-called “diaspora” is crucial, not only to the Church in North America, but to the relationship of all Orthodox churches worldwide to each other, and to their witness to the world. As Patriarch ALEKSY of Russia has said: “The question of the Orthodox diaspora is one of the most important problems in inter-Orthodox relations. Given its complexity and the fact that it has not been sufficiently regularized, it has introduced serious complications in[to] the relations between Churches and, without a doubt, has diminished the strength of Orthodox witness throughout the contemporary world.” (For more information on the historical background of Canon 28, I recommend the book The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, by the late Archbishop PETER L’Huillier, published in 1996 by St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.)
 
 It is my opinion that there are three types of canons: 1) Dogmatic; 2) Contextual; and 3) “Dead” canons. Canon 28 is by no means a “dead” canon, since there is still great controversy over it today, and so many commentaries, both past and present, show how controversial it has been, to say the least. I believe that Canon 28, historically, is a contextual canon and not a dogmatic one; it gave the city of Constantinople certain rights as the New Rome for secular, political reasons because it was the seat of the emperor. At the same time, the Fourth Ecumenical Council considered (Old) Rome to be the first among equals. What does this say to us today? Let us begin by stating that the whole idea today of “Rome,” “New Rome,” and “Third Rome” would be absurd. If we want to give prominence to any city in Christendom, we should give it to Jerusalem, where the history of salvation was accomplished.
 
The second part of the Canon dealt with the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace. Canon 28 gave Constantinople jurisdiction over the metropolitans of the barbarians and those three provinces or dioceses, which today are only Bulgaria, Northeastern Greece and European Turkey.
 
We can also ask, Is this Canon dealing with a dogmatic issue or a pastoral administrative one? In my opinion it clearly deals with an administrative question. If Antioch or Alexandria had become the seat of imperial power, likely this Canon would have made either of them New Rome. If we were to follow the reasoning of Canon 28, in fact, then Russia could rightfully claim, as it did historically, to be the Third Rome, and the Church of Greece could have made the claim to be the Fourth Rome during the captivity of the Russian Church under Communism.
 
Given the lack of a new Great Council, common sense would dictate that, with the current captivity of the church in Constantinople (whose indigenous flock totals just a few thousand), there is no reason for Canon 28 and it is no longer relevant today. We do have a problem, however: we have a responsibility to the past and the councils of the past, but there is no Great Council to address this issue. We must therefore explore other solutions.
 
While the Canon is not relevant to the question of different “Romes,” it is profi table for us to look at its relevance today, especially to the subject of administrative organization in North America. We are well aware of the complex issues regarding the so-called “diaspora” and the desire of our Orthodox people, especially in North America, to have an administratively united church. As you must know, there are basically two interpretations of this Canon that extend back into history. Some claim that this Canon implies that Constantinople has authority over all territories outside the geographical limits of autocephalous churches.
 
Those on the other side of the argument say that this interpretation is, in fact, misinterpretation. Archbishop PETER in his book, The Church of the Ancient Councils, states that “such interpretation is completely fantastic.” For those holding this view, any autocephalous church can do missionary work outside her boundaries and can grant autocephaly to such missions. Archbishop PAUL of Finland, in summarizing the position of the Orthodox churches, has stated in the reports submitted in 1990 to the Preparatory Commission for the Great and Holy Council that “the Patriarchates of Antioch, Moscow and Romania strongly oppose the authority of Constantinople over the diaspora and [maintain] that the theory remains an anachronism as far from the modern age as the year 451 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council is from the Twentieth Century.”
 
Patriarch ALEKSY of Russia has stated that it was only in 1921 that Patriarach MELETIOS Metsakis developed a theory of universal jurisdiction for Constantinople. “Historical facts indicate that until the 1920’s the Patriarch of Constantinople did not in fact exercise authority over the whole of the Orthodox diaspora throughout the world, and made no claim to such authority.” The Russian Orthodox Church responded in a letter to the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding the case of Bishop BASIL (Osborne) as follows: “With respect to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, it is vital to recall that it concerns only certain provinces, the boundaries of which represent the limits of the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the bishops ‘of the barbarians.’”
 
We see, then, that the notion that this Canon extends the authority of the throne of Constantinople to all territories that are not part of one or another local church is a novelty, and one not recognized by the Orthodox Church as a whole. This misinterpretation of Canon 28 would extend beyond territorial issues to such things as the claim that a representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople should chair any Episcopal assembly, anywhere in the world. This claim can extend down to local clergy groups, Pan-Orthodox associations and organizations, and so forth.
 
In 1961, we in the United States and Canada formed the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA). I have been a member of SCOBA since 1966. The misinterpretation of Canon 28 has not been helpful to the work of SCOBA. In my opinion, SCOBA has four major defects. First, the representation of the Orthodox Churches in SCOBA does not reflect reality in North America. Neither the Moscow Patriarchate nor the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) are represented in SCOBA, while the Ecumenical Patriarchate has four of the nine seats.
 
Second, the insistence that the Exarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople must be the President of SCOBA is not what was agreed upon at the beginning. The constitution of SCOBA which has never been amended, provides that there shall be a rotating presidency. Subsequently, at the insistence of the Antiochian Archdiocese, Archbishop SPYRIDON and then Archbishop DEMETRIUS were elected by the SCOBA members after the retirement of the later Archbishop IAKOVOS of thrice-blessed memory.
 
The third defect of SCOBA is that its decisions are not internally binding. In the 1990 documents before the Preparatory Commission for a Great and Holy Council, in discussing the Western European situation, some autocephalous churches suggested the formation of Episcopal Assemblies whose decisions can be internally binding.
 
I would like to quote here again from the letter from the Russian Orthodox Church to the Preparatory Commission. The relations between jurisdictions and dioceses to the Mother Churches would remain the same, but in all  purely internal matters, which would include education, teaching, the diakonia, Orthodox witness, ecumenical relations on the local level, pastoral practice, the Bishops’ Assembly would serve in joint effort as one whole unite and autonomous in its relationship to the mother church.” This Bishops’ Assembly, for example, would address non-canonical situations in North America such as the infringement of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in North America with the blessings of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
 
A fourth problem with SCOBA, I believe, is the assumption that we are a “diaspora.” On the contrary: the only way to move the cause of Orthodox unity forward in North America is to insist that we are not a “diaspora.” We have been here two hundred years. The late Protopresbytr, John Meyendorff, of blessed memory, states in an essay in his book A Vision of Unity that diaspora is a biblical term and has a perfectly adequate equivalent – “dispersion.” He says later in the same article: “There is no promised land any more except the heavenly Jerusalem.”
 
Most of the people in my Archdiocese have no intention of returning to their place of origin. This is true even of new immigrants, let alone those of the third or fourth generation. Our people are here to stay, and we are indeed an indigenous church in North America. I believe that the Church in North America is mature enough to take care of herself without any interference from the outside. Those who support an ethnocentric reading of Canon 28 and insist that unity on a national basis cannot be discussed, then, are naïve and bury their heads in the sand. While they may delight in holding lectures and conferences on the environment, the witness and mission of the church is ignored.
The Orthodox principle is not to organize the church based on ethnicity, but, in the modern world, upon the nation-state. Ironically enough, when ethnic ecclesiology began to flourish and prosper in the nineteenth century, it was the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Constantinople itself that condemned ecclesiological ethno-phyletism as heresy in 1872. During our Archdiocese Convention last July in Montreal, Canada, I shared with my clergy and laity what I said on the subject to my brother bishops at the Archdiocesan Synod Meeting on May 31, 2007, and I summarize my thoughts in what follows.
Since 1966, I have lived with two obsessions: 1) The unity of our Archdiocese; and 2) Orthodox Unity in North America. Where are we now in regard to this latter unity? Unfortunately, the Once Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in North America is now divided into more than fifteen jurisdictions based on ethnicity, contrary to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Our canons clearly state that we cannot have more than one bishop over the same territory, and one metropolitan over the same metropolis. I regret to tell you that we Orthodox are violating this important ecclesiological principle in North America, South America, Europe and Australia. In New York, for example, we have more than ten Orthodox bishops over the same city and the same territory. I can say the same thing about other cities and territories in North America.
 
We are not alone; the same thing has happened in Paris, France. There are six co-existing Orthodox Bishops with overlapping ecclesiological jurisdictions. In my opinion and in the opinion of Orthodox canonists, this is ecclesiological ethno-phyletism. This is heretical. How can we condemn ethno-phyletism as a heresy in 1872 and still practice the same thing in the twenty-first century here in North America? When I lived in Damascus, Syria, and Beirut, Lebanon, in the early 1950s, there were large Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox communities there, but they were not under the Archbishop of Athens or the Patriarchate of Moscow, but under the omophorions of the Antiochian local bishops. Due to wars and social upheaval, we now have a large Lebanese community in Athens, Greece, and they are under the omophorion of the Archbishop of Athens. They do not have a separate jurisdiction just because they are Lebanese Orthodox.
 
Archimandrite Gregorios Papathomas, a professor of Canon Law and Dean of St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris, France, wrote, “The defining criterion of an ecclesiastical body has been its location. It has never been nationality, race, culture, ritual or confession”. In First Corinthians (1:2) St. Paul writes, “To the Church of God which is at Corinth…” and again in Second Corinthians he writes, “To the Church of God which is at Corinth….” He writes to the Galatians, “To the Church of Galacia….” (1:2). We learn from the Apostles and the Fathers that the church is one church, one and the same church, the body of Christ, found in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, Greece, Rome, Russia, and so forth. Based on all of this, it is simply wrong to call the church Russian or Greek or American, because the church, in essence, transcends nationalism, race and culture. Here in North America we distort Orthodox ecclesiology by our ethnic jurisdictions.
 
The twenty-first century has dawned upon us. What, then, is to be our response to the challenge of Orthodox unity in North America? SCOBA was established in 1961; some of its founders were the late Archbishop IAKOVOS and the late Metropolitan ANTONY Bashir. May their souls rest in peace. Under “Objectives” in Paragraph I, Section C, the original constitution of SCOBA, adopted January 24, 1961, states that “the purpose of the conference is the consideration and resolution of common ecclesiastical problems, the coordination of efforts in matters of common concern to Orthodoxy, and the strengthening of Orthodox unity.” Last year, between October 3 and 6, SCOBA invited all canonical Orthodox Bishops to meet in Chicago, Illinois, to discuss common Orthodox problems. The communiqué issued on October 5, 2006, did not mention a word about Orthodox unity in America.
 
Again in November, 2006, a meeting of Inter-Orthodox priests met in Brookline, Massachusetts. A draft statement dated January 22, 2007, was circulated and not a word about Orthodox unity in North America was mentioned. I am convinced that serious attempts are being made, by some hierarchs in North America and abroad, to sweep the whole question of Orthodox unity, in this hemisphere, under the rug. After the Brookline encounter, one of my Antiochian clergy wrote to me the following: “Two of the Greek priests gave very strong talks on unity. We did decide, however, that given the landscape, we would use the word ‘cooperation’ and not ‘unity’ in our printed records.” This statement, my friends, speaks for itself.
 
I believe that an Ecumenical Council would be very difficult at this time. It would probably cause a division, or numerous divisions in the Church, and this would counter-productive. After all, if an issue such as changing the calendar causes splits and division, imagine what would happen if we were to discuss more serious issues. Fortunately or unfortunately, we no longer have the Byzantine emperor to enforce decisions that such a council can make.
 
An an alternative, I propose the formation of an Inter-Orthodox commission, located some place like Geneva, Switzerland, on which each autocephalous church and each self-ruled church would have a permanent representative. To this commission they would bring issues and problems to be discussed on behalf of the mother churches, and they would deal with specific Orthodox problems throughout the world. The decisions of the commission would be submitted to all mother churches for action.
 
With all the obstacles we face, have we reached a dead end? No, with the All-Holy Spirit working in the Church, there are no dead ends. I am sure that thousands of Orthodox clergy and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox laity in North America are deeply committed to Orthodox unity. We Orthodox must put our house in order, if we want to have a serious Orthodox mission in North America. This unity will begin with our clergy and laity, on the local level. My generation is slowly, but surely, fading away. It is up to you and our younger generation to carry the torch and to make the light of a unified Orthodoxy shine on this continent and everywhere.
 
Metropolitan PHILIP’s talk was part of the Conference of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, held at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, June 4-8, 2008.
 
This article originally appeared in THE WORD Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2009

__________________________________

¿ONE?, ¿HOLY?, ¡¿CATHOLIC?!
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 26, 2010, 01:21:05 PM
Pagan Rome + Christian persecution + Roman Catholicism  +  Papal inquisitions (more Christian murders) + Ecumenism = NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE ANTI-CHRIST  Nothing New Under the Sun
There. I have fixed it. :)
We must not operate either out of fear nor panic, as I see most people with "apocalyptic" ideas do. Why should the Christians in the days of the Antichrist do anything different to the Christians of the first, second, third.......21st centuries? Our duty is is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and body and to love our neighbour as ourself. Nothing in this duty of ours changes even if we are standing in the throne-room of the Antichrist himself. Our duty as Christians is still the same no matter what, so why the panic? And if we are weak and experience panic in difficult situations, we should at least try not to communicate our panic to others.


And if we ever do find ourselves in the such a throne-room, I think that we will not ignore our difference but that Catholics and Orthodox Christians will then truely love eachother as Christ has commanded us.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: podkarpatska on January 26, 2010, 01:44:35 PM
Pagan Rome + Christian persecution + Roman Catholicism  +  Papal inquisitions (more Christian murders) + Ecumenism = NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE ANTI-CHRIST  

You have a brain, use it.

etc...etc...etc...




A sad post on what has become a sad thread to consider during this, the week following the Sunday of the Pharisee and the Publican.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2010, 02:26:11 PM
¿What do you think?
¿What should we think?

....

¿ONE?, ¿HOLY?, ¡¿CATHOLIC?!

Yes, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Bottom line, any Orthodox can commune in any one of autocephalous Churches. As a member of the OCA, for instance, I communed in Constantinople herself.

Bottom line, the EP answers to the Apostolic Orthodox Churches, not the Vatican.

And that doesn't change anywhere in the world.  So we think, and you should think, that a Supreme Pontiff is not needed to keep the Church One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Fr. George on January 26, 2010, 03:19:54 PM
And that doesn't change anywhere in the world.  So we think, and you should think, that a Supreme Pontiff is not needed to keep the Church One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic.

Indeed.  In fact, we believe the opposite to be true: that the Bishop of Rome needs the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to keep himself free of error and in Communion with the Body of Christ.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2010, 03:24:36 PM
And that doesn't change anywhere in the world.  So we think, and you should think, that a Supreme Pontiff is not needed to keep the Church One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic.

Indeed.  In fact, we believe the opposite to be true: that the Bishop of Rome needs the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to keep himself free of error and in Communion with the Body of Christ.
Amen!  Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 26, 2010, 03:37:27 PM
And that doesn't change anywhere in the world.  So we think, and you should think, that a Supreme Pontiff is not needed to keep the Church One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic.

Indeed.  In fact, we believe the opposite to be true: that the Bishop of Rome needs the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to keep himself free of error and in Communion with the Body of Christ.
Amen!  Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

Good grief!  Never!  The man has been ill and ailing for the last 1000 years, distorting doctrines, unleashing persecution on the Orthodox Church and our faithful, trying to destroy us and divide us with imitations of Orthodox Churches.  And now we want to place him at the head of the Church of Christ!   God forbid!   He will need many long years and even centuries of slow restoration to spiritual and doctrinal health - and even then it is doubtful if he will regain the place he held in the first millennium.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2010, 03:49:49 PM
And that doesn't change anywhere in the world.  So we think, and you should think, that a Supreme Pontiff is not needed to keep the Church One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic.

Indeed.  In fact, we believe the opposite to be true: that the Bishop of Rome needs the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to keep himself free of error and in Communion with the Body of Christ.
Amen!  Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

Good grief!  Never!  The man has been ill and ailing for the last 1000 years, distorting doctrines, unleashing persecution on the Orthodox Church and our faithful, trying to destroy us and divide us with imitations of Orthodox Churches.  And now we want to place him at the head of the Church of Christ!   God forbid!   He will need many long years and even centuries of slow restoration to spiritual and doctrinal health - and even then it is doubtful if he will regain the place he held in the first millennium.
The Road to Damascus starts with the first step....
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Hamartolos on January 26, 2010, 03:53:28 PM
And that doesn't change anywhere in the world.  So we think, and you should think, that a Supreme Pontiff is not needed to keep the Church One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic.

Indeed.  In fact, we believe the opposite to be true: that the Bishop of Rome needs the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to keep himself free of error and in Communion with the Body of Christ.
Amen!  Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

Good grief!  Never!  The man has been ill and ailing for the last 1000 years, distorting doctrines, unleashing persecution on the Orthodox Church and our faithful, trying to destroy us and divide us with imitations of Orthodox Churches.  And now we want to place him at the head of the Church of Christ!   God forbid!   He will need many long years and even centuries of slow restoration to spiritual and doctrinal health - and even then it is doubtful if he will regain the place he held in the first millennium.

Quite true.  To expect the Pope would ever give up the idea of himself being the one human closest to God on earth is far fetched.  It took a thousand years just for Rome to say "sorry" for just a few of the atrocities it has been apart of since its formation.  (Oh ok, sure.  Just forget about the millions of Orthodox and others killed.  We understand this good and "holy" church just had an unquenchable thirst for world domination.)  One can only imagine how many more millenniums it will be until he admits he was wrong again.  

I would think it would be quite difficult for any Orthodox Patriarch (or any person) to sit next to a man who believes he is literally superior to you.  
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 26, 2010, 03:54:18 PM
The Road to Damascus starts with the first step....

And before that, you have to get thrown from your horse.  ;)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 26, 2010, 03:56:51 PM
Quite true.  To expect the Pope would ever give up the idea of himself being the one human closest to God on earth is far fetched.  It took a thousand years just for Rome to say "sorry" for just a few of the atrocities it has been apart of since its formation.  (Oh ok, sure.  Just forget about the millions of Orthodox and others killed.  We understand this good and "holy" church just had an unquenchable thirst for world domination.)  One can only imagine how many more millenniums it will be until he admits he was wrong again.

'He' was wrong. You speak as if the man in lost to the office and is to blame for history.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on January 26, 2010, 04:13:14 PM
A sad post on what has become a sad thread to consider during this, the week following the Sunday of the Pharisee and the Publican.

Amen.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Marc1152 on January 26, 2010, 04:47:41 PM
I was listening to EWTN, the Catholic radio station on my way to vigil last night. They had on James Likoudis  who seems to be their main anti-Orthodox apologist. Apparently he has just written another book about us.

His talk was full of offensive half truths and spin. If this is how the Catholics want to present us, then they shouldn't be too surprised when we are cool towards their overtures.

Thanks for the information, now I know whom should I read.

If you are looking for the Party Line, Likoudis is your man. Everything is geared to stop Catholics from investigating Orthodoxy, so if that is your aim, he will provide the ammo.

The worst part of the interview was some comments by Doug Keck the EWTN book review host. He said that he just couldn't understand how anyone would want to subject themself to being marginalized in a Church based on ethic associations.. to paraphrase. They both talked about how "Americans"sometimes convert to Orthodoxy to by pass the Pope but then find themselves outsiders and foreigners..

These two need to catch up. It's 2010. I belong to a Mission Church with about 40 members. About three are cradle Orthodox. The Priest is an Anglican convert. The day of the broadcast we were visited by an Afro -American fellow looking to convert to Orthodoxy (he's been reading). He stood with the two other black families in our Parish. One of  Priests at the Rocor Cathedral downtown is Black. We are chrismating a Catholic convert next Saturday.

The other Parish I belonged to before this one has about 300 families. I'd guess seventy percent are converts and thirty percent are cradle. The Priest is cradle but third or fourth generation. They are OCA. The new Metropolitan is a convert from the Episcopal Church , American born.

So the end result of this sort of false picture is that when a Catholic shows up on our doorstep for whatever reason (maybe even just for a wedding or baptism) he may well discover that what he has been told is a miss representation. It's a bad strategy on their part.

It's no wonder they only have one convert apologist . And even his supposed resume is questionable. He claims he was made a Deacon only after three or four months of being Orthodox
 ( his idea was that he was such a knowledgeable Protestant that he got the gig right away.. )


That smells really fishy to anyone who knows what it takes to become a Deacon in the Orthodox Church..
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Mickey on January 26, 2010, 04:57:35 PM
That smells really fishy to anyone who knows what it takes to become a Deacon in the Orthodox Church.

Indeed!
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Robb on January 26, 2010, 05:01:12 PM
I say Likoudis problem is that he ended up a Catholic by loosing his Greek ethnicity and the RCism was an offshoot of trying to Americanize himself.  I'm not sure if this was do to his parent disinterest in their heritage and faith (I do remember watching an interview with him were he stated that his earliest memories were of going to a Greek church with his father).  Or if his RC conversion was due to a later desire to make himself more American (he converted through an army chaplain, I think).  

I am all for conversions to Orthodoxy, but personally have never felt myself marginalized by attending an ethnic parish.  Maybe its because I grew up an ":ethnic" and don't feel uncomfortable around others who have ethnicity.  I know that some converts to the OC are %100, fanatically anti ethnic and demand the complete Americanization of every parish they attend.  There are also cradles who insist on complete ethnicity to the point that all outsiders are unwelcome in their parishes (although, from my experience, the l;latter is no longer as common as it once was).  Both are not the best solution to how to make Orthodoxy "work" in the USA.  we need to be open and respectful to eachother but not tot he point of excluding who we are as a people and our priceless heritage of faith.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 26, 2010, 05:02:54 PM
That smells really fishy to anyone who knows what it takes to become a Deacon in the Orthodox Church.

Indeed!

Correct me if I am off bass here but I thought we were talking about that cradle Greek Orthodox turned Catholic in college. The fellow I am talking about is older.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 26, 2010, 05:18:52 PM
¿What do you think?
¿What should we think?


¿ONE?, ¿HOLY?, ¡¿CATHOLIC?!
Not if one bases his definition of "one", "holy", and "catholic" purely on outward appearances.  However, despite the outward appearance of disunity, we are still one Church in that we still preach one faith, the faith of the Apostles, and we still partake of one Eucharist in that someone from the Greek Archdiocese can travel to Moscow and receive Communion from the hand of a Russian priest.  At least we have enough of a catholic consciousness to recognize that the practice of having multiple bishops with parallel jurisdiction over the same geographical territory is a terrible violation of the canonical norm and are trying to find ways to remedy this.  But this situation does not cut to the core of our life as the Church, since it does not separate Christians at the very chalice of our Lord's Body and Blood.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 26, 2010, 05:19:49 PM
That smells really fishy to anyone who knows what it takes to become a Deacon in the Orthodox Church.

Indeed!

Correct me if I am off bass here but I thought we were talking about that cradle Greek Orthodox turned Catholic in college. The fellow I am talking about is older.
Nice pun! :D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: podkarpatska on January 26, 2010, 05:47:06 PM
I say Likoudis problem is that he ended up a Catholic by loosing his Greek ethnicity and the RCism was an offshoot of trying to Americanize himself.  I'm not sure if this was do to his parent disinterest in their heritage and faith (I do remember watching an interview with him were he stated that his earliest memories were of going to a Greek church with his father).  Or if his RC conversion was due to a later desire to make himself more American (he converted through an army chaplain, I think).  

I am all for conversions to Orthodoxy, but personally have never felt myself marginalized by attending an ethnic parish.  Maybe its because I grew up an ":ethnic" and don't feel uncomfortable around others who have ethnicity.  I know that some converts to the OC are %100, fanatically anti ethnic and demand the complete Americanization of every parish they attend.  There are also cradles who insist on complete ethnicity to the point that all outsiders are unwelcome in their parishes (although, from my experience, the l;latter is no longer as common as it once was).  Both are not the best solution to how to make Orthodoxy "work" in the USA.  we need to be open and respectful to eachother but not tot he point of excluding who we are as a people and our priceless heritage of faith.

Thank you! Robb is right on point for those of us who were born into the faith, and still are involved in an ethnic parish or in the maintenance of our cultural traditions. There is room in the Church for all and in the United States in particular which is a culture made up of many cultures. But I agree, those who would require ethnicity as an admission pass are as way off the mark as are those seeking a true 'American' (i.e. reject all ethnic traits) church.  It is ironic that the idea of Americanizing the Roman church was  Archbishop Ireland's passion and that passion led to the return of hundreds of thousands of Eastern European immigrants to the Orthodox Church over the following seventy five years.! If you don't know history, you are condemned to repeat its errors. 
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 06:09:10 PM
Pagan Rome + Christian persecution + Roman Catholicism  +  Papal inquisitions (more Christian murders) + Ecumenism = NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE ANTI-CHRIST  Nothing New Under the Sun
There. I have fixed it. :)
We must not operate either out of fear nor panic, as I see most people with "apocalyptic" ideas do. Why should the Christians in the days of the Antichrist do anything different to the Christians of the first, second, third.......21st centuries? Our duty is is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and body and to love our neighbour as ourself. Nothing in this duty of ours changes even if we are standing in the throne-room of the Antichrist himself. Our duty as Christians is still the same no matter what, so why the panic? And if we are weak and experience panic in difficult situations, we should at least try not to communicate our panic to others.




Because ROMAN CATHOLICISM IS A HERETICAL CHURCH, A FAKE, A FRAUD, A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING

ITS NOT REAL CHRISTIANITY

ONLY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY IS REAL CHRISTIANITY, AND EVEN THAT IS AFLAME FROM HAVING COMMUNION WITH HERETICS (THE 'HOLY' POPE).
The goal of this whole ecumenism is to bring about a new world order.
Here is the truth of the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOGQVvEU8vY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGjxtEn_UXA&feature=related

Well people should realize these matters, im not acting out of 'panic' its just truth, and people need to know the truth and not let themselves be deceived:

2Pet. 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Matt. 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.


Pope visit synogonue?!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/17/italy.pope.synagigue/index.html

Something really fishy here.
2Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?


Phil. 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ignatius on January 26, 2010, 06:22:01 PM
Because ROMAN CATHOLICISM IS A HERETICAL CHURCH, A FAKE, A FRAUD, A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING

ITS NOT REAL CHRISTIANITY

ONLY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY IS REAL CHRISTIANITY, AND EVEN THAT IS AFLAME FROM HAVING COMMUNION WITH HERETICS (THE 'HOLY' POPE).

Pope visit synogonue?!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/17/italy.pope.synagigue/index.html

Something really fishy here.
2Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?


Phil. 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

So let me understand what you are saying here... because the Pope 'visited' a Jewish Synagogue that he is 'yoked'... knowing that this passage is out of context could you share with us the original intent of this text?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on January 26, 2010, 06:33:01 PM
The goal of this whole ecumenism is to bring about a new world order.

I hate to break it to you but the merger of various Churches and faiths is not going to bring about a "new world order".  We've seen various Churches and religion institutions continue to lose influence over the general public (with certain exceptions), and this is likely a trend that will continue.  Even in a world with a "First Amalgamated Church" like in Futurama, it would not have the ability to form some all-powerful collective that will bring about some sort of apocalypse.  It would pontificate to a public that really wasn't all too interested in listening.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2010, 06:35:27 PM
The goal of this whole ecumenism is to bring about a new world order.

I hate to break it to you but the merger of various Churches and faiths is not going to bring about a "new world order".  We've seen various Churches and religion institutions continue to lose influence over the general public (with certain exceptions), and this is likely a trend that will continue.  
The reports of the demise of religion in the modern world are greatly exagerated.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on January 26, 2010, 06:37:34 PM
The reports of the demise of religion in the modern world are greatly exagerated.
I suppose I meant organised religion more.  Everyday you run into more 'spiritual' people rather than people who adhere to any sort of Church (other than culturally, maybe).
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2010, 06:43:32 PM
The reports of the demise of religion in the modern world are greatly exagerated.
I suppose I meant organised religion more.  Everyday you run into more 'spiritual' people rather than people who adhere to any sort of Church (other than culturally, maybe).
No, I meant organized religion.  "spiritual people" are usually too airheaded to have any influence, any lasting influence that is.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 26, 2010, 07:07:14 PM
PHILIP, Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of All North America

..." I believe that Canon 28, historically, is a contextual canon and not a dogmatic one; it gave the city of Constantinople certain rights as the New Rome for secular, political reasons because it was the seat of the emperor."...

Do you all agree with him?

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ozgeorge on January 26, 2010, 07:09:55 PM
Pagan Rome + Christian persecution + Roman Catholicism  +  Papal inquisitions (more Christian murders) + Ecumenism = NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE ANTI-CHRIST  Nothing New Under the Sun
There. I have fixed it. :)
We must not operate either out of fear nor panic, as I see most people with "apocalyptic" ideas do. Why should the Christians in the days of the Antichrist do anything different to the Christians of the first, second, third.......21st centuries? Our duty is is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and body and to love our neighbour as ourself. Nothing in this duty of ours changes even if we are standing in the throne-room of the Antichrist himself. Our duty as Christians is still the same no matter what, so why the panic? And if we are weak and experience panic in difficult situations, we should at least try not to communicate our panic to others.




Because ROMAN CATHOLICISM IS A HERETICAL CHURCH, A FAKE, A FRAUD, A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING
Is this why you are panicking? I ask because you write this in response to my post in which I said there is absolutely no reason to panic, even if we are in the throne-room of the Antichrist because nothing has changed for us as far as our duties as Christians go. So why did you begin your response with the word "Because"? Are you saying that we should be fearful and panic? If so, I completely disagree. We who are Orthodox Christians are called to Love and St. John says: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." (1 John 4:18)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ozgeorge on January 26, 2010, 07:14:58 PM
PHILIP, Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of All North America

..." I believe that Canon 28, historically, is a contextual canon and not a dogmatic one; it gave the city of Constantinople certain rights as the New Rome for secular, political reasons because it was the seat of the emperor."...

Do you all agree with him?

Of course I agree. Jurisdiction has never been a matter of dogma for us- only for you guys. :D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 07:28:44 PM
I agree that the canon is not a dogmatic matter. I would be of that opinion if I was EO.

However, identifying rather with the OO I have no inherent devotion to it, it being a canon of a council which I reject.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 07:29:26 PM
Because ROMAN CATHOLICISM IS A HERETICAL CHURCH, A FAKE, A FRAUD, A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING

ITS NOT REAL CHRISTIANITY

ONLY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY IS REAL CHRISTIANITY, AND EVEN THAT IS AFLAME FROM HAVING COMMUNION WITH HERETICS (THE 'HOLY' POPE).

Pope visit synogonue?!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/17/italy.pope.synagigue/index.html

Something really fishy here.
2Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?


Phil. 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

So let me understand what you are saying here... because the Pope 'visited' a Jewish Synagogue that he is 'yoked'... knowing that this passage is out of context could you share with us the original intent of this text?

The pope is the one who has united all religions into one global religion, which is the religion of the anti-christ.
Ecumenism is one of the foundations for the NWO

Now this cannot be refuted:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1161.cfm

It is true, we have been yoked together with unbelievers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGjxtEn_UXA
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 07:39:29 PM
The goal of this whole ecumenism is to bring about a new world order.

I hate to break it to you but the merger of various Churches and faiths is not going to bring about a "new world order".  We've seen various Churches and religion institutions continue to lose influence over the general public (with certain exceptions), and this is likely a trend that will continue.  
The reports of the demise of religion in the modern world are greatly exagerated.

Thats not what this guy says, thats not the truth of the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGjxtEn_UXA

"Man, you live in the ALLdelusion of the ecumenism, because all the heresies are gathered in the ecumenism''



http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_rome.aspx
http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/MOM%2008%202007.htm
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 26, 2010, 07:41:41 PM
My, hasn't this thread become fun. This is page is exactly what keeps most of Catholics unintereseted in investigating Eastern Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 07:44:09 PM

My, hasn't this thread become fun. This is page is exactly what keeps most of Catholics unintereseted in investigating Eastern Orthodoxy.

Well, he does appear to be Old Calendarist.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 26, 2010, 07:45:55 PM

My, hasn't this thread become fun. This is page is exactly what keeps most of Catholics unintereseted in investigating Eastern Orthodoxy.

Well, he does appear to be Old Calendarist.
True, but I am also referring to the triumphalism found in Irish Hermit's post. It makes think, "is that what Eastern Orthodoxy does to a person?"
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 07:46:57 PM
Zealots of Orthodoxy - Part of Chapter 52 from Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works
Concerning Hasty and False Union with Rome
by Hieromonk Damascene

Know that we must serve, not the times, but God.
—St. Athanasius the Great 1

The Sergianist spirit of legalism and compromise with the spirit of this world is everywhere in the Orthodox Church today. But we are called to be soldiers of Christ in spite of this!
—Fr. Seraphim Rose, 1980 2
Related Articles
Webmaster’s Picks

None for this article right now, though you may find links to other articles in the text itself.
Google Results

No results returned. This may be due to a temporary Google Search Service problem or because the site has exceeded its daily limit. Please try again later or use the link, below.
More related articles on Google!...

In the defense of Orthodoxy against compromise, the chief issue of the day was seen to be ecumenism. According to the understanding of the ancient Church, the word oikoumne (the whole inhabited earth) had been used to refer to the confirming of all peoples in the fullness and purity of Truth; but in the modern age this meaning had been changed into just the opposite—the watering down and glossing over of saving truths for the sake of outward unity with the non-Orthodox. To Eugene, of course, this was one more preparation for the world unity of Antichrist, about which the Holy Fathers had clearly written. Throughout history, countless confessors had died to preserve the Church free from theological error, to maintain her purity as the Ark of salvation. And now some of the leading Orthodox hierarchs, according to their enlightened modern understanding, were trying to overlook these errors and were seeking ways to amalgamate with those who held them.

At this time, the most visible Orthodox ecumenist was the Patriarch of Constantinople himself, Athenagoras I. Meeting with Pope Paul VI in the Holy Land in 1963, he began to steer a course of non-doctrinally oriented ecumenical dialogue, asserting, Let the dogmas be placed in the storeroom, and, The age of Dogma has passed. 3 In December of 1965, through an act of mutual pardon made in conjunction with Pope Paul VI, he attempted to unite the Orthodox and Roman Churches—without first requiring that the latter renounce its false doctrines. As one of his advisors in his Patriarchate later wrote: The Schism of A.D. 1054, which has divided the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, is no longer valid. It has been erased from the history and life of the two Churches by the mutual agreement and signatures of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I, and the Patriarch of the West, Pope Paul W. 4 In December of 1968, Patriarch Athenagoras announced that he had inserted Pope Paul VIs name into the Diptychs, a therefore signifying that the Pope was in communion with the Orthodox Church.

Since Orthodoxy has no single infallible head like Roman Catholicism, the Patriarch could not really accomplish this without the common consent of the Orthodox world. There were some who hailed Patriarch Athenagoras as a prophet of a new age, even calling for his canonization while he was still alive, but most of the Local Orthodox Churches did not go along with him. As in former eras when hierarchs betrayed the Orthodox Faith, those who truly loved that Faith remained vigilant and thereby guarded it against theological and dogmatic taint. Among the most prominent opponents of Patriarch Athenagoras unionist program were the chief hierarch of the Orthodox Church of Greece, Archbishop Chrysostomos; the clairvoyant and miracle-working Greek elder, Archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos (+1980); and the renowned Serbian theologian, Archimandrite Justin Popovich (+1979). b

During the years 1966 to 1969, Eugene and Gleb published articles in The Orthodox Word showing how Patriarch Athenagoras had gone astray and calling him to return to genuine Orthodoxy 6 In order to place contemporary events in historical perspective, in 1967 they also published material by and about St. Mark of Ephesus, the great confessor of Orthodoxy who in the fifteenth century had thwarted an attempt to unite the Orthodox Faith with Latin error at the false Council of Florence. 7

Recalling the initial response to their articles about Patriarch Athenagoras, Eugene later wrote: In our early issues when we began to get complaints about being so outspoken about Patriarch Athenagoras ... etc., we went to Viadika John in some doubt—perhaps we really shouldnt be so outspoken? But glory be to God, Vladika John fully supported us and blessed us to continue in the same spirit. 8

Since they lived in America, the brothers also felt obliged to publish pleas to the chief hierarch of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Archbishop lakovos. Calling Patriarch Athenagoras the spiritual father of the renaissance of Orthodoxy; 9 Archbishop lakovos closely followed his policies, participating in various ecumenical events and services.

 

Being the philosopher that he was, Eugene was not satisfied to merely know about the errors of modern ecumenism, to know that they were foreign to the consciousness of the true Church of Christ. He wanted to go deeper, to discern why people like Patriarch Athenagoras and Archbishop lakovos believed as they did, what caused this obvious reorientation of the traditional view of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The statements of these hierarchs themselves gave him a clue.

We have seen how Eugene felt about the New Christianity; the scarcely disguised humanism and worldly idealism of contemporary Roman popes. One can imagine, then, how it disturbed him to witness hierarchs of his own Orthodox Church following the lead of these popes, espousing the very same fashionable ideas. Behind these ideas, Eugene saw what in the early 1960s he had identified as the first corollary of Nihilism: the concept of the inauguration of a new age, a new kind of time.

In a letter of 1970, Eugene wrote to a priest who had offered to compose an article on the ideas of Patriarch Athenagoras and Archbishop Iakovos:

    (Several years ago I myself began an investigation into what might be called the basic philosophy of the twentieth century. This exists now partly in unfinished manuscript, partly in my mind; but I pursued the question far enough, I think, to discover that there is, after all, such a basic philosophy in spite of all the anarchy of modern thought. And once I had grasped the essence of this philosophy (which, I believe, was expressed most clearly by Nietzsche and by a character of Dostoyevsky in the phrase: God is dead, therefore man becomes God and everything is possible—the heart of modern nihilism, anarchism, and anti-Christianity) everything else fell into place, and modern philosophers, writers, artists, etc., became understandable as more or less clearly, more or less directly, expressing this philosophy.

    And so it was that the other day, as I was reading Archbishop Iakovos article in the July-August Orthodox Observer: A New Epoch? that I suddenly felt that I had found an insight into the essence of lakovism. Is not, indeed, the basic heresy chiliasm? What else, indeed, could justify such immense changes and monstrous perversions in Orthodoxy except the concept that we are entering entirely new historical circumstances, an entirely new kind of time, in which the concepts of the past are no longer relevant, but we must be guided by the voices of the new time? Does not Fr. Patrinacos, in past issues of the Orthodox Observer, justify Patriarch Athenagoras—not as theologian, not as traditionalist, but precisely as prophet, as one whose heresies cannot be condemned because he already lives in the new time, ahead of his own times? Patriarch Athenagoras himself has been quoted as speaking of the coming of the Third Age of the Holy Spirit—a clearly chiliastic idea which has its chief recent champion in N. Berdyaev, and can be traced back directly to Joachim of Fiore, and indirectly to the Montanists. The whole idea of a new age, of course, penetrates every fiber of the last two centuries with their preoccupation with progress, and is the key idea of the very concept of Revolution (from French to Bolshevik), is the central idea of modern occultism (visible on the popular level in todays talk of the age of Aquarius, the astrological post-Christian age), and has owed its spread probably chiefly to Freemasonry (theres a Scottish Rite publication in America called New Age). c (I regret to say that the whole philosophy is also present in the American dollar bill with its masonic heritage, with its novus ordo seclorum and its unfinished pyramid, awaiting the thirteenth stone on top!) In Christian terms, it is the philosophy of Antichrist, the one who will turn the world upside down and change the times and seasons.... And the whole concept of ecumenism is, of course, permeated with this heresy and the refounding of the Church. d

    The recent thought of Constantinople (to give it a dignified name!) is full either of outright identification of the Kingdom of Heaven with the new epoch (the wolf lying down with the lamb) or of emphasis on an entirely new kind of time and/or Christianity that makes previous Christian standards obsolete: e new morality, new religion, springtime of Christianity, refounding the Church, the need no longer to pray for crops or weather because Man controls these now, f etc.

    How appropriate, too, for the chiliast cause that we live (since 1917) in the post-Constantinian age g for it was at the beginning of that age, i.e., at the time of the golden age of the Fathers, that the heresy of chiliasm was crushed., h And indeed, together with the Revolutions that have toppled the Constantinian era, we have seen a reform of Christianity that does away with the Church as an instrument of Gods grace for mens eternal salvation and replaces it with the social gospel. Archbishop lakovos article has not one word about salvation, but is concerned only for the world. 10

Endnotes

The following abbreviations have been used in these Notes:

ER—Eugene Rose

FSR—Fr. Seraphim Rose

LER—Letter of Eugene Rose

OW—The Orthodox Word

Letter, Journal and Chronicle dates are according to the civil calendar, except where a Church feast day is indicated, in which case both the Church (Julian or "Old" Calendar) and civil (Gregorian or "New" Calendar) dates are given.

1. St. Athanasius the Great, Letter to Dracontius.

2. FSR, The Orthodox Revival in Russia as an Inspiration for American Orthodoxy, a talk given on Sept. 1, 1980, at the University of California, Santa Cruz. In OW no. 138 (1988), P. 45.

3. Constantine Cavarnos, Ecumenism Examined (Belmont, Mass.: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1996), pp. 11, 28-30. Akropolis, June 29, 1963.

4. Archbishop Athenagoras Kokkinakis, The Thyateira Confession (Leighton Buzzard, Great Britain: The Faith Press, 1975), pp. 28, 68.

5. See Archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos, A Desperate Appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch, OW no. 18 (1968), pp. 11-20.

6. The articles began to be published in OW no. 7 (Jan.-Feb., 1966), including ER, Orthodoxy in the Contemporary World: The Latest Step Toward Union.

7. Archimandrite Amvrosy Pogodin, St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence, OW no. 12 (1967), pp. 2-14; no. 13 (1967), pp. 45-52; no. 14 (1967), pp. 89-102; Encyclical Letter of St. Mark of Ephesus, OW, no. 13(1967), pp. 53-59; and Address of St. Mark of Ephesus on the Day of His Death, OW, no. 14 (1967), pp. 103-106.

8. LFSR to Fr. Neketas Palassis, June 25, 1972.

9. The Orthodox Observer, Feb. 1969. Quoted in ER, Translators Preface to An Open Letter to His Eminence lakovos, Greek Archbishop of North and South America, OW, 117 no.25 (1969), p.72.

10. LER to Fr. Michael, Sept. 12, 1970.
Footnotes

Webmaster note: These appeared as asterisks in the book.

a. Diptychs: official commemoration lists, kept by each Patriarch, which contain the names of the other Patriarchs whom he recognizes as Orthodox.

b. Now venerated as a saint in Serbia, Archimandrite Justin was a friend of Archbishop John Maximovitch when the latter lived in Serbia.

c. How prevalent has this term become in the years since Eugene wrote this!

d. In his 1967 Christmas message, Patriarch Athenagoras wrote: In the movement for union, it is not a question of one Church moving towards the other; rather, let us all together refound the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, coexisting in the East and the West.

e. After his first meeting with Pope Paul VI in 1963, Patriarch Athenagoras told an Italian news agency: I was especially impressed by the fact that the Pontiff has completely forgotten the ugly past and has made it possible for us to inaugurate a new epoch. Paul VI and I are reaping the firstfruits of this new epoch. (Katholiki no. 1375, Feb. 5, 1964.)

f. This last statement was made by the above-mentioned Fr. Patrinacos in The Orthodox Observer.

g. The Constantinian era began in the fourth century with the establishment of Orthodox Christian monarchy in Constantinople under Emperor Constantine; it ended in 1917 with the fall of the Orthodox monarchy of Moscow, the Third Rome, the successor of Constantinople.

h. At the Second Ecumenical Council of A.D, 381 (the first Council of Constantinople), the Holy Fathers condemned the heresy of chiliasm. They deliberately inserted an article in the Nicean Creed (and His Kingdom shall have no end) to counteract the false teaching that Christ will have a political, earthly reign of a thousand years. In more recent times chiliasm has become widespread in Protestant churches, which have rejected the Christianity of the Constantinian era (prior to the Reformation). Their expectations put them in danger of following Antichrist, who will set up an earthly Kingdom, claiming to be Christ.

From Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works (Platina, CA: St. Herman Press), pp. 394-398. Copyright 2003 by the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, California. Posted on 1/2/2007.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2010, 07:50:35 PM
PHILIP, Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of All North America

..." I believe that Canon 28, historically, is a contextual canon and not a dogmatic one; it gave the city of Constantinople certain rights as the New Rome for secular, political reasons because it was the seat of the emperor."...

Do you all agree with him?


Of course: the Fathers were quite explicit on their reasoning on the elevation of New (and Old) Rome.  The plain language shows that.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: ozgeorge on January 26, 2010, 08:10:12 PM
The pope is the one who has united all religions into one global religion, which is the religion of the anti-christ.
Really? So there are no more Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Protestants, Hare Krishnas, Zoroastrians....They are all one religion now are they?

Ecumenism is one of the foundations for the NWO
Even if that were true, you still have to prove that the "New World Order" exists and define what it is.

Now this cannot be refuted:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1161.cfm
Um, yes, it is quite easily refuted. Firstly, there is no such thing as a "Shiva Priestess". Secondly, this is actually a photograph of the Papal Mass in India. The woman is giving the pope the traditional Indian greeting as an honoured guest by applying the tika to his forehead, and she is actually marking him with the sign of the Cross.

It is true, we have been yoked together with unbelievers
So this is about race and not Faith. Because Pope John Paul II allowed an Indian Roman Catholic Woman to greet him according to her custom, he is unequally yoked with unbelievers?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 08:39:25 PM
The pope is the one who has united all religions into one global religion, which is the religion of the anti-christ.
Really? So there are no more Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Protestants, Hare Krishnas, Zoroastrians....They are all one religion now are they?

Ecumenism is one of the foundations for the NWO
Even if that were true, you still have to prove that the "New World Order" exists and define what it is.

Now this cannot be refuted:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1161.cfm
Um, yes, it is quite easily refuted. Firstly, there is no such thing as a "Shiva Priestess". Secondly, this is actually a photograph of the Papal Mass in India. The woman is giving the pope the traditional Indian greeting as an honoured guest by applying the tika to his forehead, and she is actually marking him with the sign of the Cross.

It is true, we have been yoked together with unbelievers
So this is about race and not Faith. Because Pope John Paul II allowed an Indian Roman Catholic Woman to greet him according to her custom, he is unequally yoked with unbelievers?

She's Roman Catholic?!
I don't think so.

Why would we ever need to to united together anyways?

CONTROL, POWER, HERESIES.

Explain this:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_JP2_photos.html
And This:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m012rpRatzingerInMosque.html

My goodness look, dont be stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rTOjUVIOfg

You are out of your mind to think it was, ''The sign of the cross'' or that ''She was Catholic''

YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND.

May Christ help you.


http://www.romancatholicism.org/101-john-paul.htm

Rev. 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
Rev. 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
Rev. 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev. 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev. 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Rev. 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 26, 2010, 08:44:54 PM
^Watching this is like watching a train wreck. You know you don't want to see the devestation, but you can't help but look.  ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 08:45:12 PM
Even the Catholics themselves know that its a fraud, and they are heretics themselves!

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/heresy_of_antipopes_john_paul_ii_and_benedict_xvi.php

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 26, 2010, 08:50:59 PM
Even the Catholics themselves know that its a fraud, and they are heretics themselves!

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/heresy_of_antipopes_john_paul_ii_and_benedict_xvi.php


That's it. You have convinced me. I am converting.  ::)
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 08:52:27 PM
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g09htDalaiLamaMexico_Vennari.html

2Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Cor. 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Cor. 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Cor. 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Cor. 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on January 26, 2010, 08:55:45 PM
Even the Catholics themselves know that its a fraud, and they are heretics themselves!

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/heresy_of_antipopes_john_paul_ii_and_benedict_xvi.php

If you keep quoting sedevacantists, can Catholic's quote old believers and other Orthodox groups that would consider your Church graceless?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Papist on January 26, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
I have found that everyone is considered a graceless, schismatic, heretic by someone.   :D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on January 26, 2010, 08:58:08 PM
I have found that everyone is considered a graceless, schismatic, heretic by someone.   :D

It's what makes the world go round. :P
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 09:01:57 PM
The Orthodox church is the only true church.
Catholicism is heretical and not a real church.
Its a disguise for the antichrist, to deceive the nations.
Nothing in the orthodox liturgies can be changed, it is perfect, absolutely perfeect.
St john Chrysostom, St Gregory the Great and St Basil the Great, are some of the greatest, builders of the church (the real church, not the corrupt roman one).

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

The true celebration of Christ's sacrifice and victory.


Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 26, 2010, 09:20:31 PM
Quote
St john Chrysostom, St Gregory the Great and St Basil the Great, are some of the greatest, builders of the church (the real church, not the corrupt roman one).

What? St. Gregory the Great, that lover of papal supremacy? Anathema!  :P
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 09:33:48 PM

My, hasn't this thread become fun. This is page is exactly what keeps most of Catholics unintereseted in investigating Eastern Orthodoxy.

Well, he does appear to be Old Calendarist.
True, but I am also referring to the triumphalism found in Irish Hermit's post. It makes think, "is that what Eastern Orthodoxy does to a person?"

I don't see what the problem with IH's posts is.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 09:37:09 PM

Why would we ever need to to united together anyways?

A desire for a particular form of religious union is inherent to Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 09:37:36 PM
Quote
St john Chrysostom, St Gregory the Great and St Basil the Great, are some of the greatest, builders of the church (the real church, not the corrupt roman one).

What? St. Gregory the Great, that lover of papal supremacy? Anathema!  :P

Oops i mean Gregory of Nazianzus
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 09:38:47 PM
Even the Catholics themselves know that its a fraud, and they are heretics themselves!

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/heresy_of_antipopes_john_paul_ii_and_benedict_xvi.php

If you keep quoting sedevacantists, can Catholic's quote old believers and other Orthodox groups that would consider your Church graceless?

I don't know that we even know what his church is.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Riddikulus on January 26, 2010, 09:39:12 PM
Pagan Rome + Christian persecution + Roman Catholicism  +  Papal inquisitions (more Christian murders) + Ecumenism = NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE KINGDOM OF THE ANTI-CHRIST  Nothing New Under the Sun
There. I have fixed it. :)
We must not operate either out of fear nor panic, as I see most people with "apocalyptic" ideas do. Why should the Christians in the days of the Antichrist do anything different to the Christians of the first, second, third.......21st centuries? Our duty is is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and body and to love our neighbour as ourself. Nothing in this duty of ours changes even if we are standing in the throne-room of the Antichrist himself. Our duty as Christians is still the same no matter what, so why the panic? And if we are weak and experience panic in difficult situations, we should at least try not to communicate our panic to others.



So your advice, ozgeorge, is DON'T PANIC ?  ;D
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 09:40:20 PM

Why would we ever need to to united together anyways?

A desire for a particular form of religious union is inherent to Orthodoxy.

Where did you hear that from?

Only the antichrist would want unity in religion.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 09:40:33 PM

The Orthodox church is the only true church.
Catholicism is heretical and not a real church.

These claims are contradictory.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 09:41:23 PM
Quote
St john Chrysostom, St Gregory the Great and St Basil the Great, are some of the greatest, builders of the church (the real church, not the corrupt roman one).

What? St. Gregory the Great, that lover of papal supremacy? Anathema!  :P

What?! Last time I checked Gregory the Great was one of the major opponents of papal supremacy.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 09:41:51 PM
Quote
St john Chrysostom, St Gregory the Great and St Basil the Great, are some of the greatest, builders of the church (the real church, not the corrupt roman one).

What? St. Gregory the Great, that lover of papal supremacy? Anathema!  :P

Oops i mean Gregory of Nazianzus

Also called Gregory the Theologian.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Riddikulus on January 26, 2010, 09:43:00 PM
I have found that everyone is considered a graceless, schismatic, heretic by someone.   :D

It's what makes the world go round. :P

And it saves one the task of looking too closely at one's own spiritual circumstance.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 09:44:59 PM

Why would we ever need to to united together anyways?

A desire for a particular form of religious union is inherent to Orthodoxy.

Where did you hear that from?

Only the antichrist would want unity in religion.


"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live"
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 26, 2010, 09:47:23 PM
Quote
St john Chrysostom, St Gregory the Great and St Basil the Great, are some of the greatest, builders of the church (the real church, not the corrupt roman one).

What? St. Gregory the Great, that lover of papal supremacy? Anathema!  :P

What?! Last time I checked Gregory the Great was one of the major opponents of papal supremacy.

Here's one of the things (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/pope-st-gregory-great-c-540-604-on.html) that popped up for me in a Google search, which has some quotes such as the following from St. Gregory:

"To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles... Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him..."
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Asteriktos on January 26, 2010, 09:49:29 PM
Quote
St john Chrysostom, St Gregory the Great and St Basil the Great, are some of the greatest, builders of the church (the real church, not the corrupt roman one).

What? St. Gregory the Great, that lover of papal supremacy? Anathema!  :P

Oops i mean Gregory of Nazianzus

Well that one would be an interesting choice as well, since no Eastern Orthodox Church uses the liturgy attributed to him, so far as I know. And you don't strike me as being the type that would count Oriental Orthodox among "true" Orthodox Christians...?
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: deusveritasest on January 26, 2010, 09:51:53 PM
Quote
St john Chrysostom, St Gregory the Great and St Basil the Great, are some of the greatest, builders of the church (the real church, not the corrupt roman one).

What? St. Gregory the Great, that lover of papal supremacy? Anathema!  :P

What?! Last time I checked Gregory the Great was one of the major opponents of papal supremacy.

Here's one of the things (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/pope-st-gregory-great-c-540-604-on.html) that popped up for me in a Google search, which has some quotes such as the following from St. Gregory:

"To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles... Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him..."

You should probably read up more on Gregory the Great. Elsewhere he explicitly stated that he believed that there were three Petrine sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Riddikulus on January 26, 2010, 09:52:00 PM

Why would we ever need to to united together anyways?

A desire for a particular form of religious union is inherent to Orthodoxy.

Where did you hear that from?

Only the antichrist would want unity in religion.


Acts 4:32: "The community of believers was of one heart and one mind ..."

1 Corinth 1:10: "I urge you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."

Philippians 1:27: "...that you are standing firm in one Spirit, with one mind struggling together for the faith of the Gospel, not intimidated in any way by your opponents."

Philippians 2:2: "...complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking of one thing."

1 Peter 3:8: "Finally, all of you, be of one mind ..."

Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
Post by: Get_Behind_Me_Satan on January 26, 2010, 09:52:11 PM
I want everyone to listen to AncientFaith Radio:
Its trully great
http://ancientfaith.com/

We cant remain silent concerning the Pan Heresy of Ecumenism, a heresy which embraces all heresies.

The most dangerous heresy of all time:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_rome.aspx

Videos Here:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Orthodox%20ecumenism&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#
Title: Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)