OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: jah777 on August 11, 2011, 10:35:25 AM

Title: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: jah777 on August 11, 2011, 10:35:25 AM
Here is an article recently posted concerning the Vatican and the Unia, by Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos, esteemed Dean Emeritus of the Athens School of Theology.

http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2011/08/10/20110810aVaticanTorpedo%20Folder/20110810aVaticanTorpedo.pdf

More about Fr. George:

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

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: mike on August 11, 2011, 10:54:55 AM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: J Michael on August 11, 2011, 10:59:08 AM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

Indeed!
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 11, 2011, 11:07:11 AM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.
How could that be, as it outlawed Orthodoxy, executed Orthodox (e.g. St. Athanasius of Brest), and seized all their Churches?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: mike on August 11, 2011, 11:09:56 AM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.
How could that be, as it outlawed Orthodoxy, executed Orthodox (e.g. St. Athanasius of Brest), and seized all their Churches?

Most of the ordinary people has not noticed Unia. Exceptions were persecuted.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 12, 2011, 11:30:28 AM
Michal is right.

This points out EXACTLY what I have said over and over again regarding the Unia, Greek Catholics, those of us who came home to the Orthodox Church, the experience of peoples impacted by the various Unia and the great struggles that both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox faithful have had to endure under both the yoke of Romanism and the expectations of the Orthodox, primarily in my case the Russians.

Neither the Romans nor the Orthodox who come from outside of OUR experience fully comprehend, understand or even try to understand the entire issue.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Papist on August 12, 2011, 11:32:57 AM
Michal is right.

This points out EXACTLY what I have said over and over again regarding the Unia, Greek Catholics, those of us who came home to the Orthodox Church, the experience of peoples impacted by the various Unia and the great struggles that both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox faithful have had to endure under both the yoke of Romanism and the expectations of the Orthodox, primarily in my case the Russians.

Neither the Romans nor the Orthodox who come from outside of OUR experience fully comprehend, understand or even try to understand the entire issue.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Wyatt on August 12, 2011, 02:20:10 PM
Michal is right.

This points out EXACTLY what I have said over and over again regarding the Unia, Greek Catholics, those of us who came home to the Orthodox Church, the experience of peoples impacted by the various Unia and the great struggles that both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox faithful have had to endure under both the yoke of Romanism and the expectations of the Orthodox, primarily in my case the Russians.

Neither the Romans nor the Orthodox who come from outside of OUR experience fully comprehend, understand or even try to understand the entire issue.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it.
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 12, 2011, 10:21:55 PM
Michal is right.

This points out EXACTLY what I have said over and over again regarding the Unia, Greek Catholics, those of us who came home to the Orthodox Church, the experience of peoples impacted by the various Unia and the great struggles that both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox faithful have had to endure under both the yoke of Romanism and the expectations of the Orthodox, primarily in my case the Russians.

Neither the Romans nor the Orthodox who come from outside of OUR experience fully comprehend, understand or even try to understand the entire issue.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't get it.
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.

Well, we agree on something! We Orthodox don't get the argument that one can be in full communion with Rome without accepting the entirety of the Magesterium. There are critical doctrinal differences among us that preclude our being in communion with each other. I don't think that there is a 'pick and choose' option available to either the Orthodox or the Romans. If there were such an option, we wouldn't still be divided after 1000 years!
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 12, 2011, 10:25:35 PM
I don't think this is going to end well...
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: biro on August 12, 2011, 10:26:32 PM
I don't think this is going to end well...

I have the same feeling.  ???
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 12, 2011, 10:34:31 PM
So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited!  I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other.

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 12, 2011, 10:39:05 PM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. :P I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on. :)

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :( 

God bless.

LOL
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Wyatt on August 12, 2011, 10:44:10 PM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :(  

God bless.
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 12, 2011, 10:44:45 PM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. :P I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on. :)

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :( 

God bless.
Yes. I oftentimes wondered about that especially with our belief in the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. What exactly is meant by the declaration that we are ONE Church. I think that both Churches, EO and RC stretch things a bit here, but of course, there is a point to what is essential to the teaching of the Church and to what extent a teaching may be open to some interpretation. Take for example the teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church especially during the DL. Well, has it not been taught for 1900 years that this rule must be followed? Then all of a sudden, we see that it is disregarded by many women in the USA.  
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Schultz on August 12, 2011, 10:47:36 PM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :(  

God bless.
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Kind of like asking, "Which papal pronouncements are ex cathedra?".  If you don't like what one priest says, you can just ask another.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Wyatt on August 12, 2011, 10:48:21 PM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :(  

God bless.
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Kind of like asking, "Which papal pronouncements are ex cathedra?".  If you don't like what one priest says, you can just ask another.
Touche  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 12, 2011, 10:49:38 PM
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."
Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 12, 2011, 10:59:08 PM
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."
Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.
OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 12, 2011, 11:03:06 PM
OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?
That's a good question, but I am too ignorant to answer. I know there is a distinction between the two but I don't know what it is. But don't let my ignorance influence you, I am merely an Orthodox layperson. I am sure my more knowledgeable coreligionists can answer that question adequately for you. Sorry.  :-[
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 12, 2011, 11:33:46 PM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. :P I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on. :)

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :( 

God bless.
Yes. I oftentimes wondered about that especially with our belief in the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. What exactly is meant by the declaration that we are ONE Church. I think that both Churches, EO and RC stretch things a bit here, but of course, there is a point to what is essential to the teaching of the Church and to what extent a teaching may be open to some interpretation. Take for example the teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church especially during the DL. Well, has it not been taught for 1900 years that this rule must be followed? Then all of a sudden, we see that it is disregarded by many women in the USA.  
really got a thing about head coverings, huh.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9hKhUsgfQqc/SUgooNqZ_gI/AAAAAAAAAOs/hezkvlhitv0/s400/Mexican+Playboy+Virgin+Mary+Cover.jpg)
for more WARNING, the veil is all she is wearing
http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/12/medium_playboymary.jpeg
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 12, 2011, 11:36:31 PM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. :P I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on. :)

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :( 

God bless.
Yes. I oftentimes wondered about that especially with our belief in the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. What exactly is meant by the declaration that we are ONE Church. I think that both Churches, EO and RC stretch things a bit here, but of course, there is a point to what is essential to the teaching of the Church and to what extent a teaching may be open to some interpretation. Take for example the teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church especially during the DL. Well, has it not been taught for 1900 years that this rule must be followed? Then all of a sudden, we see that it is disregarded by many women in the USA.  
really got a thing about head coverings, huh.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9hKhUsgfQqc/SUgooNqZ_gI/AAAAAAAAAOs/hezkvlhitv0/s400/Mexican+Playboy+Virgin+Mary+Cover.jpg)
for more WARNING, the veil is all she is wearing
http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/12/medium_playboymary.jpeg
LOL. Nice one.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 12, 2011, 11:37:12 PM
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."
Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.
OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?
Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true.  Doctrine, what is held as true based on dogma.

To make a comparison with the common law, dogma is statute, doctrine case law.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 12, 2011, 11:41:58 PM
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."
Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.
OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?
Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true.  
I think your definition is a bit too general. Everyone recognises at all times that water is necessary for life, and that 1+1=2, but these would  not be called dogmas.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 12, 2011, 11:53:31 PM
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."
Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.
OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?
Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true.  
I think your definition is a bit too general. Everyone recognises at all times that water is necessary for life, and that 1+1=2, but these would  not be called dogmas.
I thought we were talking theology, not biology nor mathematics.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 12, 2011, 11:55:37 PM
^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 13, 2011, 12:49:07 AM
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."
Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.
OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?
Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true. 
I think your definition is a bit too general. Everyone recognises at all times that water is necessary for life, and that 1+1=2, but these would  not be called dogmas.
I thought we were talking theology, not biology nor mathematics.
Even for theology, your definition is still a bit too general. Not everyone at all times has recognised that Jesus was the second person of the Blessed Trinity. . Take Arius for example. Not everyone at all times has recognised that Mary was the Theotokos.
I would say that dogma are the authoritative, established, core teachings of the Church. It is a basic truth of the faith which the Church has declared must be held by the faithful.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 13, 2011, 01:09:52 AM
^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?
To take a guess: The doctrine that one has a right to defend oneself and one's family in the case of an attack? The doctrine that, if officially called by the state,  you have the right to serve on a jury and sit in judgment of someone?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 13, 2011, 10:01:13 AM
The Catholic church usually refers to dogmas and disciplines.
For example: 
Trinity is a dogma (eternal truth)
Celibate priests is a discipline (can change with time.  Rome could allow married.men to become priests.some day)
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2011, 10:07:21 AM
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."
Are you speaking of dogmatic issues? When it comes to dogma and praxis the Orthodox (both EO and OO) seem to be very consistent with each other, from what I've seen.
OK
Generally speaking, say to someone outside your Church, how would you explain to him the difference between dogma and doctrine. What would be the definition of dogma that you would give to him?
Dogma, something everyone, everywhere at all times have recognized as true. 
I think your definition is a bit too general. Everyone recognises at all times that water is necessary for life, and that 1+1=2, but these would  not be called dogmas.
I thought we were talking theology, not biology nor mathematics.
Even for theology, your definition is still a bit too general. Not everyone at all times has recognised that Jesus was the second person of the Blessed Trinity. . Take Arius for example. Not everyone at all times has recognised that Mary was the Theotokos.
Yes, then, as now, we call them heretics.  Their opinions do not count.

I would say that dogma are the authoritative, established, core teachings of the Church. It is a basic truth of the faith which the Church has declared must be held by the faithful.
I can run with that.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2011, 10:25:09 AM
^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?
Since we are in the season, I'd say the doctrine of the Assumption is the most dogmatic doctrine: not at the level of dogma like the Trinty, not always believed (at least by everyone:it was locally known in Jerusalem, but not being dogma, wasn't spread abroad in the Church's preaching), but true.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 13, 2011, 10:09:15 PM
^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?

In my one holy catholic and apostolic Church, doctrine is the deposit of faith, or those truths of the faith that are revealed to us through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Dogma are individual parts of that universal/whole/catholic deposit of faith that have been more clearly defined for us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

One is not in any way more true or necessary than any other: doctrine or dogma.  All dogma means is that a doctrinal truth is defined more clearly.

Mary
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2011, 11:17:35 PM
^So I assume that the Trinity would be recognized as 'dogma', but what would be an example of a 'doctrine'?

In my one holy catholic and apostolic Church, doctrine is the deposit of faith, or those truths of the faith that are revealed to us through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Dogma are individual parts of that universal/whole/catholic deposit of faith that have been more clearly defined for us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

One is not in any way more true or necessary than any other: doctrine or dogma.  All dogma means is that a doctrinal truth is defined more clearly.
you forgot "developed." You know, that knack the Vatican has for taking what is flat out denied and making into "the Gospel Truth."
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Shiny on August 13, 2011, 11:41:58 PM
(at least by everyone:it was locally known in Jerusalem, but not being dogma, wasn't spread abroad in the Church's preaching).

I'm surpised that wasn't dogma as soon as she was assumed. The Theotokos' assumption has always fascinated me and I wish I could learn more about it.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 13, 2011, 11:54:33 PM
(at least by everyone:it was locally known in Jerusalem, but not being dogma, wasn't spread abroad in the Church's preaching).

I'm surpised that wasn't dogma as soon as she was assumed.

Not central to the Gospel.  It's not like the Resurrection of Christ.  Just because something is true doesn't mean it has be be believed on penalty of damnation, as the Vatican has had it since 1950.

The Theotokos' assumption has always fascinated me and I wish I could learn more about it.
Somewhere I posted some examples of too much fasination being the reason why it wasn't published abroad.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 14, 2011, 04:27:08 AM
(http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/romzha.jpg)

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2011, 07:56:06 AM
(http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/romzha.jpg)

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.
Sits fine with me.
(http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/icons/Stt%20Alexis%20Toth.jpg)
I also
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wiKs9U-U2ok/SprYV3NYk-I/AAAAAAAAAKs/0So5zPViHn4/s320/cr3.jpg)
I vote aye
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jPc5hebaTs8/TIQ-zSaOphI/AAAAAAAAGoE/kDzVyYDmTjU/s1600/0904maxim.jpg)
"For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them...."I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.  Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."
All those in favor
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y5T533DfJwA/TXr6Ag0NwyI/AAAAAAAADLw/ND7vWfo5K4c/s1600/Anti-Catholic_pseudo-martyr_Athanasius_of_Brest-Litovsk_1597-1648.jpg)
Aye!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/3576912925_4ef8cce104.jpg)
All those opposed.
(http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/images/29.jpg)
No!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YC87epvokPc/RoIpiGLkMUI/AAAAAAAAC88/_8yW6CQdeJ4/s400/grodno.jpg)

The ayes have it.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/ShazafYnvBI/AAAAAAAAMb4/8RmF2OQKlh8/cyril_methodius.jpg)
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: IreneOlinyk on August 14, 2011, 10:44:03 AM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.
I agree with Michael.  I will look around for some good source material for you on the Union of Brest.  It really wasn't a union because of sobornost: the priests and laity refused to accept it.  And as for the so-called Articles of Brest: the Pope never even signed them.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: IreneOlinyk on August 14, 2011, 11:16:48 AM
jah777: there are some good history books around that discuss the Union of Brest written by historians (all connected with universites) who are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.  All agree with what Michael has written. It is unfortunate that the Greek orthodox writer did not consult some good history books.

here is a quote from Prof. P. R. Magosci's book:
Quote
    "It was at this critical juncture that relations between Ostroz'kyi and the prounion Orthodox bishops broke down. Instead of promoting Ostroz'kyi's allencompassing approach, Bishop Potii, together with Bishop Kyrylo Terlets'kyi of Luts'k (reigned 1585-1607), issued two letters of intent (December 1594 and June 1595) pledging allegiance to Rome. The letters of intent were then approved by the Polish king. In response, Ostroz'kyi condemned what he called 'our faithless pastors, the metropolitan and bishops, [who] through the evil and cunning work of the ever-malign devil [have become] tempted by the glories of this world, and blinded by their desire for pleasures ... have forsaken our holy patriarchs and gone over to the Latin side.' 2 Ostroz'kyi's criticism did have an effect, since even Bishop Balaban of L'viv, one of the earliest initiators of the movement, now repudiated the idea of union.
 
    Nevertheless, the pro-union bishops, joined by Metropolitan Mykhail Rahoza (reigned 1589-1599), pressed forward, and in June 1595, during an episcopal synod at Brest, they approved a document containing thirty-three articles that set forth their understanding of union with Rome. This document later came to be considered the 'constitution' of the Kievan metropolitanate for union with the church of Rome, and it addressed theological, liturgical, ritual, administrative, and interchurch matters. The underlying concern was that the union with Rome would not change Eastern church practices, such as use of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, the Slavonic rite, the Julian calendar, a married clergy, and administrative autonomy.
   
    In December 1595, Bishops Potii and Terlets'kyi took the two episcopal letters and the Brest articles to Rome . It is important to note that the pope neither approved nor rejected the proposed articles. Instead, on 23 December he issued a papal decree (Magnus Dominus et laudabilis) recognizing 'all sacred rites and ceremonies which the Ruthenian [Rus'] bishops and clergy use' as long as they were 'not opposed to the truth and doctrine of the Catholic faith.' 3 Thus, what later members of the Uniate or Greek Catholic church believed to be their historic rights guaranteed by the Union of Brest were nothing more than their own demands, which could be approved or rejected at the discretion of the pope …
 
Magocsi, Paul Robert. A History of Ukraine .
Toronto , ON , CAN: University of Toronto Press, 1996. p 165.

Here is a translation of a Primary Source sited in magci's book and also in a books by a Ukrainian Catholic professor, Russel Moroziuk.:
Quote
THE VIEWS OF PRINCE KOSTIANTYN  OSTROZ'KYI
 
In June 1595, just after the pro-union Orthodox hierarchs issued their second letter of intent and the constitution which outlined their understanding of church union with Rome , Prince Ostroz'kyi issued the following appeal to the people of Rus':
 
     “In these days, through the evil and cunning work of the ever-malign devil, the   chief   leaders of our faith, tempted by the glories of this world and blinded by their desire for pleasures, our faithless pastors, the metropolitan and the bishops, have forsaken our holy patriarchs and gone over to the Latin side. ... Changing into wolves they secretly agreed among themselves like the damned, like Judas the Betrayer of Christ with the Jews, to tear away the Orthodox Christians of this region without their knowledge and to drag them down to ruin. Because the majority of the population of this land, particularly the Orthodox Christians, consider me to a certain extent to be a defender of Orthodoxy and because I have fear before God and before you, dear brethren, to take any part of the blame on my head, I inform you all together and individually that I have determined to stand firmly, in an alliance with you, against these dangerous enemies of our salvation. What can be more shameless, more unjust, than when those six or seven persons, like robbers, plot secretly and forsake our pastors-patriarchs? Without asking us they entangle us in this betrayal, us the Orthodox, like mute curs. Why obey such persons? When the salt has lost its savor it should be cast out and trampled underfoot. ...”
 
SOURCE: Ivan Wlasowsky, Outline History of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Vol. I (New York and Bound Brook, N.J. 1974), p. 255.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: IreneOlinyk on August 14, 2011, 11:24:47 AM
Magcosi cites the letter from the prince in translation in his book as does Prof. Moziuk.  So the basice summary as Michael said is that some of the bishops wanted a union but the rest of the bishops, the priests & laity did not.  The Polish Roman Catholic king of course wanted the union.

here is a final quote:
Quote
     The basic polemic was as follows. The Roman Catholic king supported the union and the concept that the bishops, as leaders, must decide religious questions, and the people must follow. The Orthodox side countered that religious questions cannot be decided without the approval of the faithful; since the pro-
 
Magocsi, Paul Robert. A History of Ukraine .
Toronto , ON , CAN: University of Toronto Press, 1996. p 168.
 
 
Reformation, Counter Reformation, and the Union of Brest          Page 169
 
union bishops apparently did not have that approval, they had acted illegally and therefore had lost their authority as bishops. With the aid of local printing presses, there developed a spirited polemic on both sides, in which the leading thinkers of the time - Piotr Skarga and Bishop Potii for the Catholic-Uniate side, and Stefan Zyzanii, lurii Rohatynets', and Ivan Vyshens'kyi for the Orthodox side - participated.
 
      Not surprisingly, the king accepted the decisions of the pro-union bishops. Their agreement came to be known as the Union of Brest of 1596. In a sense, the Union of Brest was the equivalent in the cultural sphere of what had been achieved in the political sphere in 1569 with the Union of Lublin. While it is true that the creation of the new Uniate church may not have been what the Jesuits and other advocates of the Counter Reformation in Poland hoped to achieve, in the circumstances, given that outright conversion seemed an impossible goal, Uniatism appeared an acceptable compromise.
 
     With the Polish government on its side, some Uniate hierarchs, especially Bishop Potii of Volodymyr (who for his efforts on behalf of the union was made metropolitan of Kiev in 1599), confiscated property from the now-illegal Orthodox church and increased their pressure on the two remaining Orthodox bishops in the region, Balaban in L'viv and Kopystens'kyi in Przemysl, to join the union. In Volhynia, several dozen prominent
Orthodox nobles did join. The Orthodox cause was left in the hands of the brotherhoods and of magnates and gentry led by Prince Ostroz'kyi. The Orthodox nobles carried on their struggle in the local dietines and the Polish Diet, where they worked in alliance with the other beleaguered religious group, the Protestants. Their efforts were partially successful: in 1607 the Polish Diet granted the Orthodox church legal status once again and agreed not to interfere in the appointment of Orthodox hierarchs. But despite such protection, many Orthodox eparchial sees remained vacant, and in general, Orthodoxy was in a much weakened position vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic and Uniate churches, both of which had the full support of the king and certain other sectors of Polish society.
 
 
     Thus, within less than three decades, the Orthodox cultural revival, which had begun with such promise in the 1578, found itself in a situation in which the institution it defended seemed on the verge of disappearing. The valiant efforts of Rus' townspeople (through the brotherhoods) and magnates (through schools and printing presses) could not stem the overwhelming power of Polish society to attract, whether by means of its sociopolitical and secular cultural life or through the religious accommodation of the new Uniate church. In order to survive, Orthodoxy and the Rus' culture it represented needed some more powerful protector. That protector would be found among the lower echelons of society, which by the early seventeenth century had succeeded in creating an increasingly influential military and political force - the Cossacks.
 
Magocsi, Paul Robert. A History of Ukraine .
Toronto , ON , CAN: University of Toronto Press, 1996. p 169.

I belong to an e-mail discussion group and in May these quotes were sent around by e-mail to everyone involved in the discussion.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: katherine 2001 on August 14, 2011, 11:26:38 AM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem that your own communion has somewhat of a disunity in faith. With that considered, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize the EO for being so disunited. :P I am not saying this to be rude, so please don't get me wrong, I am simply raising a point for you to ponder on. :)

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :( 

God bless.
Yes. I oftentimes wondered about that especially with our belief in the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. What exactly is meant by the declaration that we are ONE Church. I think that both Churches, EO and RC stretch things a bit here, but of course, there is a point to what is essential to the teaching of the Church and to what extent a teaching may be open to some interpretation. Take for example the teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church especially during the DL. Well, has it not been taught for 1900 years that this rule must be followed? Then all of a sudden, we see that it is disregarded by many women in the USA.  
really got a thing about head coverings, huh.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9hKhUsgfQqc/SUgooNqZ_gI/AAAAAAAAAOs/hezkvlhitv0/s400/Mexican+Playboy+Virgin+Mary+Cover.jpg)
for more WARNING, the veil is all she is wearing
http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/12/medium_playboymary.jpeg

My bishop says that when he serves in some churches, some of the women will be wearing head coverings but will be barely covered elsewhere (most of them are from Eastern Europe where they must wear head coverings, but wear very short dresses or short skirts with a tank top).  He has said he'd rather have them skip the head covering and be much more modestly dressed.    
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 14, 2011, 01:48:12 PM

My bishop says that when he serves in some churches, some of the women will be wearing head coverings but will be barely covered elsewhere (most of them are from Eastern Europe where they must wear head coverings, but wear very short dresses or short skirts with a tank top).  He has said he'd rather have them skip the head covering and be much more modestly dressed.    

I thought of that very thing last night when I saw what had been posted and the comment that the headcovering was all there was to see. 

What you say is so true.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 14, 2011, 01:49:31 PM
(http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/romzha.jpg)

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.

It's fine.  Says more about Isa and some Orthodox than it says about you or me and our one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: IreneOlinyk on August 14, 2011, 02:03:07 PM
Sorry, other than the title Martyr, I can't make out the name of this person in your picture.  Probably, the fault of my computer not you.  Is it someone Orthodox should kmow?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Aindriú on August 14, 2011, 02:11:17 PM
PICTURE WAR!
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: JamesRottnek on August 14, 2011, 04:12:07 PM
PICTURE WAR!

Isa already launched the nukes, and decimated the enemy.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2011, 08:40:12 PM
Sorry, other than the title Martyr, I can't make out the name of this person in your picture.  Probably, the fault of my computer not you.  Is it someone Orthodox should kmow?
not really.  It's the Vatican's bishop for Mukacheve Theodore Romzha, who was not only in submission to the Vatican, but Magyarized, important as he took office when the Fascist Hungarians (who had taken the area with the help of the Poles, who executed the defending soldiers) were driven out by the Soviets.  He was later killed by the Soviets.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 14, 2011, 10:31:18 PM
(http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/romzha.jpg)

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.
Sits fine with me.
(http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/icons/Stt%20Alexis%20Toth.jpg)
I also
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wiKs9U-U2ok/SprYV3NYk-I/AAAAAAAAAKs/0So5zPViHn4/s320/cr3.jpg)
I vote aye
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jPc5hebaTs8/TIQ-zSaOphI/AAAAAAAAGoE/kDzVyYDmTjU/s1600/0904maxim.jpg)
"For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them...."I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.  Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."
All those in favor
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y5T533DfJwA/TXr6Ag0NwyI/AAAAAAAADLw/ND7vWfo5K4c/s1600/Anti-Catholic_pseudo-martyr_Athanasius_of_Brest-Litovsk_1597-1648.jpg)
Aye!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/3576912925_4ef8cce104.jpg)
All those opposed.
(http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/images/29.jpg)
No!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YC87epvokPc/RoIpiGLkMUI/AAAAAAAAC88/_8yW6CQdeJ4/s400/grodno.jpg)

The ayes have it.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/ShazafYnvBI/AAAAAAAAMb4/8RmF2OQKlh8/cyril_methodius.jpg)

There are martyrs on both sides.

When will you forgive, Isa? There is so much bitterness in your heart.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 14, 2011, 11:12:35 PM
(http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/romzha.jpg)

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.
Sits fine with me.
(http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/icons/Stt%20Alexis%20Toth.jpg)
I also
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wiKs9U-U2ok/SprYV3NYk-I/AAAAAAAAAKs/0So5zPViHn4/s320/cr3.jpg)
I vote aye
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jPc5hebaTs8/TIQ-zSaOphI/AAAAAAAAGoE/kDzVyYDmTjU/s1600/0904maxim.jpg)
"For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them...."I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.  Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."
All those in favor
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y5T533DfJwA/TXr6Ag0NwyI/AAAAAAAADLw/ND7vWfo5K4c/s1600/Anti-Catholic_pseudo-martyr_Athanasius_of_Brest-Litovsk_1597-1648.jpg)
Aye!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/3576912925_4ef8cce104.jpg)
All those opposed.
(http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/images/29.jpg)
No!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YC87epvokPc/RoIpiGLkMUI/AAAAAAAAC88/_8yW6CQdeJ4/s400/grodno.jpg)

The ayes have it.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/ShazafYnvBI/AAAAAAAAMb4/8RmF2OQKlh8/cyril_methodius.jpg)

There are martyrs on both sides.
Oh?  I hear that the faithful rushed to be reunited "to Catholic unity" in 1596, 1646,.....at least that is what the Vatican tells us.

When will you forgive, Isa?
when there is repentence.  The past can be forgiven and/or forgotten, but the present cannot be either.


There is so much bitterness in your heart.
Not at all.  I just don't celebrate injustices.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19951112_iv-cent-union-brest_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19960418_union-uzhorod_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20000720_unione-romania-roma_en.html
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 15, 2011, 08:37:31 AM
Not all of our hearts are as hard Isa's seems to be on the surface.

In the mid-twentieth century, on both sides of the Atlantic, the Rusyn and Ukrainian peoples found their beloved faith and unique patrimony under attack. In the United States the attack came from Roman imperialists who wanted to dissolve the Greek Catholic church outside of its historical homelands. From that attack arose brave witnesses who turned to Orthodoxy to preserve that which was bequeathed to them. Men like Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, the late Metropolitan Orestes and many others held steadfast and accepted the risks that came with challenging the superior power.  In the old world the post-War threat came not from Rome, but rather from the East with the Communists and their attempts to liquidate and control the Greek Catholics in an effort to tighten the rings of the Iron Curtain. To counter Russian/Communist imperialism, came men such as Blessed Teodor Rhomza and Blessed Pavel Goidich who were martyred for their faith.

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 10:19:57 AM
Not all of our hearts are as hard Isa's seems to be on the surface.

In the mid-twentieth century, on both sides of the Atlantic, the Rusyn and Ukrainian peoples found their beloved faith and unique patrimony under attack. In the United States the attack came from Roman imperialists who wanted to dissolve the Greek Catholic church outside of its historical homelands. From that attack arose brave witnesses who turned to Orthodoxy to preserve that which was bequeathed to them. Men like Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, the late Metropolitan Orestes and many others held steadfast and accepted the risks that came with challenging the superior power.  In the old world the post-War threat came not from Rome, but rather from the East with the Communists and their attempts to liquidate and control the Greek Catholics in an effort to tighten the rings of the Iron Curtain. To counter Russian/Communist imperialism, came men such as Blessed Teodor Rhomza and Blessed Pavel Goidich who were martyred for their faith.

There's a reality concerning Met. Orestes that makes him more of self-willed hierarch than a brave and steadfast witness.  That's a family story not a street draft...while we are busy shooting at icons might as well look truth in the face.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Schultz on August 15, 2011, 10:56:29 AM
Not all of our hearts are as hard Isa's seems to be on the surface.

In the mid-twentieth century, on both sides of the Atlantic, the Rusyn and Ukrainian peoples found their beloved faith and unique patrimony under attack. In the United States the attack came from Roman imperialists who wanted to dissolve the Greek Catholic church outside of its historical homelands. From that attack arose brave witnesses who turned to Orthodoxy to preserve that which was bequeathed to them. Men like Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, the late Metropolitan Orestes and many others held steadfast and accepted the risks that came with challenging the superior power.  In the old world the post-War threat came not from Rome, but rather from the East with the Communists and their attempts to liquidate and control the Greek Catholics in an effort to tighten the rings of the Iron Curtain. To counter Russian/Communist imperialism, came men such as Blessed Teodor Rhomza and Blessed Pavel Goidich who were martyred for their faith.

There's a reality concerning Met. Orestes that makes him more of self-willed hierarch than a brave and steadfast witness.  That's a family story not a street draft...while we are busy shooting at icons might as well look truth in the face.

M.

I have to ask: why bring this up at this particular junction, esp. when quoting podkarpatska who went out of his way to bring up Bl. Theodor and Bl. Pavel?

This is nothing but gossip and you outright admitted it (eg "a family story and not a street draft...") and something that should be beneath you, Mary.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 11:08:15 AM
Not all of our hearts are as hard Isa's seems to be on the surface.

In the mid-twentieth century, on both sides of the Atlantic, the Rusyn and Ukrainian peoples found their beloved faith and unique patrimony under attack. In the United States the attack came from Roman imperialists who wanted to dissolve the Greek Catholic church outside of its historical homelands. From that attack arose brave witnesses who turned to Orthodoxy to preserve that which was bequeathed to them. Men like Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, the late Metropolitan Orestes and many others held steadfast and accepted the risks that came with challenging the superior power.  In the old world the post-War threat came not from Rome, but rather from the East with the Communists and their attempts to liquidate and control the Greek Catholics in an effort to tighten the rings of the Iron Curtain. To counter Russian/Communist imperialism, came men such as Blessed Teodor Rhomza and Blessed Pavel Goidich who were martyred for their faith.

There's a reality concerning Met. Orestes that makes him more of self-willed hierarch than a brave and steadfast witness.  That's a family story not a street draft...while we are busy shooting at icons might as well look truth in the face.

M.

I have to ask: why bring this up at this particular junction, esp. when quoting podkarpatska who went out of his way to bring up Bl. Theodor and Bl. Pavel?

This is nothing but gossip and you outright admitted it (eg "a family story and not a street draft...") and something that should be beneath you, Mary.

The fact that the back-story of Metropolitan Orestes is rarely told...as it always is with St. Alexis indicates that something is not quite right.  So I caution against a knee-jerk rendering of Met. Orestes as a hero of the same caliber as St. Alexis for the Orthodox in the United States.

I have no intention of being mean-spirited about it.  It's just a caution and not a condemnation.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Jetavan on August 15, 2011, 01:59:01 PM
PICTURE WAR!
I prefer Vatican Wars (http://apps.facebook.com/vaticanwars/characters/new?signed_request=jdmBIZGyO8b197QN0m_6E7gca51UNQpexNnUIVk6W0w.eyJhbGdvcml0aG0iOiJITUFDLVNIQTI1NiIsImlzc3VlZF9hdCI6MTMxMzQzMTEwMiwidXNlciI6eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoidXMiLCJsb2NhbGUiOiJlbl9VUyIsImFnZSI6eyJtaW4iOjAsIm1heCI6MTJ9fX0).
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 15, 2011, 02:11:28 PM
PICTURE WAR!
I prefer Vatican Wars (http://apps.facebook.com/vaticanwars/characters/new?signed_request=jdmBIZGyO8b197QN0m_6E7gca51UNQpexNnUIVk6W0w.eyJhbGdvcml0aG0iOiJITUFDLVNIQTI1NiIsImlzc3VlZF9hdCI6MTMxMzQzMTEwMiwidXNlciI6eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoidXMiLCJsb2NhbGUiOiJlbl9VUyIsImFnZSI6eyJtaW4iOjAsIm1heCI6MTJ9fX0).
Odd.  The subtitle is "defending the true teachings of Christ," but it only gives you two choices-Templars or Crusaders-neither of which do.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 02:15:42 PM
PICTURE WAR!
I prefer Vatican Wars (http://apps.facebook.com/vaticanwars/characters/new?signed_request=jdmBIZGyO8b197QN0m_6E7gca51UNQpexNnUIVk6W0w.eyJhbGdvcml0aG0iOiJITUFDLVNIQTI1NiIsImlzc3VlZF9hdCI6MTMxMzQzMTEwMiwidXNlciI6eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoidXMiLCJsb2NhbGUiOiJlbl9VUyIsImFnZSI6eyJtaW4iOjAsIm1heCI6MTJ9fX0).
Odd.  The subtitle is "defending the true teachings of Christ," but it only gives you two choices-Templars or Crusaders-neither of which do.

Many of them did a far better job of it than the Soviet-Orthodox.  I know you just like to call them "Soviets" but we know what that means.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 15, 2011, 02:23:15 PM
PICTURE WAR!
I prefer Vatican Wars (http://apps.facebook.com/vaticanwars/characters/new?signed_request=jdmBIZGyO8b197QN0m_6E7gca51UNQpexNnUIVk6W0w.eyJhbGdvcml0aG0iOiJITUFDLVNIQTI1NiIsImlzc3VlZF9hdCI6MTMxMzQzMTEwMiwidXNlciI6eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoidXMiLCJsb2NhbGUiOiJlbl9VUyIsImFnZSI6eyJtaW4iOjAsIm1heCI6MTJ9fX0).
Odd.  The subtitle is "defending the true teachings of Christ," but it only gives you two choices-Templars or Crusaders-neither of which do.

Many of them did a far better job of it than the Soviet-Orthodox.  I know you just like to call them "Soviets" but we know what that means.

And the "Soviet-Orthodox" did a much better job than Paul VI. Do we really need to go down this road?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: mike on August 15, 2011, 02:47:31 PM
Part of the thread was moved to Ialmisry's & Elijahmaria's Infantile and Spiritually Unprofitable Bickering (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37983.0.html).
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 02:48:52 PM
PICTURE WAR!
I prefer Vatican Wars (http://apps.facebook.com/vaticanwars/characters/new?signed_request=jdmBIZGyO8b197QN0m_6E7gca51UNQpexNnUIVk6W0w.eyJhbGdvcml0aG0iOiJITUFDLVNIQTI1NiIsImlzc3VlZF9hdCI6MTMxMzQzMTEwMiwidXNlciI6eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoidXMiLCJsb2NhbGUiOiJlbl9VUyIsImFnZSI6eyJtaW4iOjAsIm1heCI6MTJ9fX0).
Odd.  The subtitle is "defending the true teachings of Christ," but it only gives you two choices-Templars or Crusaders-neither of which do.

Many of them did a far better job of it than the Soviet-Orthodox.  I know you just like to call them "Soviets" but we know what that means.

And the "Soviet-Orthodox" did a much better job than Paul VI. Do we really need to go down this road?

If there is another road, show me.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 15, 2011, 02:51:21 PM
PICTURE WAR!
I prefer Vatican Wars (http://apps.facebook.com/vaticanwars/characters/new?signed_request=jdmBIZGyO8b197QN0m_6E7gca51UNQpexNnUIVk6W0w.eyJhbGdvcml0aG0iOiJITUFDLVNIQTI1NiIsImlzc3VlZF9hdCI6MTMxMzQzMTEwMiwidXNlciI6eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoidXMiLCJsb2NhbGUiOiJlbl9VUyIsImFnZSI6eyJtaW4iOjAsIm1heCI6MTJ9fX0).
Odd.  The subtitle is "defending the true teachings of Christ," but it only gives you two choices-Templars or Crusaders-neither of which do.

Many of them did a far better job of it than the Soviet-Orthodox.  I know you just like to call them "Soviets" but we know what that means.

And the "Soviet-Orthodox" did a much better job than Paul VI. Do we really need to go down this road?

If there is another road, show me.

Not responding to provocation is a road that one may take at any time. :)
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 02:55:33 PM
PICTURE WAR!
I prefer Vatican Wars (http://apps.facebook.com/vaticanwars/characters/new?signed_request=jdmBIZGyO8b197QN0m_6E7gca51UNQpexNnUIVk6W0w.eyJhbGdvcml0aG0iOiJITUFDLVNIQTI1NiIsImlzc3VlZF9hdCI6MTMxMzQzMTEwMiwidXNlciI6eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoidXMiLCJsb2NhbGUiOiJlbl9VUyIsImFnZSI6eyJtaW4iOjAsIm1heCI6MTJ9fX0).
Odd.  The subtitle is "defending the true teachings of Christ," but it only gives you two choices-Templars or Crusaders-neither of which do.

Many of them did a far better job of it than the Soviet-Orthodox.  I know you just like to call them "Soviets" but we know what that means.

And the "Soviet-Orthodox" did a much better job than Paul VI. Do we really need to go down this road?

If there is another road, show me.

Not responding to provocation is a road that one may take at any time. :)

Even you?

What message does your Avatar convey?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 15, 2011, 03:01:03 PM
PICTURE WAR!
I prefer Vatican Wars (http://apps.facebook.com/vaticanwars/characters/new?signed_request=jdmBIZGyO8b197QN0m_6E7gca51UNQpexNnUIVk6W0w.eyJhbGdvcml0aG0iOiJITUFDLVNIQTI1NiIsImlzc3VlZF9hdCI6MTMxMzQzMTEwMiwidXNlciI6eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoidXMiLCJsb2NhbGUiOiJlbl9VUyIsImFnZSI6eyJtaW4iOjAsIm1heCI6MTJ9fX0).
Odd.  The subtitle is "defending the true teachings of Christ," but it only gives you two choices-Templars or Crusaders-neither of which do.

Many of them did a far better job of it than the Soviet-Orthodox.  I know you just like to call them "Soviets" but we know what that means.

And the "Soviet-Orthodox" did a much better job than Paul VI. Do we really need to go down this road?

If there is another road, show me.

Not responding to provocation is a road that one may take at any time. :)

Even you?

What message does your Avatar convey?

It's just a picture of me that a friend of mine took. I'm not actively seeking to quarrel with people. If I am, it's probably a sign that I should take a break from the internet for a while and speak to my confessor.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 03:11:31 PM

It's just a picture of me that a friend of mine took.

My son and I used to collect comic book art, and your avatar reminded me of those years.  We had fun!!
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 15, 2011, 03:13:55 PM

It's just a picture of me that a friend of mine took.

My son and I used to collect comic book art, and your avatar reminded me of those years.  We had fun!!

Funny, my friends got a similar impression. They all either compared the picture to Street Fighter or to a comic book panel.  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 03:20:52 PM

It's just a picture of me that a friend of mine took.

My son and I used to collect comic book art, and your avatar reminded me of those years.  We had fun!!

Funny, my friends got a similar impression. They all either compared the picture to Street Fighter or to a comic book panel.  :laugh:

 :)  exactly!!
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 15, 2011, 05:41:47 PM
Not all of our hearts are as hard Isa's seems to be on the surface.

In the mid-twentieth century, on both sides of the Atlantic, the Rusyn and Ukrainian peoples found their beloved faith and unique patrimony under attack. In the United States the attack came from Roman imperialists who wanted to dissolve the Greek Catholic church outside of its historical homelands. From that attack arose brave witnesses who turned to Orthodoxy to preserve that which was bequeathed to them. Men like Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, the late Metropolitan Orestes and many others held steadfast and accepted the risks that came with challenging the superior power.  In the old world the post-War threat came not from Rome, but rather from the East with the Communists and their attempts to liquidate and control the Greek Catholics in an effort to tighten the rings of the Iron Curtain. To counter Russian/Communist imperialism, came men such as Blessed Teodor Rhomza and Blessed Pavel Goidich who were martyred for their faith.

There's a reality concerning Met. Orestes that makes him more of self-willed hierarch than a brave and steadfast witness.  That's a family story not a street draft...while we are busy shooting at icons might as well look truth in the face.

M.

I have to ask: why bring this up at this particular junction, esp. when quoting podkarpatska who went out of his way to bring up Bl. Theodor and Bl. Pavel?

This is nothing but gossip and you outright admitted it (eg "a family story and not a street draft...") and something that should be beneath you, Mary.

I have to say that there is a special place for people like certain of our posters who just can't resist. They each make it exceedingly difficult to be restrained, polite, even-tempered or fair with their constant escalation of rhetoric and lack of mutual respect for each other.  I am glad that the Mod put them there.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 15, 2011, 05:46:29 PM
I will say this, my grandparents knew Bishop Pavel well as he was the parish priest at Cigelka, their home town in Slovakia. They loved and respected him for many reasons. Likewise they came to know and love Father Chornock here in America. I really can not believe that M. would resort to a cheap shot when I was trying to be balanced in an observation. All I can say is, Bah!
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 15, 2011, 06:11:29 PM
There's a reality concerning Met. Orestes that makes him more of self-willed hierarch than a brave and steadfast witness.  That's a family story not a street draft...while we are busy shooting at icons might as well look truth in the face.

M.

And there are stories of Bishop Basil Takach that make him out as a weak-willed syncophant, I don't believe them either.  In fact, I don't think there is a bishop or priest I haven't heard unkind stories about.  Let us be above gossip and unkind stories.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: biro on August 15, 2011, 07:42:18 PM
Quote from: WetCatechumen
There are martyrs on both sides.

When will you forgive, Isa? There is so much bitterness in your heart.

This.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 09:52:15 PM
There's a reality concerning Met. Orestes that makes him more of self-willed hierarch than a brave and steadfast witness.  That's a family story not a street draft...while we are busy shooting at icons might as well look truth in the face.

M.

And there are stories of Bishop Basil Takach that make him out as a weak-willed syncophant, I don't believe them either.  In fact, I don't think there is a bishop or priest I haven't heard unkind stories about.  Let us be above gossip and unkind stories.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I have not said anything unkind. 

I have said not all bishops are equal. 

I have said I would not put Met. Orestes on the same pedestal as st. Alexis, and I would not put st. Alexis on the same ground as St. John Chrysostom, and I would not put St. John Chrysostom on the same pedestal as The Great Apostle.

I am with the Areopagite with his hierarchies. 

I am not obliged to think that everything and everyone is equal in the heavens and under the heavens!!

M.

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 09:53:33 PM
I will say this, my grandparents knew Bishop Pavel well as he was the parish priest at Cigelka, their home town in Slovakia. They loved and respected him for many reasons. Likewise they came to know and love Father Chornock here in America. I really can not believe that M. would resort to a cheap shot when I was trying to be balanced in an observation. All I can say is, Bah!

Cheap shot?  So you are the only one allowed to talk about families being divided, etc.?

I didn't know that was in the rules...heh!...
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 15, 2011, 10:09:59 PM
There's a reality concerning Met. Orestes that makes him more of self-willed hierarch than a brave and steadfast witness.  That's a family story not a street draft...while we are busy shooting at icons might as well look truth in the face.

M.

And there are stories of Bishop Basil Takach that make him out as a weak-willed syncophant, I don't believe them either.  In fact, I don't think there is a bishop or priest I haven't heard unkind stories about.  Let us be above gossip and unkind stories.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Bishop Basil is not iconic.  If he was a weak bishop, I can accept that.  Weakness is not inherently evil. God makes great things happen by using our weaknesses to the good.  I don't believe there's any basis for saying that Bishop Basil is/was anything worse than that. 

Surely you know that there are iconic bishops in our history who did things and sponsored behaviors that were objectively evil...horridly evil cronyism in fact. 
 
Should we elide that history and pretend that it and its consequences never happened?

Why I am beginning to think you are sounding like some of our Latin rite bishops and their cover-ups!!

 :)...not really...but you are on the right track to get there.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 15, 2011, 11:13:11 PM

Bishop Basil is not iconic.  If he was a weak bishop, I can accept that.  Weakness is not inherently evil. God makes great things happen by using our weaknesses to the good.  I don't believe there's any basis for saying that Bishop Basil is/was anything worse than that. 

Surely you know that there are iconic bishops in our history who did things and sponsored behaviors that were objectively evil...horridly evil cronyism in fact. 
 
Should we elide that history and pretend that it and its consequences never happened?

Why I am beginning to think you are sounding like some of our Latin rite bishops and their cover-ups!!

 :)...not really...but you are on the right track to get there.

M.

No, we should not cover up evil.  But I hadn't realized we had crossed over that line.  You state Metropolitan Orestes was self-willed,  I would term it strong-willed and I think it served his people well.  He steered them clear of Moscow and prevented their Russification as happened to St. Alexis' parishes.  In anycase, he is iconic and a hero for ACROD and may eventually be canonized.  Why sully that with pettiness, especially in response to an Orthodox brother who recognizes the holiness of our martyr and confessor bishops?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 16, 2011, 10:13:38 AM

Bishop Basil is not iconic.  If he was a weak bishop, I can accept that.  Weakness is not inherently evil. God makes great things happen by using our weaknesses to the good.  I don't believe there's any basis for saying that Bishop Basil is/was anything worse than that. 

Surely you know that there are iconic bishops in our history who did things and sponsored behaviors that were objectively evil...horridly evil cronyism in fact. 
 
Should we elide that history and pretend that it and its consequences never happened?

Why I am beginning to think you are sounding like some of our Latin rite bishops and their cover-ups!!

 :)...not really...but you are on the right track to get there.

M.

No, we should not cover up evil.  But I hadn't realized we had crossed over that line.  You state Metropolitan Orestes was self-willed,  I would term it strong-willed and I think it served his people well.  He steered them clear of Moscow and prevented their Russification as happened to St. Alexis' parishes.  In anycase, he is iconic and a hero for ACROD and may eventually be canonized.  Why sully that with pettiness, especially in response to an Orthodox brother who recognizes the holiness of our martyr and confessor bishops?

I think somebody better call in the devil's advocate before they canonize Met. Orestes.

If that is "sullying" then you have a very unique dictionary.

You may use this tactic to shut me up on the BC.forum but this group is a bit more honest than the one where you spend most of your time.

Funny that I am more welcome among the Orthodox than I am among my own:  I realize that I am defining "welcome" to include having most of my ideas rejected by many here: but I have yet to be "banned for life" or told that my vocation was "dead in the water, in this Church" because I publicly stated what many others stated in private. 

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on August 16, 2011, 10:36:48 AM
Here is an article recently posted concerning the Vatican and the Unia, by Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos, esteemed Dean Emeritus of the Athens School of Theology.

http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2011/08/10/20110810aVaticanTorpedo%20Folder/20110810aVaticanTorpedo.pdf

More about Fr. George:

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



He does have credentials for sure. Yet, I was somewhat taken aback by the following in the article above: "St. Mark Eugenikos (†1444), in his famous encyclical “To Christians Everywhere in the Greek Fatherland and the Islands” (1440-1441), calls the Uniates “Greco-
Latins” and “half animal-like men,” “on the order of the centaurs in mythology.” Then nothing more about the quote. I guess he may have meant it as an example of opposition, but it seemed to me to be more propaganda than scholarly analysis.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Schultz on August 16, 2011, 10:46:44 AM

Bishop Basil is not iconic.  If he was a weak bishop, I can accept that.  Weakness is not inherently evil. God makes great things happen by using our weaknesses to the good.  I don't believe there's any basis for saying that Bishop Basil is/was anything worse than that. 

Surely you know that there are iconic bishops in our history who did things and sponsored behaviors that were objectively evil...horridly evil cronyism in fact. 
 
Should we elide that history and pretend that it and its consequences never happened?

Why I am beginning to think you are sounding like some of our Latin rite bishops and their cover-ups!!

 :)...not really...but you are on the right track to get there.

M.

No, we should not cover up evil.  But I hadn't realized we had crossed over that line.  You state Metropolitan Orestes was self-willed,  I would term it strong-willed and I think it served his people well.  He steered them clear of Moscow and prevented their Russification as happened to St. Alexis' parishes.  In anycase, he is iconic and a hero for ACROD and may eventually be canonized.  Why sully that with pettiness, especially in response to an Orthodox brother who recognizes the holiness of our martyr and confessor bishops?

I think somebody better call in the devil's advocate before they canonize Met. Orestes.



elijahmaria,

I asked you previously as a poster to avoid your continued gossip about Met. Orestes, a dead man who cannot defend himself.  Unless you are willing to go on full public record and divulge these family secrets (most likely against the wishes of those who divulged them), refrain from posting these insinuations (for that is all they are) right now.  In this thread, these insinuations amount to nothing more than a, "Oh yeah?!  Well this is what your holy people do behind closed doors!" pissing contest. 

This is not an official canonization procedure and therefore no "devil's advocate" is necessary.  As such, your negative comments will not produce any good fruit and I must ask you to please cease alluding to them in the public areas.  If you want to argue with others about this, please do so in the private forum.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 16, 2011, 10:54:51 AM

Bishop Basil is not iconic.  If he was a weak bishop, I can accept that.  Weakness is not inherently evil. God makes great things happen by using our weaknesses to the good.  I don't believe there's any basis for saying that Bishop Basil is/was anything worse than that. 

Surely you know that there are iconic bishops in our history who did things and sponsored behaviors that were objectively evil...horridly evil cronyism in fact. 
 
Should we elide that history and pretend that it and its consequences never happened?

Why I am beginning to think you are sounding like some of our Latin rite bishops and their cover-ups!!

 :)...not really...but you are on the right track to get there.

M.

No, we should not cover up evil.  But I hadn't realized we had crossed over that line.  You state Metropolitan Orestes was self-willed,  I would term it strong-willed and I think it served his people well.  He steered them clear of Moscow and prevented their Russification as happened to St. Alexis' parishes.  In anycase, he is iconic and a hero for ACROD and may eventually be canonized.  Why sully that with pettiness, especially in response to an Orthodox brother who recognizes the holiness of our martyr and confessor bishops?

I think somebody better call in the devil's advocate before they canonize Met. Orestes.



elijahmaria,

I asked you previously as a poster to avoid your continued gossip about Met. Orestes, a dead man who cannot defend himself.  Unless you are willing to go on full public record and divulge these family secrets (most likely against the wishes of those who divulged them), refrain from posting these insinuations (for that is all they are) right now.  In this thread, these insinuations amount to nothing more than a, "Oh yeah?!  Well this is what your holy people do behind closed doors!" pissing contest. 

This is not an official canonization procedure and therefore no "devil's advocate" is necessary.  As such, your negative comments will not produce any good fruit and I must ask you to please cease alluding to them in the public areas.  If you want to argue with others about this, please do so in the private forum.

Done...
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on August 16, 2011, 04:39:06 PM

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.

I do not like it either but my reasoning may differ from other EO. It seems to me that the Stalinist regime was one of the most oppressive regimes in history and harmed more Christians than any other. I just don't like it to be equated with anything else. It needs to stand alone in Satan's list of accomplishments
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orest on August 16, 2011, 05:02:52 PM

The title of this thread does not sit well with me.

I do not like it either but my reasoning may differ from other EO. It seems to me that the Stalinist regime was one of the most oppressive regimes in history and harmed more Christians than any other. I just don't like it to be equated with anything else. It needs to stand alone in Satan's list of accomplishments

Yes, you make a lot of sense. By the way I reread the article mentioned in the first post.  the author was not a church historian and I doubt he had the ability to even read any of the languages needed for research for example on the Union or lack of Union of Brest.  It is a short general article and deals mostly with the Vatican and orthodox Christians in the Middle East not in Slavic countries.  Also the poster chose the title for the thread which was a bad choice of words.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 16, 2011, 06:24:29 PM
I get the ones that actually adhere to Catholic teaching, but the ones that claim to be in full communion with Rome without holding the faith of Rome totally baffle me.
So it would seem as if the EO Church isn't the only Church in a state of disunity, the Latin Catholics have their fair share of problems to resolve with the Eastern Catholics.

Lol, but then again I'm OO! I of all people am in no position to be saying who and who isn't disunited! :laugh: I mean, we OO have almost nothing to do with each other. :(  

God bless.
Well I am by no means an expert on how united or disunited we are. I don't know how many Eastern Catholics actually hold beliefs contrary to our beliefs. I know this is a phenomenon online amongst some Eastern Catholics, but I'm not sure how prevalent it is in real life. The majority could very well be in total doctrinal conformity with Rome for all I know. I don't have the statistics. It is quite obvious that there is not only disunity amongst the Eastern Orthodox, but there are very few absolute answers. Most questions asked of the EO are answered with a "we don't know" or "it's a pastoral issue" which is essentially saying "if you don't like the answer we give you, switch to another priest until you find one who does agree with you."

Kind of like asking, "Which papal pronouncements are ex cathedra?".  If you don't like what one priest says, you can just ask another.

Or...from the other side asking a variety of Orthodox priests which of the Catholic doctrines must I reject in order to be received into Orthodoxy.  I've never gotten the same list twice.

In all seriousness I really do think that we need to take a long look at what "shared faith" means.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 16, 2011, 06:24:54 PM
I think somebody better call in the devil's advocate before they canonize Met. Orestes.

If that is "sullying" then you have a very unique dictionary.

You may use this tactic to shut me up on the BC.forum but this group is a bit more honest than the one where you spend most of your time.

Funny that I am more welcome among the Orthodox than I am among my own:  I realize that I am defining "welcome" to include having most of my ideas rejected by many here: but I have yet to be "banned for life" or told that my vocation was "dead in the water, in this Church" because I publicly stated what many others stated in private. 

I am not aware of using any tactic to shut you up on byzcath.  And actually I probably spend more time here than there lately.  I was not aware you were banned.  I don't know you posting name there nor do I remember being consulted about banning one for some time nor am I always consulted.  What vocation is dead in the water?  Are you trying to enter a monastery?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 16, 2011, 06:27:59 PM

Bishop Basil is not iconic.  If he was a weak bishop, I can accept that.  Weakness is not inherently evil. God makes great things happen by using our weaknesses to the good.  I don't believe there's any basis for saying that Bishop Basil is/was anything worse than that. 

Surely you know that there are iconic bishops in our history who did things and sponsored behaviors that were objectively evil...horridly evil cronyism in fact. 
 
Should we elide that history and pretend that it and its consequences never happened?

Why I am beginning to think you are sounding like some of our Latin rite bishops and their cover-ups!!

 :)...not really...but you are on the right track to get there.

M.

No, we should not cover up evil.  But I hadn't realized we had crossed over that line.  You state Metropolitan Orestes was self-willed,  I would term it strong-willed and I think it served his people well.  He steered them clear of Moscow and prevented their Russification as happened to St. Alexis' parishes.  In anycase, he is iconic and a hero for ACROD and may eventually be canonized.  Why sully that with pettiness, especially in response to an Orthodox brother who recognizes the holiness of our martyr and confessor bishops?

Sorry for disturbing you and podkarpatska with my thinking out loud, and expressing my opinion as strongly as I did.  It really was not meant in a mean-spirited way at all.  It is just that: an opinion.

So pardon me please:  I'll not raise the issue again.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 16, 2011, 06:57:06 PM
I think somebody better call in the devil's advocate before they canonize Met. Orestes.

If that is "sullying" then you have a very unique dictionary.

You may use this tactic to shut me up on the BC.forum but this group is a bit more honest than the one where you spend most of your time.

Funny that I am more welcome among the Orthodox than I am among my own:  I realize that I am defining "welcome" to include having most of my ideas rejected by many here: but I have yet to be "banned for life" or told that my vocation was "dead in the water, in this Church" because I publicly stated what many others stated in private. 

I am not aware of using any tactic to shut you up on byzcath.  And actually I probably spend more time here than there lately.  I was not aware you were banned.  I don't know you posting name there nor do I remember being consulted about banning one for some time nor am I always consulted.  What vocation is dead in the water?  Are you trying to enter a monastery?

You're not the subject or object of my discontent...please see the note prior to this one.

As to the vocation:  I have lived the life of a penitential hermit for nearly 15 years with the aid and counsel of the same spiritual father for those years.  I would like to take religious vows as a hermit and have not only been given little help from my chancery, I was actively attacked by my pastor over the phone on several Saturdays running and in one of those awful conversations, he told me "Your vocation is dead in the water in this Church."...meaning, I suppose that he was not going to help me and would actively hinder me.

I've been offered help from the Orthodox and am about to contact the Latin rite bishop in my old diocese, since I am not going to enter Orthodoxy.  But I am holding out some hope that perhaps once we have a new Metropolitan...So I continue to hold fire and hope.

Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.

I had hoped to have some resolution before my spiritual father dies.  After he is gone there is no one who knows me well enough to speak for me or about my journey.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 16, 2011, 07:43:25 PM
I see.  I would suspect the problem would be that in the Eastern Churches one can only be admitted to the status of hermit by ones abbot/abbess.  One must live the cenobitic life first and usually for many years before they are judged advanced enough to live the eremitic life.  I would contact a monastery directly to affiliate as an associate.  I would recommend the Byzantine Carmel in Sugarloaf.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 16, 2011, 09:15:21 PM
I see.  I would suspect the problem would be that in the Eastern Churches one can only be admitted to the status of hermit by ones abbot/abbess.  One must live the cenobitic life first and usually for many years before they are judged advanced enough to live the eremitic life.  I would contact a monastery directly to affiliate as an associate.  I would recommend the Byzantine Carmel in Sugarloaf.

This does not seem to be the topic heading for discussing such things.  If you are so inclined perhaps you could begin a new thread. 

I don't want to talk about myself in too much detail but we could discuss things in general. 

For example, I find it interesting that you say this but none of the Orthodox bishops or monastics that I have been in contact with over the years have indicated that I would need to become a nun in community first, and they've said nothing about becoming a lay associate.   

So my initial question would be which Eastern Churches? 

And then I'd be interested in knowing if becoming a lay associate would advance the possibility of being considered as an appropriate candidate for the eremetic life in religious vows?

Mary
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orest on August 17, 2011, 09:41:54 AM
Quote
Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.


Is this an example of what happens when Rome creates "Eastern catholic Churches": they make up their own rules blending East & West?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 17, 2011, 10:02:48 AM
Quote
Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.


Is this an example of what happens when Rome creates "Eastern catholic Churches": they make up their own rules blending East & West?

Apparently not.  This apparently is an example of NOT imposing a way of being in the western Church on the east.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orest on August 17, 2011, 10:07:58 AM
[Or...from the other side asking a variety of Orthodox priests which of the Catholic doctrines must I reject in order to be received into Orthodoxy.  I've never gotten the same list twice.

In all seriousness I really do think that we need to take a long look at what "shared faith" means.

M.

Mary, I believe that metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, before the Russian Revolution wrote an addition to or a special service for Catholics who convert to orthodoxy.  And in the service it lists Catholic beliefs that are renounced such as purgatory and so on.  Try to get hold of that service.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 17, 2011, 10:24:42 AM
[Or...from the other side asking a variety of Orthodox priests which of the Catholic doctrines must I reject in order to be received into Orthodoxy.  I've never gotten the same list twice.

In all seriousness I really do think that we need to take a long look at what "shared faith" means.

M.

Mary, I believe that metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, before the Russian Revolution wrote an addition to or a special service for Catholics who convert to orthodoxy.  And in the service it lists Catholic beliefs that are renounced such as purgatory and so on.  Try to get hold of that service.

Yes.  I have that list among my list of lists. 

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 10:42:09 AM
[Or...from the other side asking a variety of Orthodox priests which of the Catholic doctrines must I reject in order to be received into Orthodoxy.  I've never gotten the same list twice.

In all seriousness I really do think that we need to take a long look at what "shared faith" means.

M.

Mary, I believe that metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, before the Russian Revolution wrote an addition to or a special service for Catholics who convert to orthodoxy.  And in the service it lists Catholic beliefs that are renounced such as purgatory and so on.  Try to get hold of that service.

Yes.  I have that list among my list of lists. 

M.
is that your list of lists of terms of submission to the Vatican?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 17, 2011, 11:32:24 AM
Quote
Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.


Is this an example of what happens when Rome creates "Eastern catholic Churches": they make up their own rules blending East & West?
How would this differ from the Eastern Orthodox Churches when they create the Western rite Orthodox and make up their own rules blending East and West?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 11:49:02 AM
Quote
Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.


Is this an example of what happens when Rome creates "Eastern catholic Churches": they make up their own rules blending East & West?
How would this differ from the Eastern Orthodox Churches when they create the Western rite Orthodox and make up their own rules blending East and West?
The WRO "blend" to weed out heresy and restore to Orthodoxy, and even then, that is not necessarily done: the Antiochian WRO borrow the epiclesis from the rite of Constantinople to make it explicite, but ROCOR takes the epiclesis from the Gallican missal IIRC (ALL Western missals except the Roman have a full and explicit epiclesis).

The Vatican, in contrast, promulgates a Code of canon law, for instance, in Latin, for the Eastern Churches, which mold them into the theoretical model Ultramontanism imagines for the other patriarchates, which has no basis in history or practice.  That's the purpose of the CCEO, to put Ultramontanist theory into practice so it can enter history, and develop a history.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orest on August 17, 2011, 12:03:41 PM
Quote
Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.


Is this an example of what happens when Rome creates "Eastern catholic Churches": they make up their own rules blending East & West?
How would this differ from the Eastern Orthodox Churches when they create the Western rite Orthodox and make up their own rules blending East and West?
Stanley I agree with you.  Both are wrong.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 12:22:31 PM
Quote
Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.


Is this an example of what happens when Rome creates "Eastern catholic Churches": they make up their own rules blending East & West?
How would this differ from the Eastern Orthodox Churches when they create the Western rite Orthodox and make up their own rules blending East and West?
Stanley I agree with you.  Both are wrong.
I'd ask you how Orthodoxy is wrong, but I wonder if it would derail the thread.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 17, 2011, 12:24:50 PM
Quote
Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.


Is this an example of what happens when Rome creates "Eastern catholic Churches": they make up their own rules blending East & West?
How would this differ from the Eastern Orthodox Churches when they create the Western rite Orthodox and make up their own rules blending East and West?
The WRO "blend" to weed out heresy and restore to Orthodoxy, and even then, that is not necessarily done: the Antiochian WRO borrow the epiclesis from the rite of Constantinople to make it explicite, but ROCOR takes the epiclesis from the Gallican missal IIRC (ALL Western missals except the Roman have a full and explicit epiclesis).

The Vatican, in contrast, promulgates a Code of canon law, for instance, in Latin, for the Eastern Churches, which mold them into the theoretical model Ultramontanism imagines for the other patriarchates, which has no basis in history or practice.  That's the purpose of the CCEO, to put Ultramontanist theory into practice so it can enter history, and develop a history.

Yes.  And as the eastern Catholic Patriarchs emerge so will a distinct set of canons.   At that point there may be even more explicit canons added to the western code.

Till then you will impatiently and uncharitably rail against it all.

Reunion with Orthodoxy would hasten that process.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 12:38:50 PM
Quote
Part of the problem, for me, technically is that there is no equivalent canon in the ECC to the one in the western code for the canonical religious status of "hermit"....It was on those grounds that I was pushed away in my own Church.  Granted I never was allowed to actually speak to my bishop and I don't think the letters I wrote ever got to him either.  They have all remained unanswered including those written by my spiritual father.  This was all before the Metropolitan became so terribly and finally ill.


Is this an example of what happens when Rome creates "Eastern catholic Churches": they make up their own rules blending East & West?
How would this differ from the Eastern Orthodox Churches when they create the Western rite Orthodox and make up their own rules blending East and West?
The WRO "blend" to weed out heresy and restore to Orthodoxy, and even then, that is not necessarily done: the Antiochian WRO borrow the epiclesis from the rite of Constantinople to make it explicite, but ROCOR takes the epiclesis from the Gallican missal IIRC (ALL Western missals except the Roman have a full and explicit epiclesis).

The Vatican, in contrast, promulgates a Code of canon law, for instance, in Latin, for the Eastern Churches, which mold them into the theoretical model Ultramontanism imagines for the other patriarchates, which has no basis in history or practice.  That's the purpose of the CCEO, to put Ultramontanist theory into practice so it can enter history, and develop a history.

Yes.  And as the eastern Catholic Patriarchs emerge so will a distinct set of canons.
Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.

At that point there may be even more explicit canons added to the western code.
A "Western" code and an "Eastern" code are innovations unknown to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, before or after 1054.

Till then you will impatiently and uncharitably rail against it all.
how long it takes heresy to organize itself isn't my concern, so neither patience nor charity has anything to do with it.

Reunion with Orthodoxy would hasten that process.
Catholic Church=Orthodoxy.  And we have no interest in playing a role your fantasies: good tissue grafted into those weasy, TB lungs won't resuscitate that sick old man.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 17, 2011, 03:12:15 PM

Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.


Right: and in good Apostolic fashion, consensus was nearly impossible to achieve.  We've been struggling with it ever since:  the west in the wider world of peoples:  the east in their little ethnic enclaves.

I am amused by the fact that you think cramped, wizened, philetic lungs are somehow healthier than the lungs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 03:54:37 PM

Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.


Right: and in good Apostolic fashion, consensus was nearly impossible to achieve.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JfpHKFUU1rc/TgjJXQrB4FI/AAAAAAAAAqU/xxRzyIvxVbA/s1600/avignon%2Bpapacy.jpg)

We've been struggling with it ever since:  the west in the wider world of peoples:  the east in their little ethnic enclaves.
Yes, the Vatican went wherever the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisistions could stamp out the local languages and make them adopt Latin and its derivatives.

But Russia alone did a good job matching, without stamping out the locals:
(http://siberianlight.net/russiaguide/files/2011/06/Russian-Empire-Map.jpg)
it doesn't show the expansion of the Patriarchate of Moscow into California
(http://commons.orthodoxwiki.org/images/thumb/3/3e/Chapel-FortRoss_1953.jpg/300px-Chapel-FortRoss_1953.jpg)
or Finmark/Norway
(http://home.online.no/~thorosl/Kirkeside/bilder/menighet/Neiden.jpg)
nor the Church of Japan.
(http://www.atlantaserbs.com/web/learnmore/manastiri/ResurrectionCathedralTokyo/image4.jpg)
and we'll leave out the North Pole
(http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/north-pole.jpg)
and the south pole
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RTd22U9tNJg/TSvU7_0j0fI/AAAAAAAAE6o/P2SYN2axmv8/s1600/Trinity-Church-Antarctica-Bellingshausen-Station.png)
And then there's the Pope (the real and original one) of All Africa, whose Holy Synod has bishops from Cape to Cairo.
(http://www.environmentalmonitor.org/images/thumb/Africa_(orthographic_projection).svg/550px-Africa_(orthographic_projection).svg.png)
and without a single empire taking up the sword to spread its creed.
and the Patriarch of Antioch, and All the East (that is, as far east as India), etc. etc. etc.

I am amused by the fact that you think cramped, wizened, philetic lungs are somehow healthier than the lungs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 17, 2011, 04:51:21 PM
Yepper boss!!

And you still cannot really address the huge difference in numbers or the fact that Orthodoxy, in reality, appears to be shrinking...or that, for example, half of the Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy eventually leave.

So you get all the face time you want here but in reality you are signifying nothing beside the sound and fury:  Pretty noise if you're into that sort of thing.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 17, 2011, 04:55:11 PM
Yepper boss!!

And you still cannot really address the huge difference in numbers or the fact that Orthodoxy, in reality, appears to be shrinking...or that, for example, half of the Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy eventually leave.

So you get all the face time you want here but in reality you are signifying nothing beside the sound and fury:  Pretty noise if you're into that sort of thing.

M.
I rather like many of the images he has posted.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 17, 2011, 05:03:57 PM
Yepper boss!!

And you still cannot really address the huge difference in numbers or the fact that Orthodoxy, in reality, appears to be shrinking...or that, for example, half of the Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy eventually leave.

So you get all the face time you want here but in reality you are signifying nothing beside the sound and fury:  Pretty noise if you're into that sort of thing.

M.
I rather like many of the images he has posted.

 :)  That's why I called it "pretty" noise...
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 17, 2011, 05:30:13 PM
Yepper boss!!

And you still cannot really address the huge difference in numbers or the fact that Orthodoxy, in reality, appears to be shrinking...or that, for example, half of the Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy eventually leave.

So you get all the face time you want here but in reality you are signifying nothing beside the sound and fury:  Pretty noise if you're into that sort of thing.

M.

Orthodoxy is shrinking and half of Roman Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy tend to leave?  Would you mind providing statistics to back up both statements?  Are you talking about the U.S. or worldwide? 
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 17, 2011, 08:07:44 PM
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 17, 2011, 08:12:14 PM
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
(Speaking as a miaphysite) Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, could you please clarify?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 08:30:16 PM
Yepper boss!!

And you still cannot really address the huge difference in numbers

Sure I can:
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/crusades-map-crusader-states.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/LatinEmpire.png)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Venezianische_Kolonien.png)(http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/d/d3/Eastern_Mediterranean_1450_.svg/633px-Eastern_Mediterranean_1450_.svg.png)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Scandinavia1219.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Teutonic_Order_1410.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_(orthographic_projection).svg/550px-Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_(orthographic_projection).svg.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Spanish_Empire-World_Map.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Portuguese_empire_1800.png)
(http://makinghistoryrelevant.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/french_empire.png)
(http://empires.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/701/media/images/Map%20of%20Italian%20Empire.png)(http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/1/17/Belgian_colonial_empire.png/350px-Belgian_colonial_empire.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Location_Austria_Hungary_1914.png)
Vermine do have a tendency to multiply and spread.

"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom."

btw,(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0520076451.01._SX220_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)
or the fact that Orthodoxy, in reality, appears to be shrinking...
you have been long on asserting that and very short on documenting it.

Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.

or that, for example, half of the Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy eventually leave.
Catholics can't convert to Orthodoxy.  by definition, they're in.

As for the Vatican, better than all of the dogs going back to their vomit, or the whole herd of washed sows going back into its mire.

So you get all the face time you want here but in reality you are signifying nothing beside the sound and fury:  Pretty noise if you're into that sort of thing.
Better than that drum beat out of the Vatican.

In the last days, the Church will dwindle to nothing, to prepare for the Second Coming.  If we are living in the last days, who am I to dispute it?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 08:37:55 PM
Yepper boss!!

And you still cannot really address the huge difference in numbers or the fact that Orthodoxy, in reality, appears to be shrinking...or that, for example, half of the Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy eventually leave.

So you get all the face time you want here but in reality you are signifying nothing beside the sound and fury:  Pretty noise if you're into that sort of thing.

M.
I rather like many of the images he has posted.

 :)  That's why I called it "pretty" noise...
you're into pretty colors
(http://www.snowangels.com/sketchbook/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/img_3322.jpg)
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 17, 2011, 08:39:34 PM
Yepper boss!!

And you still cannot really address the huge difference in numbers or the fact that Orthodoxy, in reality, appears to be shrinking...or that, for example, half of the Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy eventually leave.

So you get all the face time you want here but in reality you are signifying nothing beside the sound and fury:  Pretty noise if you're into that sort of thing.

M.
I rather like many of the images he has posted.

 :)  That's why I called it "pretty" noise...
you're into pretty colors
(http://www.snowangels.com/sketchbook/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/img_3322.jpg)

That's quite a collection of kool-aid you have there, sir. I'm going to have to ask that you pull over. :police:
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 08:42:50 PM
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Aindriú on August 17, 2011, 08:44:53 PM
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

sigh

(http://freedomandjelly.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sad-panda.jpg)
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 17, 2011, 08:45:22 PM
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.
I didn't know they celebrated Divine Liturgy in Latin. Where would this be? I'd like to attend.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 08:52:14 PM
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

sigh

(http://freedomandjelly.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sad-panda.jpg)
then come and be a happy panda
(http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/01b-orthodox-china-yining-xinjiang-02.jpg?w=1000&h=750)
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 17, 2011, 09:06:24 PM


Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 :laugh:
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 17, 2011, 09:18:20 PM
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.

When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.

Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 09:19:34 PM


Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
well, no one can serve two masters. Ours told us to shake the dust off our feet.

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 :laugh:
Your "reality" is a worse case fantasy.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 17, 2011, 09:21:25 PM
When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.

Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
Actually, the EOs and OOs have concelebrated before.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 09:23:11 PM
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.

When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.
why would we call you?
Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 17, 2011, 09:37:04 PM

Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.


Right: and in good Apostolic fashion, consensus was nearly impossible to achieve.  We've been struggling with it ever since:  the west in the wider world of peoples:  the east in their little ethnic enclaves.

I am amused by the fact that you think cramped, wizened, philetic lungs are somehow healthier than the lungs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

M.
Considering that until Pope John Paul II there hadn't been a non-Italian pope for centuries and that the median age of modern popes has been around social security age, that comment about 'cramped, wizened, philetic lungs' is tough to take without a chuckle from our side.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 17, 2011, 09:44:17 PM
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
Well then why is it any of your business if R. Catholics dance, sing, clap hands and sway to and fro during their liturgies, when the Orthodox do the same thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 17, 2011, 09:56:56 PM
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
Well then why is it any of your business if R. Catholics dance, sing, clap hands and sway to and fro during their liturgies, when the Orthodox do the same thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY
First of all those people are OO, so that you'll have to take up with us. ;)

But I think that's just a part of their cultrue, whereas in Catholicism these liturgical reforms are for the sake conforming to modern-day society.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 17, 2011, 10:33:23 PM
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
Well then why is it any of your business if R. Catholics dance, sing, clap hands and sway to and fro during their liturgies, when the Orthodox do the same thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY
First of all those people are OO, so that you'll have to take up with us. ;)

But I think that's just a part of their cultrue, whereas in Catholicism these liturgical reforms are for the sake conforming to modern-day society.
Are you sure that they are OO? What group are they with? Are they in communion with the EO or not?
Anyway, you seem to justify this dancing, singing, clapping of hands and swaying to and fro  by saying that it is part of their culture. But it is true, isn't it, that "modern-day" western society is part of the culture of many Roman Catholics?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 17, 2011, 10:46:25 PM
Are you sure that they are OO? What group are they with? Are they in communion with the EO or not?
Anyway, you seem to justify this dancing, singing, clapping of hands and swaying to and fro  by saying that it is part of their culture. But it is true, isn't it, that "modern-day" western society is part of the culture of many Roman Catholics?
Yes, I am sure they are OO because the priest is wearing Coptic vestments and in the background you can see a picture of HH Pope Shenouda. No, these people are not in communion with the EO, no OO bishops are in communion with EO bishops. Or at least, not yet.

Secondly, these people are simply worshipping the way their ancestors did, but in an Orthodox Christian liturgical setting. As opposed to the RCC, where traditional liturgics are seeing a Protestantization. I don't write this post in a polemical spirit, I am merely trying to answer your question to the best of my abilities.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 17, 2011, 10:58:22 PM
Are you sure that they are OO? What group are they with? Are they in communion with the EO or not?
Anyway, you seem to justify this dancing, singing, clapping of hands and swaying to and fro  by saying that it is part of their culture. But it is true, isn't it, that "modern-day" western society is part of the culture of many Roman Catholics?
Yes, I am sure they are OO because the priest is wearing Coptic vestments and in the background you can see a picture of HH Pope Shenouda. No, these people are not in communion with the EO, no OO bishops are in communion with EO bishops. Or at least, not yet.

Secondly, these people are simply worshipping the way their ancestors did, but in an Orthodox Christian liturgical setting. As opposed to the RCC, where traditional liturgics are seeing a Protestantization. I don't write this post in a polemical spirit, I am merely trying to answer your question to the best of my abilities.

Yes, I see now that they are Coptic Orthodox. Do you object to their style of worship or would the EO Church object to their style of worship in the case of a reunion?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 17, 2011, 11:02:22 PM
Are you sure that they are OO? What group are they with? Are they in communion with the EO or not?
Anyway, you seem to justify this dancing, singing, clapping of hands and swaying to and fro  by saying that it is part of their culture. But it is true, isn't it, that "modern-day" western society is part of the culture of many Roman Catholics?
Yes, I am sure they are OO because the priest is wearing Coptic vestments and in the background you can see a picture of HH Pope Shenouda. No, these people are not in communion with the EO, no OO bishops are in communion with EO bishops. Or at least, not yet.

Secondly, these people are simply worshipping the way their ancestors did, but in an Orthodox Christian liturgical setting. As opposed to the RCC, where traditional liturgics are seeing a Protestantization. I don't write this post in a polemical spirit, I am merely trying to answer your question to the best of my abilities.

Yes, I see now that they are Coptic Orthodox. Do you object to their style of worship or would the EO Church object to their style of worship in the case of a reunion?

I should hope that Severian doesn't object, since he's in communion with them, being Coptic Orthodox.

As for me, I wouldn't object to that style of worship, in the event of union.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 17, 2011, 11:05:26 PM
Yes, I see now that they are Coptic Orthodox. Do you object to their style of worship or would the EO Church object to their style of worship in the case of a reunion?
I am not used to that culture and that form of worship, so it is fairly new to me. I love the Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox worship where the faithful play drums, dance, clap, etc. (like in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7DRp5uGHA)), and that's because that is the traditional worship style of my Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox brothers, so I assume the same applies within the Orthodox community in Nairobi. As per the EOs objecting to it, I am not sure, sorry. But overall, no, I do not object to that form of worship.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 17, 2011, 11:30:53 PM
Yes, I see now that they are Coptic Orthodox. Do you object to their style of worship or would the EO Church object to their style of worship in the case of a reunion?
I am not used to that culture and that form of worship, so it is fairly new to me. I love the Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox worship where the faithful play drums, dance, clap, etc. (like in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7DRp5uGHA)), and that's because that is the traditional worship style of my Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox brothers, so I assume the same applies within the Orthodox community in Nairobi. As per the EOs objecting to it, I am not sure, sorry. But overall, no, I do not object to that form of worship.
somewhere here we have a thread with the local EO bishop or Pope Parthenios or Theodore, I don't recall which, with a congregation of EO Kenyans, similarly with drums.  HH didn't seem to object.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 17, 2011, 11:53:36 PM

Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.


Right: and in good Apostolic fashion, consensus was nearly impossible to achieve.  We've been struggling with it ever since:  the west in the wider world of peoples:  the east in their little ethnic enclaves.

I am amused by the fact that you think cramped, wizened, philetic lungs are somehow healthier than the lungs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

M.
Considering that until Pope John Paul II there hadn't been a non-Italian pope for centuries and that the median age of modern popes has been around social security age, that comment about 'cramped, wizened, philetic lungs' is tough to take without a chuckle from our side.

The pope is ONE person.  The Catholic Church is diverse and HUGE.  If you could say that ALL bishops or even MOST bishops were Italian for centuries, you might get my attention.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 18, 2011, 12:02:18 AM
Yes, I see now that they are Coptic Orthodox. Do you object to their style of worship or would the EO Church object to their style of worship in the case of a reunion?
I am not used to that culture and that form of worship, so it is fairly new to me. I love the Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox worship where the faithful play drums, dance, clap, etc. (like in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7DRp5uGHA)), and that's because that is the traditional worship style of my Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox brothers, so I assume the same applies within the Orthodox community in Nairobi. As per the EOs objecting to it, I am not sure, sorry. But overall, no, I do not object to that form of worship.
somewhere here we have a thread with the local EO bishop or Pope Parthenios or Theodore, I don't recall which, with a congregation of EO Kenyans, similarly with drums.  HH didn't seem to object.
So dancing, singing and clapping and swaying to  and fro during liturgy are OK for EO, but not for R. Catholics.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 01:24:11 AM

Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.


Right: and in good Apostolic fashion, consensus was nearly impossible to achieve.  We've been struggling with it ever since:  the west in the wider world of peoples:  the east in their little ethnic enclaves.

I am amused by the fact that you think cramped, wizened, philetic lungs are somehow healthier than the lungs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

M.
Considering that until Pope John Paul II there hadn't been a non-Italian pope for centuries and that the median age of modern popes has been around social security age, that comment about 'cramped, wizened, philetic lungs' is tough to take without a chuckle from our side.

The pope is ONE person.  The Catholic Church is diverse and HUGE.  If you could say that ALL bishops or even MOST bishops were Italian for centuries, you might get my attention.

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 01:33:07 AM


Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 :laugh:

Guess I better not hold my breath while waiting for statistical backup on the shrinking Orthodox Catholic Church.  Maybe you are talking about those within your own church who still suffer from an identity crisis after 400+ years and call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'!

Mary, you come out looking like you are blowing smoke out of your mouth (or other appendages)  when you make statements like this and are unanable to back them up.

Orthodox
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 18, 2011, 01:41:01 AM


Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 :laugh:

Guess I better not hold my breath while waiting for statistical backup on the shrinking Orthodox Catholic Church.  Maybe you are talking about those within your own church who still suffer from an identity crisis after 400+ years and call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'!

Mary, you come out looking like you are blowing smoke out of your mouth (or other appendages)  when you make statements like this and are unanable to back them up.

Orthodox
I am still waiting to find out where I can attend a Divine Liturgy in Latin as an Orthodox poster stated in post # 107.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 18, 2011, 01:44:48 AM

Or...from the other side asking a variety of Orthodox priests which of the Catholic doctrines must I reject in order to be received into Orthodoxy.  I've never gotten the same list twice.


Because none of us keep any such list in our head.   It's the same if you ask a Roman Catholic priest.   Off the top of their heads they will tell you there are requirements about various beliefs which are quite wrong since the Eastern Catholics are not required to hold them.  Purgatory is one obvious example.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 01:46:56 AM


Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 :laugh:

Guess I better not hold my breath while waiting for statistical backup on the shrinking Orthodox Catholic Church.  Maybe you are talking about those within your own church who still suffer from an identity crisis after 400+ years and call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'!

Mary, you come out looking like you are blowing smoke out of your mouth (or other appendages)  when you make statements like this and are unanable to back them up.

Orthodox
I am still waiting to find out where I can attend a Divine Liturgy in Latin as an Orthodox poster stated in post # 107.

Ask the person directly who made the statement.  I've only heard the Divine Liturgy done entirely in Latin once whch was many years ago.  It was done by a former RC piest who converted to Orthodoxy as a one time thing.

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 02:08:50 AM
I did a search regarding the Orthodox Divine Liturgy in Latin and was forwarded to 'Catholic Answers' of all places!  Haven't been there since I was one of the original thirteen or so Orthodox Catholics kicked off for eternity!

looks like you will have to go to Turin, Italy -

==================================================

And here you go... 

The Latin version of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and made available especially for you by those pesky Orthodox in Turin...

http://www.ortodossia.org/sanmassimo...-sez2-art1.htm
__________________

Orthodoc
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 18, 2011, 02:12:39 AM
I did a search regarding the Orthodox Divine Liturgy in Latin and was forwarded to 'Catholic Answers' of all places!  Haven't been there since I was one of the original thirteen or so Orthodox Catholics kicked off for eternity!

looks like you will have to go to Turin, Italy -

==================================================

And here you go... 

The Latin version of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and made available especially for you by those pesky Orthodox in Turin...

http://www.ortodossia.org/sanmassimo...-sez2-art1.htm
__________________

Orthodoc
I clicked on the link and got: "This page cannot be found."
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 02:25:16 AM

Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.


Right: and in good Apostolic fashion, consensus was nearly impossible to achieve.  We've been struggling with it ever since:  the west in the wider world of peoples:  the east in their little ethnic enclaves.

I am amused by the fact that you think cramped, wizened, philetic lungs are somehow healthier than the lungs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

M.
Considering that until Pope John Paul II there hadn't been a non-Italian pope for centuries and that the median age of modern popes has been around social security age, that comment about 'cramped, wizened, philetic lungs' is tough to take without a chuckle from our side.

The pope is ONE person.  The Catholic Church is diverse and HUGE.  If you could say that ALL bishops or even MOST bishops were Italian for centuries, you might get my attention.
How about the cardinals and curia, the only bishops, besides your ueber-bishop, who count?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 18, 2011, 02:29:07 AM
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.

When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.
why would we call you?
Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
You saying that the EO churches are diverse because of the OO is as silly as the Catholic Church saying that it is diverse because of the Assyrian Church of the East. Just because many of you intercommune with the permission or blind eye of hierarchs doesn't mean that you guys are all the same group.

The Eastern Orthodox are the Eastern Orthodox. They only use the Greek Rite with the caveat that there are a few Roman Rite derivative parishes, but not many.

The Oriental Orthodox are not the Eastern Orthodox, and you trying to claim them as to how diverse orthodoxy is is silly.

And that's great about the Syriac Orthodox. I happen to know a few myself. We have a quickly growing Syriac community in Albuquerque (thank you George W. Bush and U.S. Congress and American warhawks). They all go to the local Ruthenian Catholic parish, whether they're Orthodox or Catholic. They intercommune all the time back home in Iraq. They commune at the Byzantine church. Furthermore, the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics have formal agreements concerning sharing of sacraments (and how it's okay).

ialmisry, I understand that you love the OO. I understand how you feel about them, but your communion of churches is not in communion with them. Your faiths are very similar, but the differences are there. There are reasons that the EO and the OO are not in communion with each other. Those issues have not been resolved, otherwise your hierarchs would concelebrate.

You can try to make your own Zhoghby initiative concerning them, but the Antiochian Greek Orthodox and the Melkite Greek Catholics are not the same, despite how similar they are (and that intercommunion and concelebration happens all the time in the home countries).
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 02:38:15 AM
I did a search regarding the Orthodox Divine Liturgy in Latin and was forwarded to 'Catholic Answers' of all places!  Haven't been there since I was one of the original thirteen or so Orthodox Catholics kicked off for eternity!

looks like you will have to go to Turin, Italy -

==================================================

And here you go... 

The Latin version of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and made available especially for you by those pesky Orthodox in Turin...

http://www.ortodossia.org/sanmassimo...-sez2-art1.htm
__________________

Orthodoc
I clicked on the link and got: "This page cannot be found."
Divina Liturgia Sancti Patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgia%20Sci.%20Joannis%20Chrysostomi.pdf
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 02:48:35 AM

Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.


Right: and in good Apostolic fashion, consensus was nearly impossible to achieve.  We've been struggling with it ever since:  the west in the wider world of peoples:  the east in their little ethnic enclaves.

I am amused by the fact that you think cramped, wizened, philetic lungs are somehow healthier than the lungs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

M.
Considering that until Pope John Paul II there hadn't been a non-Italian pope for centuries and that the median age of modern popes has been around social security age, that comment about 'cramped, wizened, philetic lungs' is tough to take without a chuckle from our side.

The pope is ONE person.  The Catholic Church is diverse and HUGE.  If you could say that ALL bishops or even MOST bishops were Italian for centuries, you might get my attention.

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc
come to think of it, of the 16 councils the Vatican has claimed to call as ecumenical (after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, which it also claims it called), 11 of them were held in Italy (whereas not a single Ecumenical Council, despite the Popes trying, were ever held in Italy).
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 02:54:50 AM


Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 :laugh:

Guess I better not hold my breath while waiting for statistical backup on the shrinking Orthodox Catholic Church.  Maybe you are talking about those within your own church who still suffer from an identity crisis after 400+ years and call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'!

Mary, you come out looking like you are blowing smoke out of your mouth (or other appendages)  when you make statements like this and are unanable to back them up.

Orthodox
I am still waiting to find out where I can attend a Divine Liturgy in Latin as an Orthodox poster stated in post # 107.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.
and you fixated on the Latin.

What I had in mind was DL of St. Gregory which was partly in Latin, but if you were in the altar area of my parish, you could hear my parish priest-he does much of the priest's prayers in Latin (his favorite language).
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 18, 2011, 02:57:00 AM


Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 :laugh:

Guess I better not hold my breath while waiting for statistical backup on the shrinking Orthodox Catholic Church.  Maybe you are talking about those within your own church who still suffer from an identity crisis after 400+ years and call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'!

Mary, you come out looking like you are blowing smoke out of your mouth (or other appendages)  when you make statements like this and are unanable to back them up.

Orthodox
I am still waiting to find out where I can attend a Divine Liturgy in Latin as an Orthodox poster stated in post # 107.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.
and you fixated on the Latin.

What I had in mind was DL of St. Gregory which was partly in Latin, but if you were in the altar area of my parish, you could hear my parish priest-he does much of the priest's prayers in Latin (his favorite language).
Some Roman Catholics like to fixate on Latin. After all, we belong to the Latin Church, don't we?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 03:48:04 AM
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.

When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.
why would we call you?
Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
You saying that the EO churches are diverse because of the OO
I said no such thing.

is as silly as the Catholic Church saying that it is diverse because of the Assyrian Church of the East.
and yet I have seen that argument made, over and over, although none of what you now call sui juris churches have only been around for about 500 years-most far less-i.e. only less than half the history of the Vatican, only only its latter (not its beginning) half.

Just because many of you intercommune with the permission or blind eye of hierarchs doesn't mean that you guys are all the same group.
don't confuse your Vatican's bad habits with our practice: we don't turn a blind eye.

The Eastern Orthodox are the Eastern Orthodox.
LOL.  We define ourselves.  We don't need pontificating from the Vatican to tell us who we are.

They only use the Greek Rite with the caveat that there are a few Roman Rite derivative parishes, but not many.
Your Vatican categories are showing:you are refering, I assUme, to the rite of Constantinople.  Yes it's originally Greek, just as was the rite of Alexandria which the Copts still use (and still use much of it in Greek) and the Greek EO used from the earliest times to c. 1200; and the rite of Antioch, which was used just as earlier until the same date by the Greek (and Arab) EO until around the same date, and still used by the Syriac Orthodox;and the rite of Jerusalem, still in limited use.  In fact, the rite of Rome was originally in Greek as well, Latin being introduced by the provincial Pope St. Victor c. 190 and not fully Latinized until Pope St. Damasus two centuries later.

The Oriental Orthodox are not the Eastern Orthodox, and you trying to claim them as to how diverse orthodoxy is is silly.

And that's great about the Syriac Orthodox. I happen to know a few myself. We have a quickly growing Syriac community in Albuquerque (thank you George W. Bush and U.S. Congress and American warhawks). They all go to the local Ruthenian Catholic parish, whether they're Orthodox or Catholic.

Orthodox=Catholic.  If they go commune at a Ruthenian parish in submission to the Vatican, then they belong to the Vatican.

They intercommune all the time back home in Iraq.

You sure you're not confusing them with their ethnic cousins, the Chaldeans and Nestorians, who are far more numerious in Iraq? In which case if heretics commune with heretics, that doesn't involve the Orthodox.

They commune at the Byzantine church. Furthermore, the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics have formal agreements concerning sharing of sacraments (and how it's okay).
The Syriac Orthodox, like the rest of the Orthodox, exercise economia regarding those in schism from the Mother Church.  It is, for instance, why the wayward flocks that St. Alexis brought back to Orthodoxy are refered to "coming back," although they had been mired in the heresies of the Vatican for generations, and strictly speaking should have been looked on the same way as any Ultramontanist from Italy, Spain, Poland, France, Austria, Hungary or Croatia.

ialmisry, I understand that you love the OO. I understand how you feel about them, but your communion of churches is not in communion with them.
The status of our communion concerns you how? as it doesn't include you.

Your faiths are very similar, but the differences are there. There are reasons that the EO and the OO are not in communion with each other. Those issues have not been resolved, otherwise your hierarchs would concelebrate.
Again, you worry about our business.  We are more than competent and able to manage our own affairs.

It is a little pregnant: both Popes (unlike your bishops in submission there, ours, both, can hold the see' ancient title) of Alexandria and Patriarchs of Antioch recognize each others baptism (something we don't do for others), marriages (something we do not do for any other), ordinations (something we do not do for others) and consecrations (something we don't do for others).

You can try to make your own Zhoghby initiative concerning them,

no the agreements that the Popes and Patriarchs have signed more than suffice.

but the Antiochian Greek Orthodox and the Melkite Greek Catholics are not the same, despite how similar they are (and that intercommunion and concelebration happens all the time in the home countries).
not quite sure how the Melkites, who are by definition not OO, got brought up.

We say a pox on both your houses to the squabbles of Old and New Rome, something that vexes the Vatican, but is why EO Antioch does not look at the Melkites the same way as the Ultramontanists.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 18, 2011, 10:29:57 AM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 11:01:16 AM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 18, 2011, 11:14:12 AM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 12:00:17 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 12:04:53 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.
I've said it before. I'll say it again: your problem is that I call a spade a spade.  And I've been breathing quite easy ever since my resources led me to Orthodoxy, The Catholic Church.  Part of those resources is seeing the similarity of Lumen Gentium and the Soviet constitution.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 12:06:29 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.

Mary, Mary, Mary!  OK.  How about giving me both versions so I can compare.
Your version and your churches version should be one in the same.  Otherwise why belong to your church in the first place if you don't agree with its version of dogma or official proclaimations and have your own version of things?
Orthodoc
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 18, 2011, 12:09:51 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.

Most of you don't have an accurate understanding of The Catholic Church [papal Catholic] at all.  So to cling to your own mis-understandings so violently is not destructive of us but of yourselves with regard to being able to discern truth and reality.

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 18, 2011, 12:12:52 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.

Mary, Mary, Mary!  OK.  How about giving me both versions so I can compare.
Your version and your churches version should be one in the same.  Otherwise why belong to your church in the first place if you don't agree with its version of dogma or official proclaimations and have your own version of things?
Orthodoc

I never offer my own version here.  I offer what I learn from my Church.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 12:18:08 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.

Mary, Mary, Mary!  OK.  How about giving me both versions so I can compare.
Your version and your churches version should be one in the same.  Otherwise why belong to your church in the first place if you don't agree with its version of dogma or official proclaimations and have your own version of things?
Orthodoc

I never offer my own version here.  I offer what I learn from my Church.

 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Anyone ever tell you that you talk in circles.  Especially when you don't have an answer.  That's why no one takes you seriously.  Both here and elsewhere.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 18, 2011, 12:19:41 PM
The viciousness of this thread is unbelievable.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 18, 2011, 12:26:03 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.

Mary, Mary, Mary!  OK.  How about giving me both versions so I can compare.
Your version and your churches version should be one in the same.  Otherwise why belong to your church in the first place if you don't agree with its version of dogma or official proclaimations and have your own version of things?
Orthodoc

I never offer my own version here.  I offer what I learn from my Church.

 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Anyone ever tell you that you talk in circles.  Especially when you don't have an answer.  That's why no one takes you seriously.  Both here and elsewhere.

Orthodoc

You are simply confused by your own misconceptions.

You buy into Isa and also, sadly, Father Ambrose's insistence that I do not offer the teaching of my Church but rather offer my own version of the Church's formal teaching.

I do not do that and am not guilty as charged.

So it only seems to you that I talk in circles when I refuse to accept your accusations or characterizations of what I say.

And my dear, you would be quite disturbed if you know how seriously I am taken in fact.

M.

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 12:27:08 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.

Most of you don't have an accurate understanding of The Catholic Church [papal Catholic] at all.  So to cling to your own mis-understandings so violently is not destructive of us but of yourselves with regard to being able to discern truth and reality.



If this is true then why do you refuse to teach us or correct us by being more specific instead of reverting to talking in circles or around an issue under discussion?

Orthodoc
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 18, 2011, 12:34:44 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.

Most of you don't have an accurate understanding of The Catholic Church [papal Catholic] at all.  So to cling to your own mis-understandings so violently is not destructive of us but of yourselves with regard to being able to discern truth and reality.



If this is true then why do you refuse to teach us or correct us by being more specific instead of reverting to talking in circles or around an issue under discussion?

Orthodoc

I try to get good words in edgewise sometimes.  But all possible positive impacts are generally wiped out in an instant by pages of wiki cut and past-text and map-sans-commentary or analysis.  It is a good tactic by one who understands this medium and how people read and how their minds work...or don't.

I only have so much energy in a day and time is now my enemy in terms of doing some of this kind of work, and I only push the rock up-hill so many times in a week.  Then I wait for another opening and wait to see what happens.

I explained to you above why I cannot answer your question as asked here.

The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ.

Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Orthodoc on August 18, 2011, 02:00:53 PM
You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 18, 2011, 04:48:41 PM
You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc
In some sense, every bishop is coequal to the other. But in another sense, no. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople is a bishop, but he has certain prerogatives in the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 18, 2011, 06:47:19 PM
You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc

Because Isa inserts his commentary on most of the posts referencing The Catholic Church, you can assume that when I speak of the Catholic Church [my Church],  I am referring to the whole Catholic Church, and not my particular Church.  When I reference my particular Church, it will be more clear for I will refer to its particular name.

The contradiction that you see is paradox because both things are true and do not contradict.

You asked for an example of when the conciliar Church ever spoke and acted over the words and actions and understandings of popes:  One of the most recent examples is the clarifications of the Second Vatican Council with respect to the understanding of the phrase "Ex ecclesia nulla salus"...It is not a complete and total negation of the phrase as it has been understood historically, but it does point to other self-understandings of the Church and the Body of Christ that mitigate against a strict and literal understanding of the original declaration and advances an understanding that accepts that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation: but not perhaps in such an exclusionary sense that is preferable to many: and encouraged by historical papal announcements.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 07:18:09 PM
You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc
In some sense, every bishop is coequal to the other. But in another sense, no. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople is a bishop, but he has certain prerogatives in the Orthodox Church.
perrogatives the rest of the Orthodox episcopate gave him, and which they can change, modify or abolish.  Not so your "supreme pontiff, the vicar of Christ."
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 07:24:16 PM
You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc

Because Isa inserts his commentary on most of the posts referencing The Catholic Church, you can assume that when I speak of the Catholic Church [my Church],  I am referring to the whole Catholic Church, and not my particular Church.  When I reference my particular Church, it will be more clear for I will refer to its particular name.
nothing you post is ever clear, EM: it's your modus operandi.

The contradiction that you see is paradox because both things are true and do not contradict.
No, it's a contradiction between the deposit of Faith the Apostles left and what your "magisterium" wants that deposit to say.  No paradox involved at all.

You asked for an example of when the conciliar Church ever spoke and acted over the words and actions and understandings of popes:  One of the most recent examples is the clarifications of the Second Vatican Council with respect to the understanding of the phrase "Ex ecclesia nulla salus"...It is not a complete and total negation of the phrase as it has been understood historically, but it does point to other self-understandings of the Church and the Body of Christ that mitigate against a strict and literal understanding of the original declaration and advances an understanding that accepts that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation: but not perhaps in such an exclusionary sense that is preferable to many: and encouraged by historical papal announcements.
none of which we can get a straight answer on their "ex cathedra" and "infallible" status and hence authority.

Btw, instead of giving your spin, why don't you quote a) your Second Vatican Council and b) those supreme pontiffs whose words it supposedly spoke and acted over.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 18, 2011, 07:26:32 PM
I'm just amazed that this hasn't been kicked over to the private fora.  :P
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 18, 2011, 07:27:43 PM
You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc
In some sense, every bishop is coequal to the other. But in another sense, no. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople is a bishop, but he has certain prerogatives in the Orthodox Church.
perrogatives the rest of the Orthodox episcopate gave him, and which they can change, modify or abolish.  Not so your "supreme pontiff, the vicar of Christ."
R Catholics have development of doctrine, and joint study is going on concerning the position of the Roman Bishop in the pre-schism  era (before 1054), presumably so that an acceptable compromise or solution can be reached on this question.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 18, 2011, 07:30:20 PM

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.

Most of you don't have an accurate understanding of The Catholic Church [papal Catholic] at all.  So to cling to your own mis-understandings so violently is not destructive of us but of yourselves with regard to being able to discern truth and reality.



If this is true then why do you refuse to teach us or correct us by being more specific instead of reverting to talking in circles or around an issue under discussion?

Orthodoc

I try to get good words in edgewise sometimes.  But all possible positive impacts are generally wiped out in an instant by pages of wiki cut and past-text and map-sans-commentary or analysis.  It is a good tactic by one who understands this medium and how people read and how their minds work...or don't.

I only have so much energy in a day and time is now my enemy in terms of doing some of this kind of work, and I only push the rock up-hill so many times in a week.  Then I wait for another opening and wait to see what happens.

I explained to you above why I cannot answer your question as asked here.

The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ.
no, that is not your "magisterium's" teaching: every bishop must be joined to the supreme head.
I have just a moment, but I thought I would get this ball rolling.

I'm going to go through the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, i.e. the Vatican's "Code of Canons of the Eastern Church," because of the confussion of the bishop in the Vatican as supreme pontiff and patriarch of the West, a confusion seen in some of the cherry picked patristics on the jurisdiction of the bisop of Rome. In the CCEO, the Vatican's position vis-a-vis the local bishop comes out loud and clear.

Quote
TITLE 7

Eparchies and Bishops

Canon 177
1. An eparchy is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted for pastoral care to a bishop with the cooperation of the presbyterate so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative.
2. In the erection, modification, and suppression of eparchies within the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church, can. 85,
1 is to be observed; in other cases the erection, modification and suppression of eparchies is solely within the competence of the Apostolic See. [i.e. the Vatican]

Canon 85
1. For a serious reason, with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and having consulted the Apostolic See [i.e. the Vatican], the patriarch can establish provinces and eparchies, modify their boundaries, unite, divide, suppress, and modify their hierarchical status and transfer the eparchial see.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

So the eparchy is entrusted to the bishop, but who does the entrusting?  Why, who else? "the Supreme Authority in the Church," i.e. the Vatican.  It is "the Supreme Authority in the Church" who erects, modifies, suppresses, unites, divides, modify their hiearchal status and transfer their see. The involvement of the patriarch is the exception-and then only for a serious reason and (unlike the patriarch of the West, i.e. "the Suprem Authority in the Church") contingent on the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, and only after consulting (i.e. securing approval) of "the Supreme Authority in the Church"-the rule that it is "solely within the competence of "the Supreme Authority in the Church."
Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.
No, he does not have to. What he has to do is dismiss it for the heresy it is, and your ecclesial community for teaching it.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 19, 2011, 02:57:08 AM
those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.

When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.
why would we call you?
Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
You saying that the EO churches are diverse because of the OO
I said no such thing.

is as silly as the Catholic Church saying that it is diverse because of the Assyrian Church of the East.
and yet I have seen that argument made, over and over, although none of what you now call sui juris churches have only been around for about 500 years-most far less-i.e. only less than half the history of the Vatican, only only its latter (not its beginning) half.

Just because many of you intercommune with the permission or blind eye of hierarchs doesn't mean that you guys are all the same group.
don't confuse your Vatican's bad habits with our practice: we don't turn a blind eye.

The Eastern Orthodox are the Eastern Orthodox.
LOL.  We define ourselves.  We don't need pontificating from the Vatican to tell us who we are.

They only use the Greek Rite with the caveat that there are a few Roman Rite derivative parishes, but not many.
Your Vatican categories are showing:you are refering, I assUme, to the rite of Constantinople.  Yes it's originally Greek, just as was the rite of Alexandria which the Copts still use (and still use much of it in Greek) and the Greek EO used from the earliest times to c. 1200; and the rite of Antioch, which was used just as earlier until the same date by the Greek (and Arab) EO until around the same date, and still used by the Syriac Orthodox;and the rite of Jerusalem, still in limited use.  In fact, the rite of Rome was originally in Greek as well, Latin being introduced by the provincial Pope St. Victor c. 190 and not fully Latinized until Pope St. Damasus two centuries later.

The Oriental Orthodox are not the Eastern Orthodox, and you trying to claim them as to how diverse orthodoxy is is silly.

And that's great about the Syriac Orthodox. I happen to know a few myself. We have a quickly growing Syriac community in Albuquerque (thank you George W. Bush and U.S. Congress and American warhawks). They all go to the local Ruthenian Catholic parish, whether they're Orthodox or Catholic.

Orthodox=Catholic.  If they go commune at a Ruthenian parish in submission to the Vatican, then they belong to the Vatican.

They intercommune all the time back home in Iraq.

You sure you're not confusing them with their ethnic cousins, the Chaldeans and Nestorians, who are far more numerious in Iraq? In which case if heretics commune with heretics, that doesn't involve the Orthodox.

They commune at the Byzantine church. Furthermore, the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics have formal agreements concerning sharing of sacraments (and how it's okay).
The Syriac Orthodox, like the rest of the Orthodox, exercise economia regarding those in schism from the Mother Church.  It is, for instance, why the wayward flocks that St. Alexis brought back to Orthodoxy are refered to "coming back," although they had been mired in the heresies of the Vatican for generations, and strictly speaking should have been looked on the same way as any Ultramontanist from Italy, Spain, Poland, France, Austria, Hungary or Croatia.

ialmisry, I understand that you love the OO. I understand how you feel about them, but your communion of churches is not in communion with them.
The status of our communion concerns you how? as it doesn't include you.

Your faiths are very similar, but the differences are there. There are reasons that the EO and the OO are not in communion with each other. Those issues have not been resolved, otherwise your hierarchs would concelebrate.
Again, you worry about our business.  We are more than competent and able to manage our own affairs.

It is a little pregnant: both Popes (unlike your bishops in submission there, ours, both, can hold the see' ancient title) of Alexandria and Patriarchs of Antioch recognize each others baptism (something we don't do for others), marriages (something we do not do for any other), ordinations (something we do not do for others) and consecrations (something we don't do for others).

You can try to make your own Zhoghby initiative concerning them,

no the agreements that the Popes and Patriarchs have signed more than suffice.

but the Antiochian Greek Orthodox and the Melkite Greek Catholics are not the same, despite how similar they are (and that intercommunion and concelebration happens all the time in the home countries).
not quite sure how the Melkites, who are by definition not OO, got brought up.

We say a pox on both your houses to the squabbles of Old and New Rome, something that vexes the Vatican, but is why EO Antioch does not look at the Melkites the same way as the Ultramontanists.

I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference. There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.

2. "Greek Rite" is a perfectly valid term meaning "The Rite of Constantinople", which, incidentally, the non-Apostolic* See of Constantinople tried to enforce upon pretty much everyone in the Eastern Mediterranean. And now it is the only Rite practiced by the Eastern Orthodox churches (with the caveat of a very small Western Rite usage - heavily Hellenized).

3. It depends on who you talk to, concerning the recognizing of each other's mysteries. Some Eastern Orthodox don't acknowledge the mysteries of the Oriental Orthodox churches, and some do recognize the mysteries of the Catholic Church.

4. You are not a nice person. "A pox on both your houses"? You are leveling a curse at the protos of bishops in your own communion and the protos of bishops in mine. Dearest bearer of the name of Christ our God, you have not put me in a good mood. I am a prideful person. I am not as prayerful as I should be. If I said I corrected you out of love, I'd be only a few percent true. That is my flaw and my sin. Have mercy on me, for I have sinned without number. But, please, recant your statement. A curse upon the Sees of Old and New Rome? What pride! You, a layman, curse the ancient Sees which have led the church for 2,000 and 1,700 years respectively? I'm offended, and I think other Christians should be too.

I have had nothing but good experiences with Eastern Orthodox in real life. A priest once told me that the Catholics and the Orthodox were like two sides of a coin - an Orthodox priest, mind you, and one of the holiest you'll meet. Whereas, the distaste that you show for my religion and its adherents is unseen in real life orthodoxy. I, Paul, ask thee, Isa, why do you persecute me? I understand you believe we have perverted the faith. That is ok - it is between you and God, and my bishops and your bishops. But how you speak of us, how you talk of your fellow religionists, and the strength of negative emotion that you reveal with your words on the internet is another matter. It's a complete disconnect from my actual experience with the Eastern Orthodox churches. Does it make me love the Orthodox faith more? No, it only grieves me and makes me rant on the internet because I lose my temper.

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 19, 2011, 03:17:09 AM
* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

What is this concept of the "Apostolicity" of a See? May I find it within the Bible? What about the Tradition of the Church? May I find it referenced within the writings of the Church Fathers? Where in the Canons and the Councils of the Church may I read about the importance of a See's "Apostolicity"? Since the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was not one of the original twelve, how many generations does it take for "Apostolicity" to wear off and new Sees founded after this cut-off generation cease to be Apostolic? Also, because it stems from Second Generation "Apostolicity," does Alexandria therefore have second-class authority, under Rome and Antioch?

Please answer these questions for me, so that I might better understand this concept of "Apostolicity" which I have heretofore not encountered.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 19, 2011, 03:25:23 AM
* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

What is this concept of the "Apostolicity" of a See? May I find it within the Bible? What about the Tradition of the Church? May I find it referenced within the writings of the Church Fathers? Where in the Canons and the Councils of the Church may I read about the importance of a See's "Apostolicity"? Since the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was not one of the original twelve, how many generations does it take for "Apostolicity" to wear off and new Sees founded after this cut-off generation cease to be Apostolic? Also, because it stems from Second Generation "Apostolicity," does Alexandria therefore have second-class authority, under Rome and Antioch?

Please answer these questions for me, so that I might better understand this concept of "Apostolicity" which I have heretofore not encountered.
Sadly, I don't have any references with which to provide you. That being said, you can dismiss that entire part of my post as invalid if you so desire, and I will not complain. It's something I've picked up somewhere.

Apostolic Sees are bishopricks that trace their founding directly to the Apostles and were ruled by them for a time. St. Mark was one of the Seventy Apostles, but I know that it is often called a Petrine See because of St. Mark's relationship with St. Peter. The See of Byzantium was not founded by St. Andrew, but centuries later as a suffragan of another See. Hence, the See of Byzantium is not Apostolic.

It's a messy thing, but the concept does exist. Wikipedia has its own views on the matter but I promise I didn't read Wikipedia and then start parading their concept of an Apostolic See all over the place. It's something I've seen elsewhere.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 19, 2011, 03:46:17 AM
* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

What is this concept of the "Apostolicity" of a See? May I find it within the Bible? What about the Tradition of the Church? May I find it referenced within the writings of the Church Fathers? Where in the Canons and the Councils of the Church may I read about the importance of a See's "Apostolicity"? Since the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was not one of the original twelve, how many generations does it take for "Apostolicity" to wear off and new Sees founded after this cut-off generation cease to be Apostolic? Also, because it stems from Second Generation "Apostolicity," does Alexandria therefore have second-class authority, under Rome and Antioch?

Please answer these questions for me, so that I might better understand this concept of "Apostolicity" which I have heretofore not encountered.
Sadly, I don't have any references with which to provide you. That being said, you can dismiss that entire part of my post as invalid if you so desire, and I will not complain. It's something I've picked up somewhere.

Apostolic Sees are bishopricks that trace their founding directly to the Apostles and were ruled by them for a time. St. Mark was one of the Seventy Apostles, but I know that it is often called a Petrine See because of St. Mark's relationship with St. Peter. The See of Byzantium was not founded by St. Andrew, but centuries later as a suffragan of another See. Hence, the See of Byzantium is not Apostolic.

It's a messy thing, but the concept does exist. Wikipedia has its own views on the matter but I promise I didn't read Wikipedia and then start parading their concept of an Apostolic See all over the place. It's something I've seen elsewhere.

Yes, but where in the canons may I find sees being elevated to having special authority because of their Apostolicity? If Apostolicity were so important to the structure of the Church, then why have I not seen canons referencing this concept? Also, whence do metropolitans and archbishops draw their authority over their metropolises and archdioceses, since they do not possess Apostolicity? Is the special authority of Apostolicity passed down to other hierarchs, by virtue of their subordination to a bishop who does possess Apostolicity? How is Apostolicity itself passed along between a patriarch and his successor? Is it like the Ordination of clergymen, which is accomplished by passing on the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands? Furthermore, because only one bishop may be seated within a see at any given time, how does Apostolicity pass down to the new patriarch should the old one die? Do the other bishops within the patriarchate confer Apostolicity upon the new patriarch? How does that work, since none of the other bishops possess Apostolicity themselves?

I do not doubt that some people believe in such a concept, but I cannot bring myself to believe that the Church ever had this form of governance unless these questions are answered.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 19, 2011, 04:18:54 AM
I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?

2. "Greek Rite" is a perfectly valid term meaning "The Rite of Constantinople",

No, it is not, as it has meaning only in the Vatican scheme of things, where it lumps together all those who entered schism and submitted to it, and then calls them "Greek Catholic" (the distinction between EO, OO, Monothelite and Nestorian being blurred when they all adopt Ultramontanism: hence the one size fits all Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO), issued, of course, in Latin).

If one were to insist on calling it Greek because of its original language, then there would be no distinction between it and the rites of Alexandria (still largely in Greek even among the Copts), Antioch (minimal Greek among the Syriac, comparable to the use of Greek in the Latin mass), Jerusalem (where St. James DL survives), and Rome itself: Latin not being the original language of the Church there.  Sort of like "Latin Rite" for the Roman rite, as a) the Roman rite wasn't orginally in Latin, and b) that ignores the Mozarabic, Gallican and Ambrosian rites, which were formed in Latin.

which, incidentally, the non-Apostolic*
we'll deal with this gratuitous, and incorrect, swipe below.

See of Constantinople tried to enforce upon pretty much everyone in the Eastern Mediterranean.
True enough. It however, unlike the Vatican, didn't use the sword for that: it couldn't, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were long lost to the Empire when that happened.  Given that the Vatican tried to impose its newly minted Latin rite (which dates from around the time New Rome became the second see) not only around the whole Mediterranean, but the world, odd that you should bring that up.

And now it is the only Rite practiced by the Eastern Orthodox churches (with the caveat of a very small Western Rite usage - heavily Hellenized).
Its not a usage, its a rite.  And it would be odd that it would be heavily Hellenized, as no branch of the Greek Church has WRO.  And no, it's not even heavily influenced by the rite of Constantinople ("Byzantinized" is something the Vatican does, having invented the concept).

3. It depends on who you talk to, concerning the recognizing of each other's mysteries. Some Eastern Orthodox don't acknowledge the mysteries of the Oriental Orthodox churches, and some do recognize the mysteries of the Catholic Church.
The Holy Mysteries of the Catholic Church are what bind the Orthodox, so of course they are recognized.

As for the Vatican, there is no Orthodox, EO at least (I'll let the OO speak for themselves), who recognize what it calls sacraments.

4. You are not a nice person. "A pox on both your houses"? You are leveling a curse at the protos of bishops in your own communion
We don't have a protos of bishops.  It seems New Rome has caught Ultramontanist fever from Old Rome, perhaps with members of the Phanar going to the Vatican since the closing of Haliki.  And when they act as foolish as the Vatican has, putting forth silly claims...

and the protos of bishops in mine. Dearest bearer of the name of Christ our God, you have not put me in a good mood. I am a prideful person. I am not as prayerful as I should be. If I said I corrected you out of love, I'd be only a few percent true. That is my flaw and my sin. Have mercy on me, for I have sinned without number. But, please, recant your statement. A curse upon the Sees of Old and New Rome? What pride! You, a layman, curse the ancient Sees which have led the church for 2,000 and 1,700 years respectively? I'm offended, and I think other Christians should be too.
You math is off.  Rome at the earliest could not have led the Church until after the destruction of Jerusalem, 1959 years ago, and it is questionable even then.  New Rome didn't lead the Church until Old Rome fell definitively into apostasy, about a thousand years ago. And my home sees of Alexandria and Antioch are just as old (indeed, Antioch is older than either Rome) in leading the Church.

Maximus the Confessor was a layman. It is your Vatican who is deceived into thinking that bishops can sign over the Church to heresy.

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.
I'm tired, so I'll have to pick this up later.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 19, 2011, 09:00:12 AM
I'm just amazed that this hasn't been kicked over to the private fora.  :P

isn't there a special thread for Ialmisry and Elijahmaria's back and forth?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 19, 2011, 09:03:52 AM
I'm just amazed that this hasn't been kicked over to the private fora.  :P

isn't there a special thread for Ialmisry and Elijahmaria's back and forth?
Yes. LOL.  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Papist on August 19, 2011, 04:28:11 PM
Everytime I read the title to this tread, I see Napolean Dynamite in my head saying, "Your face is more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime." Perhaps I have been teaching high school for far too long.

(http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/11/1149/6XNM000Z/posters/napoleon-dynamite.jpg)
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Wyatt on August 20, 2011, 01:51:39 AM
I love that movie. Lol.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 02:53:57 PM
* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

What is this concept of the "Apostolicity" of a See? May I find it within the Bible? What about the Tradition of the Church? May I find it referenced within the writings of the Church Fathers? Where in the Canons and the Councils of the Church may I read about the importance of a See's "Apostolicity"? Since the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was not one of the original twelve, how many generations does it take for "Apostolicity" to wear off and new Sees founded after this cut-off generation cease to be Apostolic? Also, because it stems from Second Generation "Apostolicity," does Alexandria therefore have second-class authority, under Rome and Antioch?

Please answer these questions for me, so that I might better understand this concept of "Apostolicity" which I have heretofore not encountered.
Sadly, I don't have any references with which to provide you. That being said, you can dismiss that entire part of my post as invalid if you so desire, and I will not complain. It's something I've picked up somewhere.

Apostolic Sees are bishopricks that trace their founding directly to the Apostles and were ruled by them for a time. St. Mark was one of the Seventy Apostles, but I know that it is often called a Petrine See because of St. Mark's relationship with St. Peter. The See of Byzantium was not founded by St. Andrew, but centuries later as a suffragan of another See. Hence, the See of Byzantium is not Apostolic.

It's a messy thing, but the concept does exist. Wikipedia has its own views on the matter but I promise I didn't read Wikipedia and then start parading their concept of an Apostolic See all over the place. It's something I've seen elsewhere.

Yes, but where in the canons may I find sees being elevated to having special authority because of their Apostolicity? If Apostolicity were so important to the structure of the Church, then why have I not seen canons referencing this concept? Also, whence do metropolitans and archbishops draw their authority over their metropolises and archdioceses, since they do not possess Apostolicity? Is the special authority of Apostolicity passed down to other hierarchs, by virtue of their subordination to a bishop who does possess Apostolicity? How is Apostolicity itself passed along between a patriarch and his successor? Is it like the Ordination of clergymen, which is accomplished by passing on the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands? Furthermore, because only one bishop may be seated within a see at any given time, how does Apostolicity pass down to the new patriarch should the old one die? Do the other bishops within the patriarchate confer Apostolicity upon the new patriarch? How does that work, since none of the other bishops possess Apostolicity themselves?

I do not doubt that some people believe in such a concept, but I cannot bring myself to believe that the Church ever had this form of governance unless these questions are answered.
I'm going to just piggy back here, as Cavaradossi has hit the nail on the head.

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.
first, interesting how we lost sees before, according to your Vatican, we existed.

Besides that, your dates are off: Selecuia-Ctesiphon didn't adopt Nestorianism as its creed until 485, and even then, its autocephaly from its Mother Church in Antioch is questionable. Antioch (both EO and OO, once Chalcedon became a dividing point) continued to exercise its jurisdiction as the Sassanid Empire sustained a substantial Orthodox population (there are many martyrs and other saints on the calendar after 431) and well into caliphate.  The Orthodox presence continued until today, in fact becoming the majority in the Indian dependency.

In Alexandria the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians had Popes in common until 536, and the two hierarchies only became solidified as seperate, after such periods of fluctuation as the Henotikon, when the Chalcedonians accepted Constantinople II and the non-Chalcedonians did not participate (the non-Chalcedonian Pope whose recognition the Chalcedonians deposed, Pope Theodosius II, was still recognized by the non-Chalcedonians in 553).  Although the minority, the EO Patriarchate survived:Pope Eutychius Sa'id ibn Batriq (933-40) was born in Fustat/Old Cairo in 877 and did not speak Greek, only Arabic and Syriac, but wrote a chronicle that became well known even in Latin as Eutychii Annales.  A generation later, after the Fatimids conquered Egypt under the caliph al-'Aziz, the caliph took a EO bride, who saw to the election of one of her brothers as Patriarch Orestes of Jerusalem in 983.  Another brother acted as vicar during Pat. Orestes' years of absence from Jerusalem, and after the death of al-'Aziz himself became Pope Arsenios of Alexandria in 1000.  Their nephew, al-Hakim, murdered them and destroyed the Church of the Resurrection, and in the following persecution many EO fled to the Empire of the Romans, including Pope Arsenius' successor, Pope Theophilos II, who fled to Constantinople (his successor Pope George II presided again in Egypt) and Yahya b. Sa'id, a relative of Pope Eutychius, fled to Antioch (then held again by the Empire), who continued the Pope's chronicle, in which form it became well known outside the Arab world.  During the Crusades, and especially after they invaded Egypt, the situation became precarious for the Church, such that Pope Mark III, under pressure from "Patriarch" Balsamon "of Antioch" he abolished the use of his own rite in favor of Constantinople's (c. 1200, right before the sack of Constantinople). Still, it survived long enough for a mission in 1740 to the horn, and from then on, until the present when it has bishops throughout the continent of "All Africa."

Your date for Antioch makes less sense, for, unlike in Seleucia-Ctesiphon and Alexandria, the majority of the Patriarchate of Antioch remained in communion with us.  The break there from the rest of Orthodoxy didn't occur until Jacob Baradeus consecrated Sergius of Tella and then Paul II, which led to schisms amongst the non-Chalcedonians and especially from Coptic Alexandria.  The Chalcedonian Patriarch remained in Antioch until his 'brother' Chalcedonians, the Crusaders, expelled him in 1098, and he lived in exile in Constantinople until 1269, when he returned to Antioch, a dying city from wars, invasions and earthquakes, the change in trade routes and the Mamluk massacre of its Christian population, and thence to Damascus around 1349 (though the region around Antioch still was populated by Christians, and, with the change of fortunes, Antioch received its cathedral parish with its flock again).

As for the founding of the Church of Constantinople, the record of the traditions of its foundation by St. Andrew at Byzantium predate the founding of Constantinople by a century or so, and originates in the second century.  It would have been rather odd if St. Andrew had not gone to Byzantium, as he evangelized around the Black Sea (then the Euxeinos Sea), and Byzantium sitting on its only entrance.

to clean up the rest of these misconceptions
Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.
They had the Crusaders, which did exactly that, expelling the true Patriarchs (except for Alexandria:they never took Egypt, and their Latin Patriarch for it only got as close as Accre) and Archbishop (i.e. of Cyprus), and setting up a Latin in their place.

As for the "Greek Patriarchs of those regions....the patrimony of those Churches was displaced in favor of Greek [sic] patrimony," I don't know what you are talking about, as it seems you don't either: Alexandria and Antioch were both Greek cities, founded and settled by Greeks, and Jerusalem had been refounded and settled as a gentile (i.e. Greek) city in 130 after its destruction in 70.  Egyptians, long into Roman rule and past the Apostolic age, were denied citizenship of Alexandria, whereas the Jews had been granted it, a similar situation prevailed in Antioch,

The formation of Christianity in Antioch: a social-scientific approach to the seperation between Judaism and Christianity By Magnus Zetterholm
http://books.google.com/books?id=5wTJX17WH_0C&pg=PA49&dq=antioch+citizenship+jews&hl=en#v=onepage&q=antioch%20citizenship%20jews&f=false

and in Jerusalem the Hebrews and Jews were long banned from even entering the city.  As I said, the patrimony of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem was as Greek as that of Constantinople.
now having cleared that all up
* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy.
I dealt with this a lot here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.0.html
and if you can follow the minutiae of American history, an analogy at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19095.msg423958.html#msg423958

What primacy are you talking about?  Pope St. Gregory's misconceptions about it?  He was correct in seeing Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as one Petrine See, as all the bishops are successors of St. Peter as St. Cyprian taught.  
Cyprian the Bishop By J. Patout Burns
http://books.google.com/books?id=egbXJlUgAW8C&pg=PA158&dq=cyprian+all+bishops+successors+peter&hl=en#v=onepage&q=cyprian%20all%20bishops%20successors%20peter&f=false
As he put it
Quote
The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.
The sayings of the great forty days, between the resurrection and ascension ... By George Moberly
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=the+episcopate+is+one+episcopatum+unum&id=XIQrAAAAYAAJ&ots=8gPpU-mje5#v=onepage&q=the%20episcopate%20is%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false

Pope St. Gregory, however, left out Jerusalem, doubtless the possessor of primacy in the Book of Acts until its destruction in 70, and by Pope St. Gregory again recognized as an autocephalous Patriarchate.  All the sees of the Jerusalem patriarchate were doubtless Apostolic, but he doesn't explain how Jerusalem has primacy over them.  Nor does he explain Corinth, Athens, Phillippi, Crete etc., Apostolic sees without a doubt (as they are shown as such in scripture) over which he, Pope St. Gregory, claimed jurisdiction.  No, apostolicity has been a factor of primacy, but never the dispositive one, except in Cyprus being autocephalous from Antioch, an example both Pope St. Gregory and yourself ignore. Otherwise Antioch would have had primacy before Alexandria, rather than the reverse.  

Apostolicity followed the secular order, as the Apostles, naturally spread the Gospel through the established order, going to the Metropolitan cities, out of which the patriarchates would radiate.  Which is why the order was Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, rather than Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria.  The idea of apostolicity creating a inequality of the episcopate was created by Rome, jealous at the rise of New Rome in its place.  Or is the Avignon Papacy just a period of sede vacans?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on August 20, 2011, 02:59:40 PM
Everytime I read the title to this tread, I see Napolean Dynamite in my head saying, "Your face is more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime." Perhaps I have been teaching high school for far too long.

(http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/11/1149/6XNM000Z/posters/napoleon-dynamite.jpg)
ROFL!  :laugh:
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Shiny on August 20, 2011, 03:58:40 PM
Uncle Rico FTW
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 20, 2011, 04:54:46 PM
I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 05:11:47 PM
I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Heorhij on August 20, 2011, 05:36:38 PM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

I totally agree that he knows nothing about both things. Moreover, even an attempt to compare these two things is a sign of a hopeless moral relativism. It's almost like I would say, "yes, Stalin murdered millions of people, but in the USA, there are these telemarketers that can drive you crazy."

I don't think, though, that the "Unia" was a great spiritual catastrophe. It was, and is, a success of our brothers and sisters Roman Catholics. That they and us Orthodox aren't together anymore is a lot bigger spiritual catastrophe, and for that we bear as much guilt, if not more, than them.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 06:13:31 PM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

I totally agree that he knows nothing about both things. Moreover, even an attempt to compare these two things is a sign of a hopeless moral relativism. It's almost like I would say, "yes, Stalin murdered millions of people, but in the USA, there are these telemarketers that can drive you crazy."
Hardly.
Quote
The Uniate and Papist propaganda that is being promulgated in these countries today is ruthless and inexorable to the point that the Orthodox view the behavior of the Stalinist régime as more benevolent than that of the Vatican and the Unia towards them. There is no validity at all in the argument that the Unia “was attacked by the red violence of Communism and spent time in the catacombs,” something which rests on the assumption that the Uniates of Eastern Europe are characterized by an attitude of “resistance.” But can we forget the treacherous and unpatriotic rôle of the Unia in these countries? Because of the Vatican’s “concordat” with the Nazi régime, not only did the Uniates collaborate with the Nazi invaders, but they carried out horrible and bloody persecutions against the Orthodox—and these persecutions, unfortunately, are continued even today.
or didn't the Nazis kill people?
I don't think, though, that the "Unia" was a great spiritual catastrophe. It was, and is, a success of our brothers and sisters Roman Catholics.
It wasn't even that, as it demonstrated to those foolish enough to take the Vatican at its word, what "union" meant, and alerted the rest of the Orthodox to look beyond the glossy brouchures for "reunion."

That they and us Orthodox aren't together anymore is a lot bigger spiritual catastrophe, and for that we bear as much guilt, if not more, than them.
because we won't embrace their heresies?  May we be forever guilty!
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 20, 2011, 06:57:38 PM
I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
No, you insulted their intelligence by saying they didn't know the difference.

It's spelled Albuquerque, by the way. There is also an OCA church here, and a Russian church in Santa Fe, near the Antiochian church. I am friends with the priest of the Russian church, and I knew well the priest of the Greek church that was reassigned (I have met the new pastor but do not know him well). The former priest of the OCA church's brother was a Greek Catholic deacon at the Ruthenian parish (I believe he was Melkite before he jumped ship to OCA a year ago).

My very good Maronite friend was married at the Ruthenian church but had his wedding reception at the Greek church - many of the Greek church's Arabic speaking parishioners were in attendance to his wedding.

I have no idea what your ethnicity is, but all of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox here are very tight knit. Everyone is aware of exactly where and what the local parishes are. I even knew about the Coptic community (we have an agnostic who attended a Coptic church for many years without converting who attends our Ruthenian church weekly).

The point is, stop judging. Stop being rude. Stop assuming you know things about these people you don't. The Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics have a very different relationship than the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

And why would I take communing in a Catholic Church as an insult to them? Clearly, it was you saying they don't know the difference between their communions was an insult to their integrity and intelligence. I assure you, they do. They know it better than you.

Also, according to my Syriac Orthodox friends, if you are baptized in a Syriac Orthodox parish, you are Orthodox until you die, and if you are baptized in a Syriac Catholic parish, you are Catholic until the day you die. Do I understand this? No. But that is how the members of their communion view it. You're not them. You're not Oriental Orthodox. So stop trying to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 07:20:18 PM
I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
No, you insulted their intelligence by saying they didn't know the difference.

It's spelled Albuquerque, by the way. There is also an OCA church here, and a Russian church in Santa Fe, near the Antiochian church. I am friends with the priest of the Russian church, and I knew well the priest of the Greek church that was reassigned (I have met the new pastor but do not know him well). The former priest of the OCA church's brother was a Greek Catholic deacon at the Ruthenian parish (I believe he was Melkite before he jumped ship to OCA a year ago).

My very good Maronite friend was married at the Ruthenian church but had his wedding reception at the Greek church - many of the Greek church's Arabic speaking parishioners were in attendance to his wedding.

I have no idea what your ethnicity is, but all of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox here are very tight knit. Everyone is aware of exactly where and what the local parishes are. I even knew about the Coptic community (we have an agnostic who attended a Coptic church for many years without converting who attends our Ruthenian church weekly).

The point is, stop judging. Stop being rude. Stop assuming you know things about these people you don't. The Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics have a very different relationship than the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

And why would I take communing in a Catholic Church as an insult to them? Clearly, it was you saying they don't know the difference between their communions was an insult to their integrity and intelligence. I assure you, they do. They know it better than you.

Also, according to my Syriac Orthodox friends, if you are baptized in a Syriac Orthodox parish, you are Orthodox until you die, and if you are baptized in a Syriac Catholic parish, you are Catholic until the day you die. Do I understand this? No. But that is how the members of their communion view it. You're not them. You're not Oriental Orthodox. So stop trying to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.
neither of us are Oriental Orthodox, so I don't know who deputized you to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.

"until you die" huh?  What happens afterwards?

Since the Syriac Orthodox Church, like all the Orthodox Churches, recognize apostasy and conversion, such a statement makes little sense, except that a Syriac apostate who returns is not rebaptized.

I know the relationship of the Syriacs, Orthodox or in submission, as it is parrallel to that we have with the Melkites in submission to the Vatican.  It has nothing to do with Ruthenians.

Attending weddings and other events, or even attending with spouses who are in submission isn't what we were talking about.  We were (at least I was) talking about Orthodox taking communion from someone whose bishop is in no Orthodox dyptich or synod.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: WetCatechumen on August 20, 2011, 07:47:19 PM
I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
No, you insulted their intelligence by saying they didn't know the difference.

It's spelled Albuquerque, by the way. There is also an OCA church here, and a Russian church in Santa Fe, near the Antiochian church. I am friends with the priest of the Russian church, and I knew well the priest of the Greek church that was reassigned (I have met the new pastor but do not know him well). The former priest of the OCA church's brother was a Greek Catholic deacon at the Ruthenian parish (I believe he was Melkite before he jumped ship to OCA a year ago).

My very good Maronite friend was married at the Ruthenian church but had his wedding reception at the Greek church - many of the Greek church's Arabic speaking parishioners were in attendance to his wedding.

I have no idea what your ethnicity is, but all of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox here are very tight knit. Everyone is aware of exactly where and what the local parishes are. I even knew about the Coptic community (we have an agnostic who attended a Coptic church for many years without converting who attends our Ruthenian church weekly).

The point is, stop judging. Stop being rude. Stop assuming you know things about these people you don't. The Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics have a very different relationship than the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

And why would I take communing in a Catholic Church as an insult to them? Clearly, it was you saying they don't know the difference between their communions was an insult to their integrity and intelligence. I assure you, they do. They know it better than you.

Also, according to my Syriac Orthodox friends, if you are baptized in a Syriac Orthodox parish, you are Orthodox until you die, and if you are baptized in a Syriac Catholic parish, you are Catholic until the day you die. Do I understand this? No. But that is how the members of their communion view it. You're not them. You're not Oriental Orthodox. So stop trying to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.
neither of us are Oriental Orthodox, so I don't know who deputized you to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.

"until you die" huh?  What happens afterwards?

Since the Syriac Orthodox Church, like all the Orthodox Churches, recognize apostasy and conversion, such a statement makes little sense, except that a Syriac apostate who returns is not rebaptized.

I know the relationship of the Syriacs, Orthodox or in submission, as it is parrallel to that we have with the Melkites in submission to the Vatican.  It has nothing to do with Ruthenians.

Attending weddings and other events, or even attending with spouses who are in submission isn't what we were talking about.  We were (at least I was) talking about Orthodox taking communion from someone whose bishop is in no Orthodox dyptich or synod.
You are not worth talking to.

May the Lord bless you and keep you all the days of your life.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 07:49:05 PM
Btw, on the Syriac Orthodox:
Quote
Official Statements  

Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch on the Theological Dialogue
On the Relations between the Eastern and Syrian Orthodox Churches, November 1991

A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter

To All Our Children, Protected by God, of the Holy See of Antioch

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Church with the sister Syrian Orthodox Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both Churches, whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. These attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be obe, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father (John 10:30).

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syrian Orthodox Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern region where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life Giving Spirit upon His holy Apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochean Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavour and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.

Having recognised the efforts done in the direction of unity between the two Churches, and being convinced that this direction was inspired by the Holy Spirit and projects a radiant image of Eastern Christanity overshadowed during centuries, the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch saw the need to give a concrete expression of the close fellowship between the two Churches, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox for the edification of their faithful.

Thus, the following decisions were taken:

1. We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.

2. The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.

3. Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons.

4. Meetings between the two Churches, at the level of their Synods, according to the will of the two Churches, will be held whenever the need arsies.

5. Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of persoanl status (marriage, divorce, adoption etc.).

6. If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom's Church will preside.

7. The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.

8. What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.

9. In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divien Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.

10. If two priests of the two Churches happen to be in a locality where there is only one Church, they take turns in making use of its facilities.

11. If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest's parish.

12. Ordinations into the holy orders are performed by the authorities of each Church for its own members. It would be advisable to invite the faithful of the sister Church to attend.

13. Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.

14. Both Churches will exchange visits and will co-operate in the various areas of social, cultural and educational work.

We ask God's help to continue strengthening our relations with the sister Church, and with other Churches, so that we all become one community under one Shepherd.

12.11.1991
Patriarch Ignatios IV
Damascus
 
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state13.php

and the Copts:
Quote
Pastoral Agreement between the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria

Since the Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa have already accepted the outcome of the official dialogue on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the two official agreements: the first on Christology signed in June 1989 in Egypt and the second also on Christology and on the lifting of anathemas and restoration of full communion signed in Geneva 1990, in which it is stated that "In the light of our agreed statement on Christology..., we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition". It was agreed to have mutual recognition of the sacrament of Baptism, based on what St Paul wrote, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5)

But since up until now we are waiting for the responses of the Holy Synods of some other churches in both families, the restoration of full communion is not yet reached between the two sides of the bi-lateral dialogue. And due to the pastoral consequences and implications caued by mixed Christian marriages between the members of the two Patriarchates of Alexandria, having the majority of their people living in the same countries. Those marriages being difficult to perform in both Churches at the same time or in concelebration. The result is that mant sensitivities are created between the two families of the partners of such marriage. Those sensitivities which can extend even after the marriage and may affect the relation between the two communities of churches.

For those mentioned reasons, the Holy Synods of both Patriarchates have agreed to accept the sacrament of marriage which is conducted in either Church with the condition that it is conducted for two partners not belonging to the same Patriarchate of the other Church from their origin. Both the Bride and the Groom should carry a valid certificate from his/her own Patriarchate that he/she has a permit of marriage and indicating the details of his/her marriage status up to date.

Each of the two Patriarchates shall also accept to perform all of its other sacraments to that new family of Mixed Christian Marriage.

It is agreed that the Patriarchate which shall perform the marriage shall be responsible for any marriage problems that may happen concerning this certain marriage, taking into consideration the unified marriage laws signed by the heads of Churches in Egypt in the year 1999.

Each Patriarchate shall preserve its right not to give its sacraments to any persons whom she does not find fulfilling its canons according to the Apostolic Tradition.

Petros VII
Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa Shenouda III
Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state05.php
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 20, 2011, 08:24:56 PM
I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
No, you insulted their intelligence by saying they didn't know the difference.

It's spelled Albuquerque, by the way. There is also an OCA church here, and a Russian church in Santa Fe, near the Antiochian church. I am friends with the priest of the Russian church, and I knew well the priest of the Greek church that was reassigned (I have met the new pastor but do not know him well). The former priest of the OCA church's brother was a Greek Catholic deacon at the Ruthenian parish (I believe he was Melkite before he jumped ship to OCA a year ago).

My very good Maronite friend was married at the Ruthenian church but had his wedding reception at the Greek church - many of the Greek church's Arabic speaking parishioners were in attendance to his wedding.

I have no idea what your ethnicity is, but all of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox here are very tight knit. Everyone is aware of exactly where and what the local parishes are. I even knew about the Coptic community (we have an agnostic who attended a Coptic church for many years without converting who attends our Ruthenian church weekly).

The point is, stop judging. Stop being rude. Stop assuming you know things about these people you don't. The Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics have a very different relationship than the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

And why would I take communing in a Catholic Church as an insult to them? Clearly, it was you saying they don't know the difference between their communions was an insult to their integrity and intelligence. I assure you, they do. They know it better than you.

Also, according to my Syriac Orthodox friends, if you are baptized in a Syriac Orthodox parish, you are Orthodox until you die, and if you are baptized in a Syriac Catholic parish, you are Catholic until the day you die. Do I understand this? No. But that is how the members of their communion view it. You're not them. You're not Oriental Orthodox. So stop trying to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.
neither of us are Oriental Orthodox, so I don't know who deputized you to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.

"until you die" huh?  What happens afterwards?

Since the Syriac Orthodox Church, like all the Orthodox Churches, recognize apostasy and conversion, such a statement makes little sense, except that a Syriac apostate who returns is not rebaptized.

I know the relationship of the Syriacs, Orthodox or in submission, as it is parrallel to that we have with the Melkites in submission to the Vatican.  It has nothing to do with Ruthenians.

Attending weddings and other events, or even attending with spouses who are in submission isn't what we were talking about.  We were (at least I was) talking about Orthodox taking communion from someone whose bishop is in no Orthodox dyptich or synod.

I think that's called grass-roots communion.

and I think you are silly for posing that you know what will happen to any of them after death...

Your hubris is showing...
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 20, 2011, 08:29:07 PM
You are not worth talking to.

May the Lord bless you and keep you all the days of your life.

Have you noticed how shrill he's gotten lately. 

The heat must be up in the kitchen.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: biro on August 20, 2011, 08:41:41 PM
"Lately"?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 20, 2011, 09:21:34 PM
"Lately"?

 :)
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 10:12:04 PM
I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
No, you insulted their intelligence by saying they didn't know the difference.

It's spelled Albuquerque, by the way. There is also an OCA church here, and a Russian church in Santa Fe, near the Antiochian church. I am friends with the priest of the Russian church, and I knew well the priest of the Greek church that was reassigned (I have met the new pastor but do not know him well). The former priest of the OCA church's brother was a Greek Catholic deacon at the Ruthenian parish (I believe he was Melkite before he jumped ship to OCA a year ago).

My very good Maronite friend was married at the Ruthenian church but had his wedding reception at the Greek church - many of the Greek church's Arabic speaking parishioners were in attendance to his wedding.

I have no idea what your ethnicity is, but all of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox here are very tight knit. Everyone is aware of exactly where and what the local parishes are. I even knew about the Coptic community (we have an agnostic who attended a Coptic church for many years without converting who attends our Ruthenian church weekly).

The point is, stop judging. Stop being rude. Stop assuming you know things about these people you don't. The Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics have a very different relationship than the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

And why would I take communing in a Catholic Church as an insult to them? Clearly, it was you saying they don't know the difference between their communions was an insult to their integrity and intelligence. I assure you, they do. They know it better than you.

Also, according to my Syriac Orthodox friends, if you are baptized in a Syriac Orthodox parish, you are Orthodox until you die, and if you are baptized in a Syriac Catholic parish, you are Catholic until the day you die. Do I understand this? No. But that is how the members of their communion view it. You're not them. You're not Oriental Orthodox. So stop trying to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.
neither of us are Oriental Orthodox, so I don't know who deputized you to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.

"until you die" huh?  What happens afterwards?

Since the Syriac Orthodox Church, like all the Orthodox Churches, recognize apostasy and conversion, such a statement makes little sense, except that a Syriac apostate who returns is not rebaptized.

I know the relationship of the Syriacs, Orthodox or in submission, as it is parrallel to that we have with the Melkites in submission to the Vatican.  It has nothing to do with Ruthenians.

Attending weddings and other events, or even attending with spouses who are in submission isn't what we were talking about.  We were (at least I was) talking about Orthodox taking communion from someone whose bishop is in no Orthodox dyptich or synod.

I think that's called grass-roots communion.
no, I know that's called communion unto judgment and condemnation.

and I think you are silly for posing that you know what will happen to any of them after death...
and I know you are silly for posing that you know what will happen to them before or after death.

Your hubris is showing...
the falsity of your "knowledge" so called is showing.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 10:14:30 PM
"Lately"?
Yes, EM says lately, to convince herself she is getting somewhere.

The heat is up in the kitchen because I have to burn all those tares that someone has been trying to sneak into our pure Apostolic recipes.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Wyatt on August 20, 2011, 10:40:41 PM
The heat is up in the kitchen because I have to burn all those tares that someone has been trying to sneak into our pure Apostolic recipes.
Apostolic? The Apostles don't condone schism.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 20, 2011, 10:54:00 PM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

I totally agree that he knows nothing about both things. Moreover, even an attempt to compare these two things is a sign of a hopeless moral relativism. It's almost like I would say, "yes, Stalin murdered millions of people, but in the USA, there are these telemarketers that can drive you crazy."
Hardly.
Quote
The Uniate and Papist propaganda that is being promulgated in these countries today is ruthless and inexorable to the point that the Orthodox view the behavior of the Stalinist régime as more benevolent than that of the Vatican and the Unia towards them. There is no validity at all in the argument that the Unia “was attacked by the red violence of Communism and spent time in the catacombs,” something which rests on the assumption that the Uniates of Eastern Europe are characterized by an attitude of “resistance.” But can we forget the treacherous and unpatriotic rôle of the Unia in these countries? Because of the Vatican’s “concordat” with the Nazi régime, not only did the Uniates collaborate with the Nazi invaders, but they carried out horrible and bloody persecutions against the Orthodox—and these persecutions, unfortunately, are continued even today.
or didn't the Nazis kill people?
I don't think, though, that the "Unia" was a great spiritual catastrophe. It was, and is, a success of our brothers and sisters Roman Catholics.
It wasn't even that, as it demonstrated to those foolish enough to take the Vatican at its word, what "union" meant, and alerted the rest of the Orthodox to look beyond the glossy brouchures for "reunion."

That they and us Orthodox aren't together anymore is a lot bigger spiritual catastrophe, and for that we bear as much guilt, if not more, than them.
because we won't embrace their heresies?  May we be forever guilty!
Isa, whom are you quoting in the material I've highlighted above? I don't see your source identified. Please name this source within the next 48 hours. Thank you.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 11:25:02 PM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

I totally agree that he knows nothing about both things. Moreover, even an attempt to compare these two things is a sign of a hopeless moral relativism. It's almost like I would say, "yes, Stalin murdered millions of people, but in the USA, there are these telemarketers that can drive you crazy."
Hardly.
Quote
The Uniate and Papist propaganda that is being promulgated in these countries today is ruthless and inexorable to the point that the Orthodox view the behavior of the Stalinist régime as more benevolent than that of the Vatican and the Unia towards them. There is no validity at all in the argument that the Unia “was attacked by the red violence of Communism and spent time in the catacombs,” something which rests on the assumption that the Uniates of Eastern Europe are characterized by an attitude of “resistance.” But can we forget the treacherous and unpatriotic rôle of the Unia in these countries? Because of the Vatican’s “concordat” with the Nazi régime, not only did the Uniates collaborate with the Nazi invaders, but they carried out horrible and bloody persecutions against the Orthodox—and these persecutions, unfortunately, are continued even today.
or didn't the Nazis kill people?
I don't think, though, that the "Unia" was a great spiritual catastrophe. It was, and is, a success of our brothers and sisters Roman Catholics.
It wasn't even that, as it demonstrated to those foolish enough to take the Vatican at its word, what "union" meant, and alerted the rest of the Orthodox to look beyond the glossy brouchures for "reunion."

That they and us Orthodox aren't together anymore is a lot bigger spiritual catastrophe, and for that we bear as much guilt, if not more, than them.
because we won't embrace their heresies?  May we be forever guilty!
Isa, whom are you quoting in the material I've highlighted above? I don't see your source identified. Please name this source within the next 48 hours. Thank you.
The article linked in the OP, the "he" of Michał and Heorhij's posts.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 20, 2011, 11:26:21 PM
The heat is up in the kitchen because I have to burn all those tares that someone has been trying to sneak into our pure Apostolic recipes.
Apostolic? The Apostles don't condone schism.
Well, that leaves you out in the dark now, doesn't it.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Heorhij on August 20, 2011, 11:50:52 PM

because we won't embrace their heresies?  May we be forever guilty!

And they forever right?

Tags edited - MK.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 21, 2011, 12:05:03 AM

because we won't embrace their heresies?  May we be forever guilty!

And they forever right?
they would have to be right once first.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 21, 2011, 08:14:16 AM
My heart is heavy this morning after I read the explosion on this thread of the last few hours. The bolded charges leveled against the Greek Catholics of Europe was uncalled for and, if intended to cast guilt by association against millions of pious Greek Catholic faithful represents a misrepresentation of the highest degree. This is the type of excessive rhetoric that advocates on the fringes of our respective Churches have used in the centuries- long battles that have raged along the fault lines of the Great Schism. Our Heavenly Father knows that the blood of countless innocents is upon the hands of many over the centuries who claimed to be acting on His behalf. Let Him be the Judge. I, for one, shall remember the martyrs and the pious faithful of all faiths this morning during Liturgy and pray for those whose hearts and minds are so hardened as to carry on and on with the distortions and misrepresentations that all involved have utilized in our 'unholy' wars against each other, - especially so during the Litany of Supplication: "Having prayed for the unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God."
. Lord, have mercy.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Wyatt on August 21, 2011, 12:37:31 PM
The heat is up in the kitchen because I have to burn all those tares that someone has been trying to sneak into our pure Apostolic recipes.
Apostolic? The Apostles don't condone schism.
Well, that leaves you out in the dark now, doesn't it.
No it doesn't actually.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: biro on August 21, 2011, 12:54:47 PM
My heart is heavy this morning after I read the explosion on this thread of the last few hours. The bolded charges leveled against the Greek Catholics of Europe was uncalled for and, if intended to cast guilt by association against millions of pious Greek Catholic faithful represents a misrepresentation of the highest degree. This is the type of excessive rhetoric that advocates on the fringes of our respective Churches have used in the centuries- long battles that have raged along the fault lines of the Great Schism. Our Heavenly Father knows that the blood of countless innocents is upon the hands of many over the centuries who claimed to be acting on His behalf. Let Him be the Judge. I, for one, shall remember the martyrs and the pious faithful of all faiths this morning during Liturgy and pray for those whose hearts and minds are so hardened as to carry on and on with the distortions and misrepresentations that all involved have utilized in our 'unholy' wars against each other, - especially so during the Litany of Supplication: "Having prayed for the unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God."
. Lord, have mercy.

Amen and amen.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 21, 2011, 01:28:22 PM
"Lately"?
Yes, EM says lately, to convince herself she is getting somewhere.

The heat is up in the kitchen because I have to burn all those tares that someone has been trying to sneak into our pure Apostolic recipes.

I mentioned your self-professed penchant for "destruction" with respect to my Church not too long ago and you demanded a reference.  I figured if I waited long enough, there'd be another one appear.

Here it is.

M.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: biro on August 21, 2011, 01:30:39 PM
I wonder if we can add Stalin to the list of names which qualify for Godwin's Law- in other words, when you throw that term at someone, you automatically lose the argument.

 :-\
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 21, 2011, 01:37:25 PM
...and pray for those whose hearts and minds are so hardened as to carry on and on with the distortions and misrepresentations that all involved have utilized in our 'unholy' wars against each other,

One of the things your generally irenic notes fail to consider is the fact that there are no Catholics on this Forum who ever use the language of irradiation or destruction with respect to Orthodoxy, nor do they point out failings of Orthodoxy EXCEPT to note that the destructive language used against the Church of my baptism is often a double standard.    In this way your presumably sincere hope for peace fails...in this environment.

In Christ,

Mary

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: IreneOlinyk on August 21, 2011, 02:45:58 PM
Btw, on the Syriac Orthodox:
Quote
Official Statements  

.org/state05.php

Anyone can set up a web page.  Where are these "official documents" on the web pages of the respective Orthodox churches?

I have been burned by the Cathoics claiming the EP supported "dual communion" all over the web and in their newspapers when it was titally false
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: podkarpatska on August 21, 2011, 04:32:05 PM
...and pray for those whose hearts and minds are so hardened as to carry on and on with the distortions and misrepresentations that all involved have utilized in our 'unholy' wars against each other,

One of the things your generally irenic notes fail to consider is the fact that there are no Catholics on this Forum who ever use the language of irradiation or destruction with respect to Orthodoxy, nor do they point out failings of Orthodoxy EXCEPT to note that the destructive language used against the Church of my baptism is often a double standard.    In this way your presumably sincere hope for peace fails...in this environment.

In Christ,

Mary



True, but there are plenty of Catholics on Catholic Forums who use ridiculous assertions etc. against the Orthodox. I take consolation from the REAL WORLD, where things are more civil, for the most part.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: elijahmaria on August 21, 2011, 06:47:42 PM
...and pray for those whose hearts and minds are so hardened as to carry on and on with the distortions and misrepresentations that all involved have utilized in our 'unholy' wars against each other,

One of the things your generally irenic notes fail to consider is the fact that there are no Catholics on this Forum who ever use the language of irradiation or destruction with respect to Orthodoxy, nor do they point out failings of Orthodoxy EXCEPT to note that the destructive language used against the Church of my baptism is often a double standard.    In this way your presumably sincere hope for peace fails...in this environment.

In Christ,

Mary



True, but there are plenty of Catholics on Catholic Forums who use ridiculous assertions etc. against the Orthodox. I take consolation from the REAL WORLD, where things are more civil, for the most part.

OK!!...I am with you now. 

I get caught thinking and writing in the same way.  I take a broad brush to a narrow space.  Often I will write to a friend, an Orthodox correspondent, and I speak of things out of my experiences and he often becomes distressed because he feels as though I am aiming directly at him.  So I see what you've done and in that light it is most reasonable!!

I am not upset with you.  And I will NEVER bait you...just for the record  :)

Mary
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 21, 2011, 09:08:39 PM
Btw, on the Syriac Orthodox:
Quote
Official Statements  

.org/state05.php

Anyone can set up a web page.  Where are these "official documents" on the web pages of the respective Orthodox churches?

I have been burned by the Cathoics claiming the EP supported "dual communion" all over the web and in their newspapers when it was titally false
They may not be official translations, but they are the official documents.  I've seen both officially promulgated in Arabic (I think the Egyptian one was also in Greek, and the Antiochian one in French).  On the Antiochian one, you can see it in the "Word" the official organ of the North American Archdiocese in '92.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 21, 2011, 09:10:33 PM
...and pray for those whose hearts and minds are so hardened as to carry on and on with the distortions and misrepresentations that all involved have utilized in our 'unholy' wars against each other,

One of the things your generally irenic notes fail to consider is the fact that there are no Catholics on this Forum who ever use the language of irradiation or destruction with respect to Orthodoxy, nor do they point out failings of Orthodoxy EXCEPT to note that the destructive language used against the Church of my baptism is often a double standard.    In this way your presumably sincere hope for peace fails...in this environment.
My, the kettle is quite blind.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 21, 2011, 09:13:02 PM
"Lately"?
Yes, EM says lately, to convince herself she is getting somewhere.

The heat is up in the kitchen because I have to burn all those tares that someone has been trying to sneak into our pure Apostolic recipes.

I mentioned your self-professed penchant for "destruction" with respect to my Church not too long ago and you demanded a reference.  I figured if I waited long enough, there'd be another one appear.

Here it is.
only if our Church is your "Church"'s kitchen.

but then, being an Ultramontanist, you would think that .

Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: ialmisry on August 21, 2011, 09:15:26 PM
The heat is up in the kitchen because I have to burn all those tares that someone has been trying to sneak into our pure Apostolic recipes.
Apostolic? The Apostles don't condone schism.
Well, that leaves you out in the dark now, doesn't it.
No it doesn't actually.
John 9:41.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 22, 2011, 03:13:47 PM
He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

I totally agree that he knows nothing about both things. Moreover, even an attempt to compare these two things is a sign of a hopeless moral relativism. It's almost like I would say, "yes, Stalin murdered millions of people, but in the USA, there are these telemarketers that can drive you crazy."
Hardly.
Quote
The Uniate and Papist propaganda that is being promulgated in these countries today is ruthless and inexorable to the point that the Orthodox view the behavior of the Stalinist régime as more benevolent than that of the Vatican and the Unia towards them. There is no validity at all in the argument that the Unia “was attacked by the red violence of Communism and spent time in the catacombs,” something which rests on the assumption that the Uniates of Eastern Europe are characterized by an attitude of “resistance.” But can we forget the treacherous and unpatriotic rôle of the Unia in these countries? Because of the Vatican’s “concordat” with the Nazi régime, not only did the Uniates collaborate with the Nazi invaders, but they carried out horrible and bloody persecutions against the Orthodox—and these persecutions, unfortunately, are continued even today.
or didn't the Nazis kill people?
I don't think, though, that the "Unia" was a great spiritual catastrophe. It was, and is, a success of our brothers and sisters Roman Catholics.
It wasn't even that, as it demonstrated to those foolish enough to take the Vatican at its word, what "union" meant, and alerted the rest of the Orthodox to look beyond the glossy brouchures for "reunion."

That they and us Orthodox aren't together anymore is a lot bigger spiritual catastrophe, and for that we bear as much guilt, if not more, than them.
because we won't embrace their heresies?  May we be forever guilty!
Isa, whom are you quoting in the material I've highlighted above? I don't see your source identified. Please name this source within the next 48 hours. Thank you.
The article linked in the OP, the "he" of Michał and Heorhij's posts.
OK. Thank you.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 23, 2011, 12:55:37 AM
True, but there are plenty of Catholics on Catholic Forums who use ridiculous assertions etc. against the Orthodox.
That is true, but it appears here that things are reversed here. I would give examples, but that would derail the thread.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: mike on August 23, 2011, 04:40:53 AM
but that would derail the thread.

funny....
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Irish Melkite on August 23, 2011, 07:12:01 AM
Isa, my brother,

As I think you well know, I generally avoid these kinds of threads like the plague (and fully support the comments made above by my friend and brother, podkarpatska). However, in this instance, your, assuredly unintentional, selective choices in posted documentation reluctantly push me to the point of contributing to the chaos.

I've no doubt that you intended to add, to the two statements of the Syriacs that you posted above, the Joint Statements of the Syriac Orthodox and Catholics? To save you the time of digging out the link, I've provided it and an excerpt.

I do, however, decline to post the entire text because, unlike many, I decry the waste of bandwidth that accompanies so many threads (speaking, of course, of threads which aren't themselves a waste of bandwidth) in which near entire coffee table-sized texts (replete with illustrations and maps) are posted, quoted, and requoted, in their entirety, ad infinitum.

Dialogue and Joint Declarations with the Roman Catholic Church (http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/rc.html) - The second (if I remember correctly) of the declarations, while acknowledging the impossibility of concelebration at this time, allows for the provision of the Mysteries by presbyters of each Church (Syriac Orthodox and Catholic) to the faithful of its Sister Church as a matter of pastoral care.

Quote
8. Since it is the chief expression of Christian unity between the faithful and between Bishops and priests, the Holy Eucharist cannot yet be concelebrated by us. Such celebration supposes a complete identity of faith such as does not yet exist between us. Certain questions, in fact, still need to be resolved touching the Lord's will for His Church, as also the doctrinal implications and canonical details of the traditions proper to our communities which have been too long separated.

9. Our identity in faith, though not yet complete, entitles us to envisage collaboration between our Churches in pastoral care, in situations which nowadays are frequent both because of the dispersion of our faithful throughout the world and because of the precarious conditions of these difficult times. It is not rare, in fact, for our faithful to find access to a priest of their own Church materially or morally impossible. Anxious to meet their needs and with their spiritual benefit in mind, we authorize them in such cases to ask for the Sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from lawful priests of either of our two sister Churches, when they need them. It would be a logical corollary of collaboration in pastoral care to cooperate in priestly formation and theological education. Bishops are encouraged to promote sharing of facilities for theological education where they judge it to be advisable. While doing this we do not forget that we must still do all in our power to achieve the full visible communion between the Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and ceaselessly implore our Lord to grant us that unity which alone will enable us to give to the world a fully unanimous Gospel witness.

Just helping out  ;D

Many years,

Neil
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: stanley123 on August 23, 2011, 06:00:59 PM
but that would derail the thread.

funny....
Why is that? Did you want the explicit examples?
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: mike on August 24, 2011, 05:08:10 AM
I thinks that that thread is already delayed so much that your post wouldn't do more harm to it.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: qawe on September 11, 2015, 11:33:37 PM
Are you sure that they are OO? What group are they with? Are they in communion with the EO or not?
Anyway, you seem to justify this dancing, singing, clapping of hands and swaying to and fro  by saying that it is part of their culture. But it is true, isn't it, that "modern-day" western society is part of the culture of many Roman Catholics?
Yes, I am sure they are OO because the priest is wearing Coptic vestments and in the background you can see a picture of HH Pope Shenouda. No, these people are not in communion with the EO, no OO bishops are in communion with EO bishops. Or at least, not yet.

Secondly, these people are simply worshipping the way their ancestors did, but in an Orthodox Christian liturgical setting. As opposed to the RCC, where traditional liturgics are seeing a Protestantization. I don't write this post in a polemical spirit, I am merely trying to answer your question to the best of my abilities.

Yes, I see now that they are Coptic Orthodox. Do you object to their style of worship or would the EO Church object to their style of worship in the case of a reunion?

As an OO, I object.

And so does Fr Peter Farrington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kKWIYUHhqMY#t=216
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Pravoslavac on September 12, 2015, 06:08:02 AM
Stalin kills your body, unia kills your soul. xD
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on September 12, 2015, 08:02:21 AM
Stalin kills your body, unia kills your soul. xD

+1 atleast you tell it like it is unlike some on here
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: IreneOlinyk on September 12, 2015, 08:29:43 AM
Stalin kills your body, unia kills your soul. xD
Another revival of an old thread.  I have heard there is a Ukrainian Catholic Church in Edmonton which has a wall mural painting with both Hitler and Stalin in hell.  I haven't see it myself.
Title: Re: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime
Post by: Severian on September 12, 2015, 01:27:40 PM
Are you sure that they are OO? What group are they with? Are they in communion with the EO or not?
Anyway, you seem to justify this dancing, singing, clapping of hands and swaying to and fro  by saying that it is part of their culture. But it is true, isn't it, that "modern-day" western society is part of the culture of many Roman Catholics?
Yes, I am sure they are OO because the priest is wearing Coptic vestments and in the background you can see a picture of HH Pope Shenouda. No, these people are not in communion with the EO, no OO bishops are in communion with EO bishops. Or at least, not yet.

Secondly, these people are simply worshipping the way their ancestors did, but in an Orthodox Christian liturgical setting. As opposed to the RCC, where traditional liturgics are seeing a Protestantization. I don't write this post in a polemical spirit, I am merely trying to answer your question to the best of my abilities.

Yes, I see now that they are Coptic Orthodox. Do you object to their style of worship or would the EO Church object to their style of worship in the case of a reunion?

As an OO, I object.

And so does Fr Peter Farrington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kKWIYUHhqMY#t=216
It should be noted that what I wrote 4 years ago does not reflect my current position.