OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Jetavan on November 30, 2011, 02:26:13 PM

Title: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jetavan on November 30, 2011, 02:26:13 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on November 30, 2011, 02:28:04 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jetavan on November 30, 2011, 02:40:37 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on November 30, 2011, 02:50:50 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?

A bit old fashioned. English is today's lingua franca of European diplomacy. It replaced French after WWII.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on November 30, 2011, 02:59:08 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?

A bit old fashioned. English is today's lingua franca of European diplomacy. It replaced French after WWII.


Isn't the substance (and the very fact) of the letter, however "trivial", more important than whether it was written in French or English?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on November 30, 2011, 03:53:09 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?

A bit old fashioned. English is today's lingua franca of European diplomacy. It replaced French after WWII.


Isn't the substance (and the very fact) of the letter, however "trivial", more important than whether it was written in French or English?

I was saying the choice of language was of trivial concern. Simply perplexed at its selection.

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on November 30, 2011, 04:12:54 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?

A bit old fashioned. English is today's lingua franca of European diplomacy. It replaced French after WWII.


Isn't the substance (and the very fact) of the letter, however "trivial", more important than whether it was written in French or English?

I was saying the choice of language was of trivial concern. Simply perplexed at its selection.

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Yes, the choice of language *is* of trivial concern. 
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: mike on November 30, 2011, 04:14:32 PM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on November 30, 2011, 04:25:09 PM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on November 30, 2011, 04:26:27 PM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: mike on November 30, 2011, 04:33:00 PM
Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

No doubt freemason attempt to decrease the position of the chosen by God American nation.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: primuspilus on November 30, 2011, 04:40:30 PM
Quote
St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world
I thought St. Andrew was the patron saint of the EP not all of Orthodoxy.

PP
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: mike on November 30, 2011, 04:43:53 PM
Quote
St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world
I thought St. Andrew was the patron saint of the EP not all of Orthodoxy.

PP

I though patron Saints of the Orthodox world were Saints Cyrill and Methodius (at least Polish wikipedia says so).
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: serb1389 on November 30, 2011, 04:48:49 PM
I think he should have written it in Russian. 



Too soon?   ;) ;D
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on November 30, 2011, 04:49:35 PM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

An idea of what I'm going on about??  Are you *kidding* me??  Of course I don't  ;D ;D ;D.  Now, would you like that in German, Greek, English, American, or......wait for it...........French?  Or, Esperanto  ::) ::) ;D ;D??

Again, seriously, is not the fact of the letter and its content more important than the language it was originally written in?  And, if not, why not?

I guess, too, that if you really need to know why it was written in French, you'd have to ask those who wrote it.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on November 30, 2011, 04:51:26 PM
I think he should have written it in Russian. 



Too soon?   ;) ;D

Maybe the EP will reply in........................Serbian  ;D ;D.

Okay, have it your way.........................in Russian.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: ialmisry on November 30, 2011, 05:51:24 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on November 30, 2011, 06:24:23 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter..."


God forbid anyone focus on the *message*!

So Vatican Radio got it wrong and Ankara is the Turkish capital and not Constantinople, er, Istanbul.  And, not being "Orthodox", maybe Vatican Radio confused St. Andrew as being patron saint of the EP (see this: Saint Andrew (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; early 1st century—mid to late 1st century AD), called in the Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos, or the First-called, is a Christian Apostle and the brother of Saint Peter. The name "Andrew" (Greek: manly, brave, from ἀνδρεία, Andreia, "manhood, valour"), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the 3rd or 2nd century BC. No Hebrew or Aramaic name is recorded for him. He is considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.) with being patron saint of "the Orthodox world".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Andrew   (source cited. S1389)

But....that's *far*, **far** more important than the message, isn't it?

So much for "working together in the common search for truth and unity".  :(

Perhaps instead of looking for nits to pick it might be more constructive all around if, when spotting an error, to gently correct, in love and charity, the one who made it.  Or, if the error is of little import in the grand scheme of things, to just overlook it.

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: ialmisry on November 30, 2011, 06:30:01 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter..."


God forbid anyone focus on the *message*!

So Vatican Radio got it wrong and Ankara is the Turkish capital and not Constantinople, er, Istanbul.  And, not being "Orthodox", maybe Vatican Radio confused St. Andrew as being patron saint of the EP (see this: Saint Andrew (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; early 1st century—mid to late 1st century AD), called in the Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos, or the First-called, is a Christian Apostle and the brother of Saint Peter. The name "Andrew" (Greek: manly, brave, from ἀνδρεία, Andreia, "manhood, valour"), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the 3rd or 2nd century BC. No Hebrew or Aramaic name is recorded for him. He is considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.) with being patron saint of "the Orthodox world".

But....that's *far*, **far** more important than the message, isn't it?

So much for "working together in the common search for truth and unity".  :(
it just showed that it skips the truth part to impose its idea of unity.  You conviently forget that we have danced this waltz before.  And no, little has changed.
(http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4724/convertrussia30daysmarc.jpg)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: samkim on November 30, 2011, 06:30:06 PM
Damned Freemasons. Anyway, it should've been in Latin, the real common tongue of the west.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Papist on November 30, 2011, 10:06:17 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter..."


God forbid anyone focus on the *message*!

So Vatican Radio got it wrong and Ankara is the Turkish capital and not Constantinople, er, Istanbul.  And, not being "Orthodox", maybe Vatican Radio confused St. Andrew as being patron saint of the EP (see this: Saint Andrew (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; early 1st century—mid to late 1st century AD), called in the Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos, or the First-called, is a Christian Apostle and the brother of Saint Peter. The name "Andrew" (Greek: manly, brave, from ἀνδρεία, Andreia, "manhood, valour"), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the 3rd or 2nd century BC. No Hebrew or Aramaic name is recorded for him. He is considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.) with being patron saint of "the Orthodox world".

But....that's *far*, **far** more important than the message, isn't it?

So much for "working together in the common search for truth and unity".  :(
it just showed that it skips the truth part to impose its idea of unity.  You conviently forget that we have danced this waltz before.  And no, little has changed.
(http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4724/convertrussia30daysmarc.jpg)
Do you have a map for that?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: WetCatechumen on November 30, 2011, 10:33:19 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter..."


God forbid anyone focus on the *message*!

So Vatican Radio got it wrong and Ankara is the Turkish capital and not Constantinople, er, Istanbul.  And, not being "Orthodox", maybe Vatican Radio confused St. Andrew as being patron saint of the EP (see this: Saint Andrew (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; early 1st century—mid to late 1st century AD), called in the Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos, or the First-called, is a Christian Apostle and the brother of Saint Peter. The name "Andrew" (Greek: manly, brave, from ἀνδρεία, Andreia, "manhood, valour"), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the 3rd or 2nd century BC. No Hebrew or Aramaic name is recorded for him. He is considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.) with being patron saint of "the Orthodox world".

But....that's *far*, **far** more important than the message, isn't it?

So much for "working together in the common search for truth and unity".  :(
it just showed that it skips the truth part to impose its idea of unity.  You conviently forget that we have danced this waltz before.  And no, little has changed.
(http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4724/convertrussia30daysmarc.jpg)
Do you have a map for that?
Or a picture of the Romanian Eparch of Italy?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Opus118 on December 01, 2011, 01:25:14 AM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 01:30:23 AM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.



See people? This is thinking and a reasonable explanation.

Makes perfect sense.

Merci!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 01, 2011, 01:39:10 AM
Quote from: Michał Kalina
I though patron Saints of the Orthodox world were Saints Cyrill and Methodius (at least Polish wikipedia says so).

Hmmm. Something to think about.  :angel: (Not that it's bad if they are. I just hadn't heard that before.)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: mike on December 01, 2011, 01:57:57 AM
There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jetavan on December 01, 2011, 02:09:45 AM
There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.
That was what I was thinking, then I thought of something else. :o
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Hiwot on December 01, 2011, 02:48:46 AM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.



See people? This is thinking and a reasonable explanation.

Makes perfect sense.

Merci!

LOL In diplomacy, especially in diplomatic negotiations the usage of specific  Language is no trivial matter. it is calculated and deliberate with intended unsaid yet understood meaning( it also reflects and conveys  positive or negative intentions). carelessness in language of choice could send the wrong political message further alienating the other party one attempts to negotiate with. Those engaged in diplomacy are aware of this. so your question was in my opinion was neither trivial nor irrelevant. As opus clearly demonstrated it is an important part of the message. it is usually decided bilaterally what language to use to communicate between the two, it gets a more complicated when its a multilateral negotiation, anyway you know what I mean. :angel:
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: dzheremi on December 01, 2011, 03:17:58 AM
Wait, Ss. Cyril and Methodius are some kind of patron saints of Orthodoxy? I knew I screwed up when I picked up them as my RC confirmation saints!  Oops.  :-[

Regarding language in ecumenical exchanges, I don't know about official policy (if there is one) of the churches, but I would think that this is a pragmatic concern, rather than trying to choose a language that best conveys "love" or some abstract idea like that (a strange, arbitrary notion; I've never felt French to be particularly "lovely"). Like English in India, I would think that French fulfills a few important constraints imposed by the nature of the communication: It's neither side's native language, nor is it the native language of a strongly Catholic or Orthodox identified people (hardly any French are practicing Catholics), so it is relatively politically neutral. It seems like a decent choice, all things considered.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 01:53:50 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jetavan on December 01, 2011, 02:09:56 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)." -- Marshall McLuhan
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 02:22:42 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  ::).  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 03:37:00 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  ::).  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 03:59:51 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself?  

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  ::).  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.

And this applies also to the *written* word?  (Remember, we're talking here of a written letter.)  If so, just what *is* Heidegger saying??  And...what does that "say" about Holy Scripture?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Basil 320 on December 01, 2011, 04:14:33 PM
Yes, as noted by ialmisery, the letter was presented at the Patriarchal Church of St. George at the Phanar, in Istanbul, which, when it was referred to as Constantinople, was the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire.  Since the establishment of the so called Turkish Republic, Ataturk established his capital at Ankara.  Typical of the RC's, though, considering St. Andrew the patron of the Orthodox Church probably because he is the patron of the Church of Constantinople.

But, I do agree with the substance of His Holiness' message.  Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church should acknowledge that one thousand years of separation has resulted in differences in doctrine and theology, but acknowledge the 1,000 year history of their essential oneness in faith, and should establish an entity that would jointly proclaim the message of Christ to the world, along with other Trinitarian Christian denominations, if there are any left who don't ordain women and homosexuals.  The world needs the message of Jesus Christ more so today than ever, a world overwhelmed by hedonism and the Moslem heresy.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 04:25:14 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself?  

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  ::).  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.

And this applies also to the *written* word?  (Remember, we're talking here of a written letter.)  If so, just what *is* Heidegger saying??  And...what does that "say" about Holy Scripture?

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 04:33:57 PM


Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.


The term "non sequitur" comes to mind here.  Now, if that's an incorrect use of it, then how 'bout "just plain nonsense"?  Because, that's what you seem to be writing.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 04:38:34 PM


Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.


The term "non sequitur" comes to mind here.  Now, if that's an incorrect use of it, then how 'bout "just plain nonsense"?  Because, that's what you seem to be writing.

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Ortho_cat on December 01, 2011, 04:41:09 PM
I think he should have written it in Russian. 



Too soon?   ;) ;D

Maybe the EP will reply in........................Serbian  ;D ;D.

Okay, have it your way.........................in Russian.

psh...Arabic, obviously ;)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: serb1389 on December 01, 2011, 04:43:11 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself?  

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  ::).  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.

And this applies also to the *written* word?  (Remember, we're talking here of a written letter.)  If so, just what *is* Heidegger saying??  And...what does that "say" about Holy Scripture?

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message)." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  ::).  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.


Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.


The term "non sequitur" comes to mind here.  Now, if that's an incorrect use of it, then how 'bout "just plain nonsense"?  Because, that's what you seem to be writing.

  I need sources on all of these Martin Heidegger quotes, or links.  You both have 24 hours.  In fact, the next person who quotes ANYTHING without providing a link or citation will be warned.  You have all be warned.  
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 04:43:26 PM
if there are any left who don't ordain women and homosexuals.  The world needs the message of Jesus Christ more so today than ever, a world overwhelmed by hedonism and the Moslem heresy.

Weird how language always gives us away.

You don't think the the RC and OC ordain homosexuals?

They do.

And women?

That topic ain't closed or not rightfully so think some.

And strange how you place the ordination of women and homosexuals adjacent to the message of Jesus Christ.

Not going to get into these topics, just pointing out something I found a bit odd.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 04:47:13 PM


Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.


The term "non sequitur" comes to mind here.  Now, if that's an incorrect use of it, then how 'bout "just plain nonsense"?  Because, that's what you seem to be writing.

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.



Do *you* have anything to contribute to this non-discussion, of your own, besides unattributed quotes by Martin Heidegger without even any kind of contextual explanation?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Maria on December 01, 2011, 05:02:38 PM
Ahem.

At a quick glance, I thought the title read: Pope Benedict to Ordain Patriarch Bartholomew

Yes, I did a double take and realized I had initially read the title wrong.  ::)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 05:10:00 PM
Ahem.

At a quick glance, I thought the title read: Pope Benedict to Ordain Patriarch Bartholomew

Yes, I did a double take and realized I had initially read the title wrong.  ::)

What a great idea!!!! ;D

Wishful thinking  ;D ;D?  Freudian slip  ;D ;D?

That was pretty funny, Maria!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Hiwot on December 01, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!



Come on J Michael,  8) language is very important in negotiations, issues such as sovereignty and political dominance (in this case Church governance) can be conveyed with the type of language one uses. They took care not to antagonize the other in these matters where the usage of one’s language can be understood as a concession of certain political power or weight to the other etc. Now your indignation over the inquirey about the language used although understandable is not entirely justified in the real world of diplomacy.  so calm down and let us reason together.  :angel:When these letters are written people(those in charge of writing them)  are concerned not only about what is being actually said with the words, but also the language used to convey them. In this case the careful selection of the neutral language French speaks well on the good will of the communicant as well as it successfully avoids any political misunderstanding.

People who know of the importance of language in diplomatic interactions have valid point to look into the type of language used as well as the content of the language. It is part of the message. The UN is a good example, if you would care to look into it, that publications of official documents have to wait until available in all the official languages of the UN. Just because it might  mean the same in English they do not rush to publish the English version first and wait on the others.

In this case there is a valid reason why the article mentioned that the Letter was in French. J Michael relax no one is arguing that the message of the words in the letter are not important, however it is a fair question and a valid one to look into why the Papal letter was written in French, the inquiry does not undermine or downplay the significance of what the letter says in words. You cannot dictate people to look into the meaning of the words only and ignore the significance of the language used. We can look at both, it should not be an either or thing. In the real world, such things are not mere speculations but rather informed and educated understandings of the significance of language in both secular and religious politics.

As we are many in here who are discussing this event, you have to give leeway for people to look at it from different angles it only serves to enrich our understanding IMO. So relax my brother we are all on the same page, you are free to discuss what the words say , as I am or any other person is free to inquire what the significance of the language used is, while holding my peace in regards to commenting on what the words say. I will not downplay the significance of the words as you should not down play the significance of the language used and get indignant over people who inquire about it. I hope we are having an intelligent and civil discussion, where educated inquiry and analysis of certain things are allowed, and we do not neccessarily have to ask the writters why they wrote it in french as you seem to think and suggest we do.

peace :)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 05:22:42 PM
Quote
 I need sources on all of these Martin Heidegger quotes, or links.  You both have 24 hours.  In fact, the next person who quotes ANYTHING without providing a link or citation will be warned.  You have all be warned.  

Quote
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.

Can be found here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger

Quote
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.

The first return in google for this one (I don't understand why wikiquote doesn't source it, as it is one of his most famous statement) is a good one. It get the attribution and context for it:

http://thefloatinglibrary.com/2008/06/30/the-thinker-as-poet-by-heidegger/

The typewriting one is more "obscure". I know it because I know of a Heideggerain who also collects type-writers and has written on this subject. This line comes out of a lecture on Parmenides given by Heidegger. It was made quite famous by an essay by Derrida called "Heidegger's Hand".

It is easy to find a buncha places where this line is sourced, but poorly so, but I did find the essay by Derrida online and an quirky essay about science fiction and its relation to the technology used to write it.

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.

It can be found in each PDF document:

Heidegger's Hand by Derrida. It is the last line of the paragraph begun on page 178 and ending on 179.

The German source given for the quote within the essay is:

Gesamteausgabe, vol 54, Parmenides (Winter semester 1942/43), ed. M. S. Frings, 1982, p.119.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/posters/geschlecht2.pdf

Is SF handwritten? , Adam Roberts:

http://www.ntu.ac.uk/writing_technologies/current_journal/86049.pdf

Let me know, if you need anything else!

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 01, 2011, 05:31:21 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


It's possible that Pat Bartholomew knows French better than English, something I find plausible for a man of his generation educated in Turkey.

As for the content, unsurprisingly we find the heretical presupposition that truth is still to be sought, rather than something already bequeathed to the Church in its fullness.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: serb1389 on December 01, 2011, 05:34:10 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 05:35:03 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself?  

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!



Come on J Michael,  8) language is very important in negotiations, issues such as sovereignty and political dominance (in this case Church governance) can be conveyed with the type of language one uses. They took care not to antagonize the other in these matters where the usage of one’s language can be understood as a concession of certain political power or weight to the other etc. Now your indignation over the inquirey about the language used although understandable is not entirely justified in the real world of diplomacy.  so calm down and let us reason together.  :angel:When these letters are written people(those in charge of writing them)  are concerned not only about what is being actually said with the words, but also the language used to convey them. In this case the careful selection of the neutral language French speaks well on the good will of the communicant as well as it successfully avoids any political misunderstanding.

People who know of the importance of language in diplomatic interactions have valid point to look into the type of language used as well as the content of the language. It is part of the message. The UN is a good example, if you would care to look into it, that publications of official documents have to wait until available in all the official languages of the UN. Just because it might  mean the same in English they do not rush to publish the English version first and wait on the others.

In this case there is a valid reason why the article mentioned that the Letter was in French. J Michael relax no one is arguing that the message of the words in the letter are not important, however it is a fair question and a valid one to look into why the Papal letter was written in French, the inquiry does not undermine or downplay the significance of what the letter says in words. You cannot dictate people to look into the meaning of the words only and ignore the significance of the language used. We can look at both, it should not be an either or thing. In the real world, such things are not mere speculations but rather informed and educated understandings of the significance of language in both secular and religious politics.

As we are many in here who are discussing this event, you have to give leeway for people to look at it from different angles it only serves to enrich our understanding IMO. So relax my brother we are all on the same page, you are free to discuss what the words say , as I am or any other person is free to inquire what the significance of the language used is, while holding my peace in regards to commenting on what the words say. I will not downplay the significance of the words as you should not down play the significance of the language used and get indignant over people who inquire about it. I hope we are having an intelligent and civil discussion, where educated inquiry and analysis of certain things are allowed, and we do not neccessarily have to ask the writters why they wrote it in french as you seem to think and suggest we do.

peace :)

I'm as relaxed as can be, dear Hiwot  ;).  But, thanks for that.  There's much in your post I would reply to but I'm so relaxed at the moment that to do so would get me all uptight  ;D ::)!  Okay, just kidding.  I understand what you're saying, and agree with you up to a point.  I'm well aware of the functions of language in many areas of life, including diplomacy.  My *only* point, which seems to have gotten lost in all the verbiage and nonsensical postings, is/was that the language that the letter was written in is only a *part* of the picture in this story, and that by focusing so much attention on that, we lose sight of the *whole* picture, a huge portion of which is in the letter itself, i.e. the words and syntax and structure, etc.  That's it!

As for *why* French was used instead of any other available and shared language, well...*we* just don't know, and speculating about it may be fun and interesting but gets us no closer to an answer.  The only way we *will* know is if the writer(s) explain why, either on their own, or in response to a query.  I don't think that should be so difficult to understand, do you?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on December 01, 2011, 05:37:45 PM
All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

And yet here you remain.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 01, 2011, 05:39:30 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 05:43:37 PM
All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

And yet here you remain.

Boredom can make us do some pretty inane things, can't it ;D?  Besides, I may just be a (not so) secret glutton for punishment  ::), especially considering some of the discussions I've been involved in here.  Oh well, I'll just offer it all up to God  ;).
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 05:44:36 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

Can I quote Heidegger?

No seriously.

He is one of the first to take seriously the Greek notion of truth, starting with the very word itself.

Nietzsche literally figuratively flirting with the point.

The Greek for truth is a "privation".

The English stand in no etymological relationship with the Greek notion and the etymologies both show they stand some tension with one another.

Oh well.



Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: serb1389 on December 01, 2011, 05:45:13 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: serb1389 on December 01, 2011, 05:46:41 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

Can I quote Heidegger?

No seriously.

He is one of the first to take seriously the Greek notion of truth, starting with the very word itself.

Nietzsche literally figuratively flirting with the point.

The Greek for truth is a "privation".

The English stand in no etymological relationship with the Greek notion and the etymologies both show they stand some tension with one another.

Oh well.



Were you trying to say something here?  Prove a point perhaps?  Cuz I probably missed it....

....wait....

....yah.  definitely missed it.   ;) ;D :P
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 05:47:25 PM
I'm as relaxed as can be

(http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2011/07/John-Goodman-in-The-Big-Lebowski.jpg)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 05:48:34 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

Can I quote Heidegger?

No seriously.

He is one of the first to take seriously the Greek notion of truth, starting with the very word itself.

Nietzsche literally figuratively flirting with the point.

The Greek for truth is a "privation".

The English stand in no etymological relationship with the Greek notion and the etymologies both show they stand some tension with one another.

Oh well.



Were you trying to say something here?  Prove a point perhaps?  Cuz I probably missed it....

....wait....

....yah.  definitely missed it.   ;) ;D :P

Yeah, I got some wind burn from that one, too!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 01, 2011, 05:49:59 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 05:50:42 PM
I'm as relaxed as can be

(http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2011/07/John-Goodman-in-The-Big-Lebowski.jpg)

Hey!!!!  Where'd you get that picture of me??  I thought I deleted them all  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 01, 2011, 05:51:01 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

Can I quote Heidegger?

No seriously.

He is one of the first to take seriously the Greek notion of truth, starting with the very word itself.

Nietzsche literally figuratively flirting with the point.

The Greek for truth is a "privation".

The English stand in no etymological relationship with the Greek notion and the etymologies both show they stand some tension with one another.

Oh well.



Were you trying to say something here?  Prove a point perhaps?  Cuz I probably missed it....

....wait....

....yah.  definitely missed it.   ;) ;D :P

The Greek word for truth, ἀλήθεια (aletheia), does mean to "reveal" or more properly to uncover, disclose, unclose.

The thinking on the Greek understanding of truth is so pervaded by Heidegger you can't even sillipedia the word without his work being the balk of the entry in English:

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

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 05:52:59 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

There is the full and complete revelation of the Truth, and then there's the unfolding process of understanding and integrating it into our lives.  Or, am I wrong again?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Hiwot on December 01, 2011, 05:59:00 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!



Come on J Michael,  8) language is very important in negotiations, issues such as sovereignty and political dominance (in this case Church governance) can be conveyed with the type of language one uses. They took care not to antagonize the other in these matters where the usage of one’s language can be understood as a concession of certain political power or weight to the other etc. Now your indignation over the inquirey about the language used although understandable is not entirely justified in the real world of diplomacy.  so calm down and let us reason together.  :angel:When these letters are written people(those in charge of writing them)  are concerned not only about what is being actually said with the words, but also the language used to convey them. In this case the careful selection of the neutral language French speaks well on the good will of the communicant as well as it successfully avoids any political misunderstanding.

People who know of the importance of language in diplomatic interactions have valid point to look into the type of language used as well as the content of the language. It is part of the message. The UN is a good example, if you would care to look into it, that publications of official documents have to wait until available in all the official languages of the UN. Just because it might  mean the same in English they do not rush to publish the English version first and wait on the others.

In this case there is a valid reason why the article mentioned that the Letter was in French. J Michael relax no one is arguing that the message of the words in the letter are not important, however it is a fair question and a valid one to look into why the Papal letter was written in French, the inquiry does not undermine or downplay the significance of what the letter says in words. You cannot dictate people to look into the meaning of the words only and ignore the significance of the language used. We can look at both, it should not be an either or thing. In the real world, such things are not mere speculations but rather informed and educated understandings of the significance of language in both secular and religious politics.

As we are many in here who are discussing this event, you have to give leeway for people to look at it from different angles it only serves to enrich our understanding IMO. So relax my brother we are all on the same page, you are free to discuss what the words say , as I am or any other person is free to inquire what the significance of the language used is, while holding my peace in regards to commenting on what the words say. I will not downplay the significance of the words as you should not down play the significance of the language used and get indignant over people who inquire about it. I hope we are having an intelligent and civil discussion, where educated inquiry and analysis of certain things are allowed, and we do not neccessarily have to ask the writters why they wrote it in french as you seem to think and suggest we do.

peace :)

I'm as relaxed as can be, dear Hiwot  ;).  But, thanks for that.  There's much in your post I would reply to but I'm so relaxed at the moment that to do so would get me all uptight  ;D ::)!  Okay, just kidding.  I understand what you're saying, and agree with you up to a point.  I'm well aware of the functions of language in many areas of life, including diplomacy.  My *only*, which seems to have gotten lost in all the verbiage and nonsensical postings, is/was that the language that the letter was written in is only a *part* of the picture in this story, and that by focusing so much attention on that, we lose sight of the *whole* picture, a huge portion of which is in the letter itself, i.e. the words and syntax and structure, etc.  That's it!

As for *why* French was used instead of any other available and shared language, well...*we* just don't know, and speculating about it may be fun and interesting but gets us no closer to an answer.  The only way we *will* know is if the writer(s) explain why, either on their own, or in response to a query.  I don't think that should be so difficult to understand, do you?

LOL J Michael ,I think we all agree that it is important to see the whole picture to get the message in its entirety,the parts we look at are important parts of the whole,which is why I said we are all on the same page. so I am glad we have clarified that.  :)

 there is a wild guess and there is an educated guess, that factors in the available political significance as well as practicality  of the used language , both in the context of history and present day reality. I am sure those who sent it and those who received it, understood the unsaid significance of the usage of French in the Papal letter to the Patriarch.For this reason it will  not be necessary for them to ask why they wrote it in French , as it would not have been necessary for them to ask why had it been written in Latin. the message will be understood. lol but yes I can see we can agree to disagree on this point. in fairness I can say yes the only way that we will ultimately know what exactly was on the minds of those who composed the letter in French , is by asking them. however I will also say  that  it is both unrealistic and abandons the usage of the knowledge found in the field of diplomacy.

Peace :angel:
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 06:07:43 PM
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!



Come on J Michael,  8) language is very important in negotiations, issues such as sovereignty and political dominance (in this case Church governance) can be conveyed with the type of language one uses. They took care not to antagonize the other in these matters where the usage of one’s language can be understood as a concession of certain political power or weight to the other etc. Now your indignation over the inquirey about the language used although understandable is not entirely justified in the real world of diplomacy.  so calm down and let us reason together.  :angel:When these letters are written people(those in charge of writing them)  are concerned not only about what is being actually said with the words, but also the language used to convey them. In this case the careful selection of the neutral language French speaks well on the good will of the communicant as well as it successfully avoids any political misunderstanding.

People who know of the importance of language in diplomatic interactions have valid point to look into the type of language used as well as the content of the language. It is part of the message. The UN is a good example, if you would care to look into it, that publications of official documents have to wait until available in all the official languages of the UN. Just because it might  mean the same in English they do not rush to publish the English version first and wait on the others.

In this case there is a valid reason why the article mentioned that the Letter was in French. J Michael relax no one is arguing that the message of the words in the letter are not important, however it is a fair question and a valid one to look into why the Papal letter was written in French, the inquiry does not undermine or downplay the significance of what the letter says in words. You cannot dictate people to look into the meaning of the words only and ignore the significance of the language used. We can look at both, it should not be an either or thing. In the real world, such things are not mere speculations but rather informed and educated understandings of the significance of language in both secular and religious politics.

As we are many in here who are discussing this event, you have to give leeway for people to look at it from different angles it only serves to enrich our understanding IMO. So relax my brother we are all on the same page, you are free to discuss what the words say , as I am or any other person is free to inquire what the significance of the language used is, while holding my peace in regards to commenting on what the words say. I will not downplay the significance of the words as you should not down play the significance of the language used and get indignant over people who inquire about it. I hope we are having an intelligent and civil discussion, where educated inquiry and analysis of certain things are allowed, and we do not neccessarily have to ask the writters why they wrote it in french as you seem to think and suggest we do.

peace :)

I'm as relaxed as can be, dear Hiwot  ;).  But, thanks for that.  There's much in your post I would reply to but I'm so relaxed at the moment that to do so would get me all uptight  ;D ::)!  Okay, just kidding.  I understand what you're saying, and agree with you up to a point.  I'm well aware of the functions of language in many areas of life, including diplomacy.  My *only*, which seems to have gotten lost in all the verbiage and nonsensical postings, is/was that the language that the letter was written in is only a *part* of the picture in this story, and that by focusing so much attention on that, we lose sight of the *whole* picture, a huge portion of which is in the letter itself, i.e. the words and syntax and structure, etc.  That's it!

As for *why* French was used instead of any other available and shared language, well...*we* just don't know, and speculating about it may be fun and interesting but gets us no closer to an answer.  The only way we *will* know is if the writer(s) explain why, either on their own, or in response to a query.  I don't think that should be so difficult to understand, do you?

LOL J Michael ,I think we all agree that it is important to see the whole picture to get the message in its entirety,the parts we look at are important parts of the whole,which is why I said we are all on the same page. so I am glad we have clarified that.  :)

 there is a wild guess and there is an educated guess, that factors in the available political significance as well as practicality  of the used language , both in the context of history and present day reality. I am sure those who sent it and those who received it, understood the unsaid significance of the usage of French in the Papal letter to the Patriarch.For this reason it will  not be necessary for them to ask why they wrote it in French , as it would not have been necessary for them to ask why had it been written in Latin. the message will be understood. lol but yes I can see we can agree to disagree on this point. in fairness I can say yes the only way that we will ultimately know what exactly was on the minds of those who composed the letter in French , is by asking them. however I will also say  that  it is both unrealistic and abandons the usage of the knowledge found in the field of diplomacy.

Peace :angel:

Peace back atcha, Hiwot  ;)!

Again, I see exactly where you're coming from, and it's fine with me to agree to disagree.  Besides, that pistol I'm wielding in that ignominious picture of (not) me, gets awfully heavy when I have to keep pointing it at people  ;D ;D!

So, not being a diplomat, and not even being very diplomatic most of the time, I'll concede the point of your last sentence  ;).

In Christ,
JM
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Hiwot on December 01, 2011, 06:28:24 PM
J Michael, that was a very diplomatic reply I would say  ;)  pleasure talking with ya  dear  ;D

peace :angel:
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 01, 2011, 06:32:07 PM
J Michael, that was a very diplomatic reply I would say  ;)  pleasure talking with ya  dear  ;D

peace :angel:


The pleasure's all mine  :D!  And I do mean that, in spite of what Mr. Heidegger might wax philosophical about.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: serb1389 on December 01, 2011, 06:50:13 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?

Let's start with "into" being a movement, not a stationary act. 
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: serb1389 on December 01, 2011, 06:51:29 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

There is the full and complete revelation of the Truth, and then there's the unfolding process of understanding and integrating it into our lives.  Or, am I wrong again?

That's exactly what I was going for.  That is how I understand it as well.  You said it a lot more succinctly than I did. 
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 01, 2011, 06:56:59 PM
This discussion by Fr Michael Pomazansky might be helpful:

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.htm#_Toc514547886

It's very, very helpful in distinguishing the Orthodox understanding from Protestant scriptural literalism, which opposes the authority of later councils to define dogmas, and from Catholic theories of dogmatic development, which consider these later definitions to constitute entirely new revelations of the Holy Spirit, rather than more precise wordings of dogmas that the Church had always held since the time of the Apostles.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: dzheremi on December 01, 2011, 08:06:06 PM
Why are we even still discussing this?

Sheesh...I come here to get away from work, but you people aren't making it very easy!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 01, 2011, 08:36:13 PM
Pape Benoît XVI et le Patriarche Bartholomée sont des amis et cela est bon.  Ok, in spirit of French, I just said, Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are friends and that is good.  Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: mike on December 01, 2011, 08:37:47 PM
Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 01, 2011, 09:06:21 PM
Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?

I don't know, I thought when the pope went to the phanar a few years back the tv said it was an ancient custom, the patriarch and the pope visiting each other..  ok, but if it did start in the 1960's, you could be correct.  Maybe when the pope and the patriarch reversed the schism in 1964.  That is what I don't get, how can the leaders of the churches lift the excommunications they had on each other and it not being seen as the end of the schism?  So, if tomorrow morning the current pope and patriarch of constantinople said the same thing, that the excommunications were lifted would people still ignore it?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 01, 2011, 09:09:47 PM
ok, the great and wonderful wikipedia states that it was  1952 when the first visit took place,but with a delegate representative of Constantinople.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 01, 2011, 09:47:05 PM
Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?

I don't know, I thought when the pope went to the phanar a few years back the tv said it was an ancient custom, the patriarch and the pope visiting each other..  ok, but if it did start in the 1960's, you could be correct.  Maybe when the pope and the patriarch reversed the schism in 1964.  That is what I don't get, how can the leaders of the churches lift the excommunications they had on each other and it not being seen as the end of the schism?  So, if tomorrow morning the current pope and patriarch of constantinople said the same thing, that the excommunications were lifted would people still ignore it?

So according to you the schism has ended? Is this what you've been taught? You'll find quite a number of people on here who would insist that the lifting of the anathemas, the Balamand statement and other statements, the mutual prayer, the commemoration of the Pope in the DL etc, somehow do not constitute an end to the schism with the Pope. Of course, I would agree with you that by far the more reasonable interpretation of all these events is that, in the eyes of the EP and the Pope, the schism has ended, although I imagine we would both draw very different ecclesiological conclusions from this.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 01, 2011, 09:56:24 PM
Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?

I don't know, I thought when the pope went to the phanar a few years back the tv said it was an ancient custom, the patriarch and the pope visiting each other..  ok, but if it did start in the 1960's, you could be correct.  Maybe when the pope and the patriarch reversed the schism in 1964.  That is what I don't get, how can the leaders of the churches lift the excommunications they had on each other and it not being seen as the end of the schism?  So, if tomorrow morning the current pope and patriarch of constantinople said the same thing, that the excommunications were lifted would people still ignore it?

So according to you the schism has ended? Is this what you've been taught? You'll find quite a number of people on here who would insist that the lifting of the anathemas, the Balamand statement and other statements, the mutual prayer, the commemoration of the Pope in the DL etc, somehow do not constitute an end to the schism with the Pope. Of course, I would agree with you that by far the more reasonable interpretation of all these events is that, in the eyes of the EP and the Pope, the schism has ended, although I imagine we would both draw very different ecclesiological conclusions from this.

I don't make such decisions as to whether of not the schism has ended, my
Patriarch does.  I don't think the schism ended, it won't end for a long time either for a million reasons.  I was merely stating that if they lifted the excommunications but it didn't take effect per 1964, then what?  So why didn't it end then, if and when it happens again, is it going to be a real end to the schism?  At this point the RCC has gone so far off in the opposite direction as the EO I'm glad no one took the 1964 decree seriously.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: pensateomnia on December 01, 2011, 10:49:02 PM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.



See people? This is thinking and a reasonable explanation.

Makes perfect sense.

Merci!

There's a simpler explanation: French is the main language of ecumenical dialogue in Europe.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 02, 2011, 09:56:08 AM
I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.



See people? This is thinking and a reasonable explanation.

Makes perfect sense.

Merci!

There's a simpler explanation: French is the main language of ecumenical dialogue in Europe.

I'm not sure about French being the language of love. What makes you say that, Opus?

Is French the main language of ecumenical dialog?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 02, 2011, 09:56:56 AM
Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?

I don't know, I thought when the pope went to the phanar a few years back the tv said it was an ancient custom, the patriarch and the pope visiting each other..  ok, but if it did start in the 1960's, you could be correct.  Maybe when the pope and the patriarch reversed the schism in 1964.  That is what I don't get, how can the leaders of the churches lift the excommunications they had on each other and it not being seen as the end of the schism?  So, if tomorrow morning the current pope and patriarch of constantinople said the same thing, that the excommunications were lifted would people still ignore it?

So according to you the schism has ended? Is this what you've been taught? You'll find quite a number of people on here who would insist that the lifting of the anathemas, the Balamand statement and other statements, the mutual prayer, the commemoration of the Pope in the DL etc, somehow do not constitute an end to the schism with the Pope. Of course, I would agree with you that by far the more reasonable interpretation of all these events is that, in the eyes of the EP and the Pope, the schism has ended, although I imagine we would both draw very different ecclesiological conclusions from this.

I don't make such decisions as to whether of not the schism has ended, my
Patriarch does.  I don't think the schism ended, it won't end for a long time either for a million reasons.  I was merely stating that if they lifted the excommunications but it didn't take effect per 1964, then what?  So why didn't it end then, if and when it happens again, is it going to be a real end to the schism?  At this point the RCC has gone so far off in the opposite direction as the EO I'm glad no one took the 1964 decree seriously.

You just said that in 1964 the Pope and Patriarch reversed the schism. Now you say they didn't. Which one is it?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Ortho_cat on December 02, 2011, 03:06:40 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 02, 2011, 03:22:33 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Ortho_cat on December 02, 2011, 03:33:49 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 02, 2011, 03:41:56 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

Dang! What did I miss?  ???
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 02, 2011, 03:57:33 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Ortho_cat on December 02, 2011, 04:28:21 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Melodist on December 02, 2011, 05:25:47 PM
Trivial to be sure, but why French?

He's ready to accept our terms for the re-establishment of communion.  ::)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Ortho_cat on December 02, 2011, 05:52:01 PM
Trivial to be sure, but why French?

He's ready to accept our terms for the re-establishment of communion.  ::)

Perhaps he wants to call to mind the french revolution?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 02, 2011, 06:43:13 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 02, 2011, 06:57:09 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: orthonorm on December 02, 2011, 07:36:12 PM
Trivial to be sure, but why French?

He's ready to accept our terms for the re-establishment of communion.  ::)

Nice!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 02, 2011, 08:35:10 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.

You clearly believe the line has not been crossed yet. But on what grounds do you believe this? The canons don't just forbid mutual communion with heretics; they forbid mutual prayer. The line was crossed when the anathemas were lifted. If and when full communion comes, it will only be the final end of the descent into heresy.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 02, 2011, 08:44:51 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.

You clearly believe the line has not been crossed yet. But on what grounds do you believe this? The canons don't just forbid mutual communion with heretics; they forbid mutual prayer. The line was crossed when the anathemas were lifted. If and when full communion comes, it will only be the final end of the descent into heresy.
You're assuming two things: A. that your communion is the true Church, and B. that one party is heretical. I disagree with you on both points, so we appear to be at an impasse.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: William on December 02, 2011, 08:52:13 PM
Jonathan,

Is your Old Calendar jurisdiction one of the ones that believes that "World Orthodoxy" has valid sacraments?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Ortho_cat on December 02, 2011, 09:08:19 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.

Once they concelebrate i will believe that the schism has been healed...
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 02, 2011, 10:27:05 PM
JGross, I never said they didn't, re-read my post, I said they lifted the excommunications but nothing has changed, so it must be empty, and howwould they really proove it ever ended if they can declare it over and no one listens? 

Heresy is a huge word to throw around.  To be a heretic is to be orthodox then leave and drag other people into your beliefs.  I'm just happy that I belong to a communion that is recognised world-wide as being Eastern Orthodox and I can share in the sacraments with every other Orthodox person that is in communion with me, hence, the whole Orthodox church.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 03, 2011, 12:23:00 AM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. 8)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: stanley123 on December 03, 2011, 01:08:13 AM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
The New Testament revelations are a done thing? So as the New Testament reveals slaves should remain subject to their masters, regardless of how harsh they may be? If there is slavery somewhere in the world today, and the reports are that it does exist, Christians should not encourage their liberty, but rather should encourage them to be obedient to their masters, regardless of how harsh their masters may be as was commanded in the New Testament? That doesn't seem right. It seems like it would be better to encourage freedom for slaves and not that they continue to submit and obey their harsh masters? 
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 03, 2011, 01:11:47 AM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
Easy. Christ was talking about the Church, not just the Apostles.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Shiny on December 03, 2011, 01:42:54 AM
I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 03, 2011, 01:47:47 AM
You really know how to make somebody feel welcome.

:(
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Shiny on December 03, 2011, 02:10:41 AM
You really know how to make somebody feel welcome.

:(
Of course, that's why I never put out a welcome mat.

But seriously the point of this section on the board is not about bickering between RC's and Orthodox, as Fr. Anastasios has already said in the past.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: dzheremi on December 03, 2011, 02:20:43 AM
Just the same, I would think that any errors put forth by RCs would give Orthodox an opportunity to expose them to right teaching, even if they don't take to it (though some will). I don't know if openly questioning their participation here really furthers that.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Shiny on December 03, 2011, 02:27:18 AM
Just the same, I would think that any errors put forth by RCs would give Orthodox an opportunity to expose them to right teaching, even if they don't take to it (though some will). I don't know if openly questioning their participation here really furthers that.
I'm just getting real tired of the same old canards RC's keep employing. How people like Isa and Fr. Ambrose cotinue dialouging with them I'll never get. It truly is a hopeless endeavor. The best excuse I ever heard for someone posting on this board was "Oh it's because Orthodox skew Eastern Catholic beliefs so I have to correct them.". No you do not. This is an Orthodox Christian message board not an EC one. If an Orthodox member wants to inquire about joining the EC then they will find the proper outlets to do so.

If we are really that wrong about the RC faith, let us be. It doesn't really matter to the committed Orthodox, they won't change. There was what maybe one occurence of an Orthodox becoming RC and that was never due to the polemics of the RC's here?

Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 03, 2011, 02:39:44 AM
Okay, if you say so.  :'(  :'(  :'(
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: dzheremi on December 03, 2011, 02:40:40 AM
My guess would be that Isa and Fr. Ambrose and others probably continue doing it because that's what you do when you are convinced that a brother is in error. I am sure that when Jesus Christ told Peter that he is to forgive his brother not only seven times, but seventy times seven, He said that with the knowledge that this was beyond the amount that would be considered tiresome (as it still is). But that's still what we are to do.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: stanley123 on December 03, 2011, 02:51:49 AM
I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? ...Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
My purpose has been to learn a little bit about the Orthodox Church. A while back, I did try to take an Orthodox catechism class which was given by an Orthodox priest, however, he said that  I would not be able to join since his class was not open to heretics.  
I have been somewhat distressed by some of what has gone on in the RCC recently with the huge  increase in marriage annulments (in the USA),  the sex scandals, the so-called "abuses" in the Roman liturgy, changes in disciplinary teachings, etc.  I see the Orthodox Church as an Apostolic Church, with an exceptionally fine liturgy and a certain stability in teaching, and I wanted to know a little more about what are the differences between the two Churches. R. Catholics have been talking about possible reunion with the E. Orthodox Church, but since neither side is willing to make concessions to the other, and since there is a whole lot of bad blood between the two Churches,  I don't see it happening (at least for a long while at best).
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: stanley123 on December 03, 2011, 02:56:44 AM
Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.
I have tried to contribute within my capability. For example, there was a discussion a while back where one poster claimed that Maple was a superior program to Mathematica. My contribution to that discussion was to illustrate with an example of a calculation which Mathematica performed correctly, while Maple did not.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 03, 2011, 03:00:44 AM
"Thank you, thank you- I didn't know I was the worst person in the world until you told me."

- Eugene O'Neill, 'Long Day's Journey Into Night'
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: mike on December 03, 2011, 04:38:35 AM
Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.
I have tried to contribute within my capability. For example, there was a discussion a while back where one poster claimed that Maple was a superior program to Mathematica. My contribution to that discussion was to illustrate with an example of a calculation which Mathematica performed correctly, while Maple did not.

MATLAB!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 03, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
JGross, I never said they didn't, re-read my post, I said they lifted the excommunications but nothing has changed, so it must be empty, and howwould they really proove it ever ended if they can declare it over and no one listens? 

Heresy is a huge word to throw around.  To be a heretic is to be orthodox then leave and drag other people into your beliefs.  I'm just happy that I belong to a communion that is recognised world-wide as being Eastern Orthodox and I can share in the sacraments with every other Orthodox person that is in communion with me, hence, the whole Orthodox church.

But it's not true that nothing has changed. Before, the Pope and the Patriarch didn't pray together. Now they do.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 03, 2011, 12:18:27 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. 8)

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 03, 2011, 12:19:48 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
The New Testament revelations are a done thing? So as the New Testament reveals slaves should remain subject to their masters, regardless of how harsh they may be? If there is slavery somewhere in the world today, and the reports are that it does exist, Christians should not encourage their liberty, but rather should encourage them to be obedient to their masters, regardless of how harsh their masters may be as was commanded in the New Testament? That doesn't seem right. It seems like it would be better to encourage freedom for slaves and not that they continue to submit and obey their harsh masters? 

Well I would say that it would be inconsistent with the Gospel to encourage slaves to rebel, but it would be consistent to encourage masters to free their slaves.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 03, 2011, 12:23:27 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
Easy. Christ was talking about the Church, not just the Apostles.

The Orthodox believe that all the dogmatic truth of the faith was revealed to the Apostles on Pentecost, but these dogmas were at first held in the heart and were not necessarily yet couched in precise formulas. The purpose of the later dogmatic pronouncements of the Fathers was not because these later pronouncements represent new dogmatic revelations, but rather they are Spirit-guided expositions of dogmas that have previously been held in an unexpounded form.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 03, 2011, 12:27:00 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. 8)

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 03, 2011, 12:29:32 PM
i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.

You clearly believe the line has not been crossed yet. But on what grounds do you believe this? The canons don't just forbid mutual communion with heretics; they forbid mutual prayer. The line was crossed when the anathemas were lifted. If and when full communion comes, it will only be the final end of the descent into heresy.
You're assuming two things: A. that your communion is the true Church, and B. that one party is heretical. I disagree with you on both points, so we appear to be at an impasse.

Hm I think I forgot you were different from Ortho_cat. But I would still disagree with your assertion that "nothing has changed". I don't know how anyone can maintain this position amid all the evidence for mutual prayer. Just in case none of you has seen it, here is the famous video of the Pope's visit to the Phanar, where you can see the deacon commemorating the Pope's name and bowing to him, as he would to an Orthodox hierarch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH7x5kGAKIY
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 03, 2011, 12:35:26 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. 8)

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.

I didn't say "you mean" but "I think you mean". And I believe your own grievances refer to your interesting argument that you can accept the authority of the Apostolic Canons, except when it involves conceding that the said canons completely undermine your assertions about what the Church has traditionally believed about the validity of heretical baptism. When you tell me that the Canons are not sufficient evidence for what the Church believed, I reasonably point out that this must entail you do not accept their authority, after which you claim that I "put words in your mouth".

I pointed out that you can't say you accept the canons one moment and not accept them the next. Interestingly, other contributors supported me in this, showing that I'm not alone in thinking that you like to resort to chicanery in order to wriggle out of losing an argument. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 03, 2011, 12:54:56 PM
Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. 8)

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.

I didn't say "you mean" but "I think you mean".
"I think you mean...", "You mean..."... Is there really a difference? You're still projecting your thoughts into the other person's mind.

And I believe your own grievances refer to your interesting argument that you can accept the authority of the Apostolic Canons, except when it involves conceding that the said canons completely undermine your assertions about what the Church has traditionally believed about the validity of heretical baptism. When you tell me that the Canons are not sufficient evidence for what the Church believed, I reasonably point out that this must entail you do not accept their authority, after which you claim that I "put words in your mouth".
Asserting your certainty that St. Basil the Great means nothing to me? I had never said anything about St. Basil prior to that post.

Asserting that my personal opinion is that the Apostolic Canons are bogus? I never said that the Apostolic Canons are bogus and went to great pains to repeat to you that the only thing I considered bogus was your interpretation of said Apostolic Canons.

Yes, these are both attempts to put words into my mouth. You did it to me, and now you've done it to serb1389. You really need to stop doing that and start actually engaging what other people say.

I pointed out that you can't say you accept the canons one moment and not accept them the next. Interestingly, other contributors supported me in this, showing that I'm not alone in thinking that you like to resort to chicanery in order to wriggle out of losing an argument. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Yes, we do have a few posters here who are critical of my debate style, but we also have a good number of posters here who have voiced their criticisms of your debate style. I'd say we're even. :-*

I also notice that those contributors whose "support for your position" you like to cite here, Iconodule and jckstraw72, commented only on my debate style. They offered no words whatsoever in defense of the actual substance of your arguments on that thread.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 03, 2011, 01:08:33 PM
Given that your own reputation is hardly impeccable, I don't think you have the moral authority to point fingers at me and tell me how I should be conducting my arguments as if you're the impartial judge in this situation.

When someone says "truth is not a static process", what am I supposed to understand by that? I understood it to mean that this person does not believe revelation was something given all at once, as the Orthodox Church believes, but something gradually doled out over time, as the Catholics believe. I think that's a heresy and I said so. It then turned out this person didn't seem to mean that, but really it's his own problem in not expressing very clearly what he actually believed.

I don't know what you're referring to about St Basil. And no, it is not true that all you ever objected to was my "interpretation" of the Apostolic Canons. You were the one who first challenged my appeal to the authority of the Canons by objecting that they only appeared in the 4th century. If that isn't challenging their authority, what does the date of their appearance have to do with my argument?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 03, 2011, 02:04:55 PM
I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
I wonder if deep down you are truly scared and doubting your faith and that that is the real reason that you are lashing out at Catholics.

Also, the reason why we keep using the "regurgitated vomit" (redundancy? vomited vomit?) is because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements. So yes, we do often sound like a broken record, but it is because you guys tend to completely ignore our points. We raise a valid point about the something pertaining to our faith, and you all just resort to the old Eastern Orthodox mantra of "but like......the Pope is a heretic and junk." Who is really denying the truth here?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 03, 2011, 02:35:19 PM
What does "Matlab" mean?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 02:46:55 PM
Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?  I had it in here a minute ago, and now its gone...
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jetavan on December 03, 2011, 03:13:07 PM
Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?
That's not kosher.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 03:13:43 PM
, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements.


I am sure that most of the Orthodox do not understand how the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium presents binding infallible teaching to the Catholic Church, without issuing magisterial statements.  Could you share with us, briefly?

Years ago when I made enquiries I was told that examples of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were Limbo and the (material) fires of purgatory.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 03:22:00 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:



It has nothing to do with the magisterium. Nihil obstats are issued by individual bishops.



No, they are not issued by bishops.  They are issued by theologians.  Their work is to examine a book and declare that it is free from doctrinal error and that what is in it may be believed by the Catholic faithful.

Quote
All a nihil obstat says is that nothing within a literary work is inherently heretical. It does not in any way say that the magisterium approves every letter of the book as official Church teaching.

Since a Nihil Obstat is not issued by a bishop you are correct in saying that it is not the approval of the magisterium.


Btw, it is the Imprimatur which a bishops issues which permits a work to be printed with his blessing. 


Quote
.....  seriously, if you want to convince people to think like you do, at least make it appear like you know and are presenting facts.

Well, I do agree with that.  All the Catholics on here have lost a little credibility since they are confused about Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs and who issues what!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 03:39:11 PM
Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?
That's not kosher.

Prolly why I can't find it...somebody threw the blasted thing in the trash...no doubt!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.



Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 06:23:46 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstat is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 06:31:45 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 06:41:38 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 06:54:46 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: JamesRottnek on December 03, 2011, 06:58:57 PM
There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.

You're quite wrong Michal.  Clearly, St. John (Maximovitch) is the patron saint of the Orthodox World and Church.  I mean, what other saint lived in so much of it?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Shiny on December 03, 2011, 06:59:03 PM
Thank you Stanely for your post and your sincerity.

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
I wonder if deep down you are truly scared and doubting your faith and that that is the real reason that you are lashing out at Catholics.

Also, the reason why we keep using the "regurgitated vomit" (redundancy? vomited vomit?) is because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements. So yes, we do often sound like a broken record, but it is because you guys tend to completely ignore our points. We raise a valid point about the something pertaining to our faith, and you all just resort to the old Eastern Orthodox mantra of "but like......the Pope is a heretic and junk." Who is really denying the truth here?
So out of all this nonsense you still haven't answered my question. Let's try this again.

Why do you still post on this forum? It is clear that you are in no way interested in joining the Orthodox Church nor are you interested in Orthodoxy itself.

My faith rests on the solid pillars of Orthodoxy. It is like a rock. If RC's, like Stanely, who are interested in the Church and want to learn more and maybe think about possibly becoming a member then I have absoultley no issue with it. I welcome them and hope they find the answers here to be illuming. The issue I have is when RC's who have no intention joining the Orthodox or even remotely interested in what they believe still post here and continue to bicker and embroil themselves over issues that have been tireless refuted by Orthodox members. I believe Fr. Ambrose took care of the rest of your post so I won't bother with it.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: mike on December 03, 2011, 07:02:37 PM
There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.

You're quite wrong Michal.  Clearly, St. John (Maximovitch) is the patron saint of the Orthodox World and Church.  I mean, what other saint lived in so much of it?

Holy Spirit. j/k
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 07:51:15 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: William on December 03, 2011, 07:51:53 PM
I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? ...Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
My purpose has been to learn a little bit about the Orthodox Church. A while back, I did try to take an Orthodox catechism class which was given by an Orthodox priest, however, he said that  I would not be able to join since his class was not open to heretics.  
The class or the Church?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 08:29:49 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it. 

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 03, 2011, 09:06:03 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:



It has nothing to do with the magisterium. Nihil obstats are issued by individual bishops.



No, they are not issued by bishops.  They are issued by theologians.  Their work is to examine a book and declare that it is free from doctrinal error and that what is in it may be believed by the Catholic faithful.
Oh cute...you think you're going to be witty and post what you sent to me via a private message and "expose" my ignorance. Too bad I beat you to it here, and I am totally willing to admit that I was mistaken:

Since it seems that a great many on this forum (including even myself) do not have a proper understanding of the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, I thought it would be useful to have a thread to clear everything up. Fr. Ambrose pointed out to me, for instance, that the nihil obstat is not actually issued by the bishop...only the imprimatur is.

Quote
All a nihil obstat says is that nothing within a literary work is inherently heretical. It does not in any way say that the magisterium approves every letter of the book as official Church teaching.

Since a Nihil Obstat is not issued by a bishop you are correct in saying that it is not the approval of the magisterium.
So if it was issued by a bishop then you think it would equal magisterial approval? Hardly. The magisterium is ALL of the bishops, not just a solitary bishop.

Btw, it is the Imprimatur which a bishops issues which permits a work to be printed with his blessing.
Hey...since you know so much about nihil obstats and imprimaturs, Father, why did you never correct ialmisry when he was grossly misrepresenting what nihil obstats and imprimaturs mean within the Catholic faith? You put plenty of energy into correcting me over a technicality when ialmisry was severely in error. If you're going to be biased, at least make it subtle. Don't be blatantly so.


Quote
.....  seriously, if you want to convince people to think like you do, at least make it appear like you know and are presenting facts.

Well, I do agree with that.  All the Catholics on here have lost a little credibility since they are confused about Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs and who issues what!
Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Papist on December 03, 2011, 09:07:49 PM

Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
That's how Fr. A rolls.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 03, 2011, 09:15:37 PM
So out of all this nonsense you still haven't answered my question. Let's try this again.
Ok...GO FOR IT.

Why do you still post on this forum?
What an odd question. Why do you?

It is clear that you are in no way interested in joining the Orthodox Church nor are you interested in Orthodoxy itself.
Are you sure about that?

My faith rests on the solid pillars of Orthodoxy.
Mine rests on Christ and His Church.

It is like a rock.
Your faith is like a Chevy truck?

If RC's, like Stanely, who are interested in the Church and want to learn more and maybe think about possibly becoming a member then I have absoultley no issue with it.
I'm glad he has your seal of approval, oh mighty pseudo-moderator.

I welcome them and hope they find the answers here to be illuming.
illuming?

The issue I have is when RC's who have no intention joining the Orthodox or even remotely interested in what they believe still post here and continue to bicker and embroil themselves over issues that have been tireless refuted by Orthodox members.
Our issues have been refuted? Really? When did that happen? Quotes?

I believe Fr. Ambrose took care of the rest of your post so I won't bother with it.
Yes...and he had about as much of a point as you do. ;)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 09:15:58 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it. 

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

Mary,  I am not asking for lists.

I an saying that there must surely be one or two examples you can provide  of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium functioning.   Or has it never actually ever functioned but it remains a theoretical concept?

But then why would the priest from whom I made enquiry have given the examples of Limbo and the fire of Purgatory?   He knew what my question concerned.  I think that Catholics on the forum are not familiar with the workings of the Magisterium in it various manifestations.

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 09:18:04 PM

Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
That's how Fr. A rolls.

Please do not tell fibs about the clergy.  I am sure it'll heat up those purgatorial fires for you.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 09:20:16 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it. 

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

Mary,  I am not asking for lists.

I an saying that there must surely be one or two examples you can provide  of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium functioning.   Or has it never actually ever functioned but it remains a theoretical concept?

But then why would the priest from whom I made enquiry have given the examples of Limbo and the fire of Purgatory?   He knew what my question concerned.  I think that Catholics on the forum are not familiar with the workings of the Magisterium in it various manifestations.



Here is a good place to begin for people who are somewhat in the dark:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 09:24:06 PM

Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
That's how Fr. A rolls.

Please do not tell fibs about the clergy.  I am sure it'll heat up those purgatorial fires for you.

Maybe we should conduct the discussion of magisterial teaching in a different [less polluted] thread. 

I did whack you about the knees with a stick, on this question, so I am willing to put some effort into the discussion but I have limited time and hate it when these threads turn into the inside of a used barf bag.

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: J Michael on December 03, 2011, 09:29:10 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it.  

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

Mary,  I am not asking for lists.

I an saying that there must surely be one or two examples you can provide  of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium functioning.   Or has it never actually ever functioned but it remains a theoretical concept?

But then why would the priest from whom I made enquiry have given the examples of Limbo and the fire of Purgatory?   He knew what my question concerned.  I think that Catholics on the forum are not familiar with the workings of the Magisterium in it various manifestations.



Here is a good place to begin for people who are somewhat in the dark:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.

Hey, you beat me to it  ;)!

Here's a couple more sources to check out: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm, and The Catechism of the Catholic Church,  #77, 85-87, 95, 888-92, 2032-2035.

I'd elaborate more, but gotta go watch Wisconsin beat up Michigan State so they can go to the Rose Bowl and lose to my beloved Quack Attack (University of Oregon Ducks)  ;D ;D!

(Sincere apologies for the lack of pretty pictures and maps  ::))
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Papist on December 03, 2011, 09:33:40 PM

Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
That's how Fr. A rolls.

Please do not tell fibs about the clergy.  I am sure it'll heat up those purgatorial fires for you.
I never lie about the clergy.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Papist on December 03, 2011, 09:36:00 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it.  

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

Mary,  I am not asking for lists.

I an saying that there must surely be one or two examples you can provide  of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium functioning.   Or has it never actually ever functioned but it remains a theoretical concept?

But then why would the priest from whom I made enquiry have given the examples of Limbo and the fire of Purgatory?   He knew what my question concerned.  I think that Catholics on the forum are not familiar with the workings of the Magisterium in it various manifestations.



Here is a good place to begin for people who are somewhat in the dark:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.

Hey, you beat me to it  ;)!

Here's a couple more sources to check out: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm, and The Catechism of the Catholic Church,  #77, 85-87, 95, 888-92, 2032-2035.

I'd elaborate more, but gotta go watch Wisconsin beat up Michigan State so they can go to the Rose Bowl and lose to my beloved Quack Attack (University of Oregon Ducks)  ;D ;D!

(Sincere apologies for the lack of pretty pictures and maps  ::))
I got a map of purgatory here, in true Izzy style:    ;D ;D ;D

(http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/winter_2005/images/ll_purgatory.jpg)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 09:37:19 PM
moving to a fresher and more appropriately titled thread
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 03, 2011, 09:48:31 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


This thread certainly presents no evidence of the existence of any such 'mature people'. Surely the Devil himself chuckles while we continue our endless, petty bickering.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: ialmisry on December 03, 2011, 10:18:15 PM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it.  

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.
(http://www.txroadrunners.com/images/pics/funny5/MapOfNowhere.jpg)
Not my fault nor my credit that our side enjoys an overabundence of evidence.  Just sharing the wealth.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 10:24:51 PM

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.


A friend, yes.  But also the Diocesan Theologian.  His words carry a certain weight.

He was not speaking of purgatory but of the fire of purgatory as something material.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Shiny on December 03, 2011, 10:26:15 PM
Why do you still post on this forum?
What an odd question. Why do you?
Posing a question as an answer to my question is not an answer. How about you answer the question, honestly. Then I will answer yours.

Quote
Are you sure about that?
None of your 1900+ posts indicate any interest into Orthodoxy. Do I really need to fine comb your posts?

Quote
Mine rests on Christ and His Church.
And so does mine. However the head of My Church is Christ, I can't say the same for yours.

Quote
Your faith is like a Chevy truck?
Built Ford tough.

Quote
I'm glad he has your seal of approval, oh mighty pseudo-moderator.
Unlike you, Stanely answered the question.

Quote
iluming?
illuminating. But if your excuse for an argument is to parse out spelling errors I won't have any of it.

Quote
Our issues have been refuted? Really? When did that happen? Quotes?
Try the head of the Church. Or papal infallibility. Or ex cathedra. Or papal primacy. Etc. There's plenty of it, it's not my fault you are too blind to see it. Maybe you can see but refuse to acknowledge the truth. I think that's the core problem.

Quote
Yes...and he had about as much of a point as you do. ;)
Well when you are responding to a post that had no point in the first place its hard to really make it into one.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) You are on post moderation for 40 days for bickering and personal attacks against each other.  It is absurd and will not be tolerated.  This is to be a place for good discussion and learning not schoolyard bickering.  Please use this time to cool down and remember each post will be reviewed the moderator team before we either let it be posted or not.  If you feel you have not been bickering, stepping over the boundaries of general decency on this forum then please feel free to contact our administrative staff, Fr. Chris.   -username! Orthodox Catholic Moderator
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 03, 2011, 10:27:58 PM
"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=542197) in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


This thread certainly presents no evidence of the existence of any such 'mature people'. Surely the Devil himself chuckles while we continue our endless, petty bickering.


Well, I am asking for information on some Catholic matters which interest me but I get fobbed off by people introducing a tone of personal bickering.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 10:31:21 PM

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.


A friend, yes.  But also the Diocesan Theologian.  His words carry a certain weight.

He was not speaking of purgatory but of the fire of purgatory as something material.

This is not what is described and understood as magisterial teaching that is of the faith and infallible, regardless of the source.  These are pastoral teachings that are open to discussion and to change over time.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 03, 2011, 10:34:42 PM

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.


A friend, yes.  But also the Diocesan Theologian.  His words carry a certain weight.

He was not speaking of purgatory but of the fire of purgatory as something material.

This is not what is described and understood as magisterial teaching that is of the faith and infallible, regardless of the source.  These are pastoral teachings that are open to discussion and to change over time.

For the sake of argument, would you define these 'pastoral teachings' as being somewhat analogous to what Orthodox would define as "theologoumena?"
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 03, 2011, 10:39:15 PM

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.


A friend, yes.  But also the Diocesan Theologian.  His words carry a certain weight.

He was not speaking of purgatory but of the fire of purgatory as something material.

This is not what is described and understood as magisterial teaching that is of the faith and infallible, regardless of the source.  These are pastoral teachings that are open to discussion and to change over time.

For the sake of argument, would you define these 'pastoral teachings' as being somewhat analogous to what Orthodox would define as "theologoumena?"

They are.  They are representative of a deeper spiritual and theological truth that is irreformable, but in themselves they are not irreformable.  I do not have the time to search documents that I've read over the years but there certainly are examples of saints and theological and spiritual writers who speak of the fires of purgation as analogous means of referring to the burning pain of being without our Lord.  These writings long pre-date the Second Vatican Council, and some of them pre-date Trent.

M.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 03, 2011, 11:14:21 PM
Why do you still post on this forum?
What an odd question. Why do you?
Posing a question as an answer to my question is not an answer. How about you answer the question, honestly. Then I will answer yours.
Since I don't know you and have no reason to trust you, I think the discussion on what my or your intentions on the forum are will stop here.

Quote
Are you sure about that?
None of your 1900+ posts indicate any interest into Orthodoxy. Do I really need to fine comb your posts?
You know this how?

Quote
Mine rests on Christ and His Church.
And so does mine. However the head of My Church is Christ, I can't say the same for yours.
Mine is Christ, and I'm still in communion with the rock that Christ Himself appointed to shepherd His Church until the day that He returns in glory.

Quote
Your faith is like a Chevy truck?
Built Ford tough.
Wrong answer. Jesus prefers Chryslers.

Quote
I'm glad he has your seal of approval, oh mighty pseudo-moderator.
Unlike you, Stanely answered the question.
If I owed you an explanation I would give you one.

Quote
iluming?
illuminating. But if your excuse for an argument is to parse out spelling errors I won't have any of it.
K.

Quote
Our issues have been refuted? Really? When did that happen? Quotes?
Try the head of the Church. Or papal infallibility. Or ex cathedra. Or papal primacy. Etc. There's plenty of it, it's not my fault you are too blind to see it. Maybe you can see but refuse to acknowledge the truth. I think that's the core problem.
Those things are all sound, orthodox teachings. It's not my fault that you are too blind to see it.

Quote
Yes...and he had about as much of a point as you do. ;)
Well when you are responding to a post that had no point in the first place its hard to really make it into one.
Your point, I realize, is that since I don't kiss the schismatic ring of rebel bishops that I have no place here. You're wrong.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) You are being placed on post moderation for 40 days for bickering and personal attacks between yourself and other posters.  Sit back, calm down and stop fighting on oc.net please.  I have given several public warnings and official warnings as of late for this issue, I am not tolerating it any longer.  Every post has to be reviewed by the moderator team for approval for 40 days.  If you feel you have not been bickering and being trivial in your posts please feel free to contact Fr Chris, our administrator -username! Orthodox Catholic moderator
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Shiny on December 03, 2011, 11:49:19 PM
So still no answer Wyatt? Honestly I think Fr. Anastasios deserves one.

The purpose of this forum (named "OrthodoxChristianity.net") is to convert people to Orthodoxy.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38675.msg629458.html#msg629458

Again dialouging with you and a few other RC members here hasn't been about conversion to Orthodoxy. Again why are you here?

You are not the moderator of this forum nor any other forum on oc.net.  Please be mindful, I have asked you before to do so of other people. -username! Orthodox-Catholic moderator
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 04, 2011, 12:08:55 AM
 Bickering Watch . The OC.net Moderatorial Service has declared a Bickering Watch for this thread. Conditions are right for the formation of a stream of bickering, pointlessly reviewing the same topics ad nauseum that have derailed and poisoned past threads. Repeat, there is a Bickering Watch over this thread; any posters interested in actually learning anything are advised to stay away from this potential bickering activity and seek refuge in polite discourse within the topics originally presented in this thread." username section moderator



Bickering will not be tolerated.  Any further bickering in this thread and those responsible will be given appropriate moderator action -username! orthodox-catholic moderator
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 04, 2011, 12:59:09 AM
Again why are you here?
I was and am interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As a Catholic I believe it is a true Church of Apostolic origin. I am just disappointed at the way in which our Church is presented by some on the forum who clearly have an agenda.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Shiny on December 04, 2011, 02:07:18 AM
Again why are you here?
I was and am interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As a Catholic I believe it is a true Church of Apostolic origin.
See that wasn't too hard.

Quote
I am just disappointed at the way in which our Church is presented by some on the forum who clearly have an agenda.
What agenda? IIRC Isa is about as conservative as they come.

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.

Maybe if we discussed more about your issues with the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy itself we can get into some fruitful discussion and end the bickering.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 04, 2011, 12:33:41 PM
Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 04, 2011, 03:17:15 PM
Again why are you here?
I was and am interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As a Catholic I believe it is a true Church of Apostolic origin.
See that wasn't too hard.

Quote
I am just disappointed at the way in which our Church is presented by some on the forum who clearly have an agenda.
What agenda? IIRC Isa is about as conservative as they come.

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.

Maybe if we discussed more about your issues with the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy itself we can get into some fruitful discussion and end the bickering.

To address one of your comments:  If a person's heart and mind in Orthodoxy are soured against the Catholic Church because of misinformation and misunderstanding, I would think that it would be very important to come to a better understanding of the truth. 

I don't know any of us who are active here who are hoping to turn people away from Orthodoxy.  I believe that we are more interested in being able to engage a better and more spiritually fruitful dialogue.

As to your last point, I don't know if any of us have "issues" with Orthodoxy, except for those cases where Orthodox faithful or spiritual writers and theologians badly re-present Catholic teaching.

M.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Papist on December 04, 2011, 08:04:37 PM
Again why are you here?
I was and am interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As a Catholic I believe it is a true Church of Apostolic origin.
See that wasn't too hard.

Quote
I am just disappointed at the way in which our Church is presented by some on the forum who clearly have an agenda.
What agenda? IIRC Isa is about as conservative as they come.

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.

Maybe if we discussed more about your issues with the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy itself we can get into some fruitful discussion and end the bickering.

To address one of your comments:  If a person's heart and mind in Orthodoxy are soured against the Catholic Church because of misinformation and misunderstanding, I would think that it would be very important to come to a better understanding of the truth. 

I don't know any of us who are active here who are hoping to turn people away from Orthodoxy.  I believe that we are more interested in being able to engage a better and more spiritually fruitful dialogue.

As to your last point, I don't know if any of us have "issues" with Orthodoxy, except for those cases where Orthodox faithful or spiritual writers and theologians badly re-present Catholic teaching.

M.
A great post Maria. I am not here because I have any intention of converting any EOs to the Catholic Church.I'm not here because I have some problem with Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact, there are many things about Eastern Orthodoxy that I truly respect and appreciate. I'm here because the discussion is often interesting and engaging. Most of the EO posters are charitable and fantastic folks who address these issues in truth and love. However, I am also here because of the likes of certain radical anti-Catholic posters who do whatever they can to distort the teachings of the Catholic Church. A great example of this is the thread on Natural Law where a couple of EO posters pruposely misrepresent Natural Law theory.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: dzheremi on December 04, 2011, 08:34:18 PM
Funny how the doctrines and stances that the Orthodox disagree with are so prone to misunderstanding, isn't it?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 04, 2011, 08:42:39 PM
Funny how the doctrines and stances that the Orthodox disagree with are so prone to misunderstanding, isn't it?

I don't find it funny at all. 

What I find interesting is that you can find Orthodox clergy and bishops and others who think that there has been a great deal of missed understandings over the centuries and that we are much closer in terms of theology and doctrine than many might surmise.

Where the difficulty is, they tend to think, is in the liturgies, and practices such as fasting and prayer disciplines among the laity, and iconography, etc.  These are the things that make it seem as though the east and west are very different.

And of course there is the huge hurdle concerning the meaning of immediate and ordinary jurisdiction on the part of the pope...what does it mean?  How would it work if there was a resumption of communion.

M.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2011, 09:32:25 PM
Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Papist on December 04, 2011, 09:34:56 PM
Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Oh Izzy,  ::) Your post is just full of it.

Tags edited - MK
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2011, 09:37:38 PM
Funny how the doctrines and stances that the Orthodox disagree with are so prone to misunderstanding, isn't it?
Yes. Makes you wonder how that happens. ::)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2011, 09:39:37 PM
Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Oh Izzy,  ::)
Who?
Your post is just full of it.
the plenitude of the Holy Spirit.  Nice you noticed.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Papist on December 04, 2011, 09:41:21 PM
Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Oh Izzy,  ::)
Who?
Your post is just full of it.
the plenitude of the Holy Spirit.  Nice you noticed.
Careful, you are creeping toward blasphemy.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: ialmisry on December 04, 2011, 10:46:05 PM
Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Oh Izzy,  ::)
Who?
Your post is just full of it.
the plenitude of the Holy Spirit.  Nice you noticed.
Careful, you are creeping toward blasphemy.
Oh? Formal or material?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Cavaradossi on December 05, 2011, 01:42:50 AM
Funny how the doctrines and stances that the Orthodox disagree with are so prone to misunderstanding, isn't it?
I guess St. Basil's remark that Latin is an imprecise language has rung true through the centuries. :laugh:
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 03:32:48 AM
..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  :(  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it. 

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

If it is OK with you I'll transfer this to the specific thread on the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: JR on December 05, 2011, 08:27:29 AM
"Breakdowns in human relationships, heresy, and schism do not really spring from different beliefs and opinions... No, divisions come from pride, arrogance, or other sins; from our failure to accept, from our distrust, intolerance, and self-righteousness."

(Orthodox Theology and Diakonia: Trends and Prospects, Emilianos Timiadis, "The Ecumenical Movement and Orthodoxy" [Hellenic College Press, 1981] p.311)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 05, 2011, 09:44:14 AM
"Breakdowns in human relationships, heresy, and schism do not really spring from different beliefs and opinions... No, divisions come from pride, arrogance, or other sins; from our failure to accept, from our distrust, intolerance, and self-righteousness."

(Orthodox Theology and Diakonia: Trends and Prospects, Emilianos Timiadis, "The Ecumenical Movement and Orthodoxy" [Hellenic College Press, 1981] p.311)

It is no surprise to any regular reader here that I would find this quote consistent with my overall opinions on most subjects on this board.

In the final analysis, EM's post #163 contains a statement that is at the core of centuries of the mistrust and mutual, often intentional, misrepresentations of each other's beliefs that are at the heart of the east/west divide.

Frankly, this is the 'understatement' of all time:  "And of course there is the huge hurdle concerning the meaning of immediate and ordinary jurisdiction on the part of the pope...what does it mean?  How would it work if there was a resumption of communion."

Reading from the published works of the various ecumenical commissions and learned theologians of both Roman and Orthodox backgrounds,one can't help but come to the conclusion that this issue is where the dialogue bus comes to a dead stop.

As the OP reminds us, at least at the highest levels of the churches, our spiritual  leaders are engaged in cordial and fraternal exchanges of ideas and thought. It beats the alternative.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 05, 2011, 11:14:52 AM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 05, 2011, 12:17:33 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 05, 2011, 12:55:56 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 01:04:29 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

M.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 05, 2011, 01:15:07 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

M.

Your "fortunately" is my "unfortunately".
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 01:22:17 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

M.

Your "fortunately" is my "unfortunately".

And that, Jonathan, makes me very very sad.

Should we ever resume communion, I will pray that your heart and soul are at peace even if you are not in full agreement with the eventual outcome.

M.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 05, 2011, 01:42:28 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 05, 2011, 01:56:50 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 02:29:54 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 05, 2011, 02:42:05 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

Sadly, many of us Christians, myself included, when it comes to circles, often seem to prefer the circular firing squad formation.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 05, 2011, 02:56:09 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 05, 2011, 03:15:14 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.

While I understand your point of view and respect your knowledge, I disagree with you. I suspect that I speak for more than myself when I  state that I take exception to your use of the term 'self-styled Orthodox hierarchs' to describe the episcopacy of most of us. I would hope that we would, myself included, refrain from the use of pejoratives such as 'vagrante'  to describe those hierarchs outside of communion with the majority of Orthodox and we should treat each other with the same respect. Unless, of course, you view the rest of 'us' as being within the category of schismatic or even numbered among the 'heterodox.'
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 03:57:24 PM
Reading from the published works of the various ecumenical commissions and learned theologians of both Roman and Orthodox backgrounds,one can't help but come to the conclusion that this issue is where the dialogue bus comes to a dead stop.

As the OP reminds us, at least at the highest levels of the churches, our spiritual  leaders are engaged in cordial and fraternal exchanges of ideas and thought. It beats the alternative.

Before the meeting of the Joint International Commission
for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Church on Cyprus in October 2009 the bishops of the Greek Church
studied the Ravenna document and also the "Cretan Unia" a document composed
a year earlier on Crete which was created to form the basis of the
discussion on Cyprus -- and they were horrified by the extent to which the
documents are receptive to unorthodox teaching and especially on
ecclesiology and the concept of a universal primacy.

So they clamped down on the Dialogue, hard. At their Synod prior to Cyprus the
bishops ordered that Statements must not be issued by the International
Dialogue until they had been examined and approved by the bishops.

Metropolitan Zizioulas was thoroughly alarmed by this, and the word enraged
is not unfitting for his angry reaction. He wrote a nasty letter to the
Greek bishops accusing them of being obscurantist and of making themselves
look medieval in front of their flocks. His letter is on the web and I
shall find it. The bishops replied; they had the good sense to ignore
+Zizioulas' crassness and simply rejected his accusations.

Since then you will notice that neither Cyprus 2009 nor Vienna 2010 have
released any Joint Statements. They cannot do so without explicit approval
from the Greek bishops.  The Meeting scheduled for 2011 has not taken place.

The bishops, hardliners on matters doctrinal, are now the adjudicators of
the Dialogue. Glory to God!

Hierom.Ambrose


PS.  You can find that letter, and the response of the Greek Synod of Bishops and
quite a lot of other documentation here

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

and here

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 04:11:45 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporarily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to oversee it.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 04:19:16 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 04:51:08 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you? :laugh:  Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 04:57:10 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you? :laugh:  Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?

Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all.  ;)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 05:03:34 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you? :laugh:  Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?
Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all.  ;)

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 05:19:24 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you? :laugh:  Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?
Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all.  ;)

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

Hardly presumption.  Had things shut down so stonily as you suggest on the flip side, it would be far more apparent in the interim activities...and it is the interim activities which are the bellwether and they are the activities to which I referred as moving along apace. 
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 06:23:05 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you? :laugh:  Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?
Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all.  ;)

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

Hardly presumption.  Had things shut down so stonily as you suggest on the flip side, it would be far more apparent in the interim activities...and it is the interim activities which are the bellwether and they are the activities to which I referred as moving along apace. 


May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 07:41:29 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you? :laugh:  Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?
Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all.  ;)

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

Hardly presumption.  Had things shut down so stonily as you suggest on the flip side, it would be far more apparent in the interim activities...and it is the interim activities which are the bellwether and they are the activities to which I referred as moving along apace. 


May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?


Ask them...write....let us know what they say!!

In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps...

M.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 08:06:15 PM

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.


Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you? :laugh:  Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?
Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all.  ;)

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

Hardly presumption.  Had things shut down so stonily as you suggest on the flip side, it would be far more apparent in the interim activities...and it is the interim activities which are the bellwether and they are the activities to which I referred as moving along apace. 


May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?


Ask them...write....let us know what they say!!

In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps...


M.

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 08:20:10 PM

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 05, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.

While I understand your point of view and respect your knowledge, I disagree with you. I suspect that I speak for more than myself when I  state that I take exception to your use of the term 'self-styled Orthodox hierarchs' to describe the episcopacy of most of us. I would hope that we would, myself included, refrain from the use of pejoratives such as 'vagrante'  to describe those hierarchs outside of communion with the majority of Orthodox and we should treat each other with the same respect. Unless, of course, you view the rest of 'us' as being within the category of schismatic or even numbered among the 'heterodox.'

My point was that I don't consider a bishop's Orthodoxy to proceed from the wearing of a panagia. It proceeds from the right confession of faith. "Self-styled" is, from the True Orthodox point of view, correct, since by all accounts these bishops consider themselves Orthodox, even though their actions suggest otherwise. But I respect the fact that you disagree with this. In general I will try to speak of the "official Orthodox" churches for the most part, to indicate that these hierarchs are recognized as Orthodox by world officialdom, if not by the True Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 05, 2011, 08:56:44 PM

My point was that I don't consider a bishop's Orthodoxy to proceed from the wearing of a panagia. It proceeds from the right confession of faith. "Self-styled" is, from the True Orthodox point of view, correct, since by all accounts these bishops consider themselves Orthodox, even though their actions suggest otherwise. But I respect the fact that you disagree with this. In general I will try to speak of the "official Orthodox" churches for the most part, to indicate that these hierarchs are recognized as Orthodox by world officialdom, if not by the True Orthodox Church.

How did you come to this manner of being and believing?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 05, 2011, 09:08:37 PM
"Breakdowns in human relationships, heresy, and schism do not really spring from different beliefs and opinions... No, divisions come from pride, arrogance, or other sins; from our failure to accept, from our distrust, intolerance, and self-righteousness."

(Orthodox Theology and Diakonia: Trends and Prospects, Emilianos Timiadis, "The Ecumenical Movement and Orthodoxy" [Hellenic College Press, 1981] p.311)



Reading from the published works of the various ecumenical commissions and learned theologians of both Roman and Orthodox backgrounds,one can't help but come to the conclusion that this issue is where the dialogue bus comes to a dead stop.


Perhaps a map depicting the dialogue bus on route to resolution running into a dead stop would help lol
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: pensateomnia on December 05, 2011, 10:29:24 PM
May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?

The coordinating committee met in Rome from 22 to 25 November. It was in the news.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 10:37:55 PM

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

But that is not what you said....

"In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps..."

I believe my claim to esoteric insider information is better than yours.  :laugh:

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 10:53:58 PM
May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?

The coordinating committee met in Rome from 22 to 25 November. It was in the news.

Yes, I am aware.  A rather unsuccessful session which certainly does not qualify for Mary's optimistic, the dialogue "continues apace."

The Russian Church reports the presence of Metropolitan Hilarion who laid two demands before the Committee:

1.  A full discussion on the matter of Uniatism (the Russian term) must be held.  This was always a pre-condition of Russian participation.

2.  The position on papal primacy in the Ravenna Statement and in the "Cretan Unia" position paper formulated with the intention of being presented at Cyprus 2009 must be discarded.  There needs to be a return to examining the position of the Archbishop of Rome in the first millennium Church.

These two hardliner positions most certainly have not given rise for any optimism of the dialogue continuing apace.  They are more like spokes in the wheel!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 05, 2011, 11:06:46 PM
A report from the Russian Church on the November meeting of the Coordinating Committee

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/11/23/news53192/
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 06, 2011, 12:28:59 AM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Papist on December 06, 2011, 02:17:30 AM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.
I'm tempted to agree with you.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 06, 2011, 02:46:04 AM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.
Well said. I think when we all get to heaven, we're going to realize that all of these disagreements and discussions on earth were not as important as we thought they were.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 06, 2011, 03:06:03 AM
my concession; we will sing veni creator spiritus on Pentecost after the liturgy if you get rid of girl altarboys... see, concessions they can work
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Basil 320 on December 06, 2011, 03:59:43 AM
Thank you Father, (Irish Hermit).  I hadn't seen anything about the meeting in Moscow.  I also don't see why the dialogue can't address Metropolitan Hilarion's concerns, the topics he's proposed.  I can't see why this dialogue can't honestly study the history of the issues that have divided us, in order to more fully understand them.  Why run around kissing each other, acting as if we're united, and just ignore what separates us?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 06, 2011, 11:06:04 AM
Thank you Father, (Irish Hermit).  I hadn't seen anything about the meeting in Moscow.  I also don't see why the dialogue can't address Metropolitan Hilarion's concerns, the topics he's proposed.  I can't see why this dialogue can't honestly study the history of the issues that have divided us, in order to more fully understand them.  Why run around kissing each other, acting as if we're united, and just ignore what separates us?

I can't speak to the so-called international dialogue, but in reviewing the work of the North American commission, these issues are ongoing: 'Uniatism' in the context of Balamand was addressed in detail some years ago http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/27.html, a detailed critique of Ravenna has been published in 2010 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/response-ravenna.html  and the the issue of primacy in the first millenium context is at the core of their ongoing deliberations as expressed in their detailed 2010 paper on steps towards a reunited Church. http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

A review of that paper's concluding words sums this exercise up, in my opinion:

"Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst. (emphasis mine) The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world."

No one should labor under the misconception that this path is short or that a solution is on the horizon. Nor should they robotically assume that the participants are willing and able to 'sell each other out' in a misplaced zeal to find a solution to a problem that has evaded solution for well over a thousand years.Anyone who believes this to be true surely never met or known Metropolitan Maximos, the Orthodox chair of the commission for the last forty years until his retirement this year.

However, the reality as I see it, is that the mere fact that they continue to meet, talk and share ideas scares many in both the east and the west.  However, in terms of the pace of human history, and the complexity of the issues which divide us, there is cause to state that the discussions continue 'apace'.

Would it be preferable to stand at a line in the sand and hurl insults and inaccurate assertions at each other? (We do have the 'net' for that, don't we?)

I think not.  "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!" Psalm 133:1, KJV
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: JR on December 06, 2011, 12:16:35 PM
Thank you Father, (Irish Hermit).  I hadn't seen anything about the meeting in Moscow.  I also don't see why the dialogue can't address Metropolitan Hilarion's concerns, the topics he's proposed.  I can't see why this dialogue can't honestly study the history of the issues that have divided us, in order to more fully understand them.  Why run around kissing each other, acting as if we're united, and just ignore what separates us?

I can't speak to the so-called international dialogue, but in reviewing the work of the North American commission, these issues are ongoing: 'Uniatism' in the context of Balamand was addressed in detail some years ago http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/27.html, a detailed critique of Ravenna has been published in 2010 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/response-ravenna.html  and the the issue of primacy in the first millenium context is at the core of their ongoing deliberations as expressed in their detailed 2010 paper on steps towards a reunited Church. http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

A review of that paper's concluding words sums this exercise up, in my opinion:

"Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst. (emphasis mine) The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world."

No one should labor under the misconception that this path is short or that a solution is on the horizon. Nor should they robotically assume that the participants are willing and able to 'sell each other out' in a misplaced zeal to find a solution to a problem that has evaded solution for well over a thousand years.Anyone who believes this to be true surely never met or known Metropolitan Maximos, the Orthodox chair of the commission for the last forty years until his retirement this year.

However, the reality as I see it, is that the mere fact that they continue to meet, talk and share ideas scares many in both the east and the west.  However, in terms of the pace of human history, and the complexity of the issues which divide us, there is cause to state that the discussions continue 'apace'.

Would it be preferable to stand at a line in the sand and hurl insults and inaccurate assertions at each other? (We do have the 'net' for that, don't we?)

I think not.  "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!" Psalm 133:1, KJV


Excellent, I agree with this, especially the quote of the Psalms 133:1.

I look forward to the day of unity, but until that day, may there be peace among us without the insults flying.

God bless us all.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 06, 2011, 02:20:32 PM

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

But that is not what you said....

"In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps..."

I believe my claim to esoteric insider information is better than yours.  :laugh:



Ya know what, and oddly enough, I don't think it is.  Would have surprised the heck out of me to say that a few years ago.  Strange things happen, Father.   Very strange things.  Why...I met YOU didn't I?

 ;)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 06, 2011, 02:28:07 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all. 

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply. 
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 06, 2011, 06:32:50 PM

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

But that is not what you said....

"In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps..."

I believe my claim to esoteric insider information is better than yours.  :laugh:



Ya know what, and oddly enough, I don't think it is. 

Whoever your sources are I think they are pretty useless, shallow.   Why, we all remember a few months back when you persisted in offending us all by repeating that the Orthodox allow abortion.  Nobody with access to our bishops and theologians could possibly have tried to maintain that attitude.  And you were all at sea over Orthodox second marriages.  You gave up on that when I finally quoted Fr Ambrose Young.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 06, 2011, 06:49:00 PM

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

But that is not what you said....

"In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps..."

I believe my claim to esoteric insider information is better than yours.  :laugh:



Ya know what, and oddly enough, I don't think it is. 

Whoever your sources are I think they are pretty useless, shallow.   Why, we all remember a few months back when you persisted in offending us all by repeating that the Orthodox allow abortion.  Nobody with access to our bishops and theologians could possibly have tried to maintain that attitude.  And you were all at sea over Orthodox second marriages.  You gave up on that when I finally quoted Fr Ambrose Young.

We are remarkably amused.

You punch your favorite buttons.  I punch mine.

When you play straight and stop poking at me as though I am the enemy, I'll give it some thought as well.

We do not hold our breath.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: WetCatechumen on December 06, 2011, 06:54:02 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.
It is amusing to me how similar this is to what a member of the Society of St. Pius X might say.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Maria on December 06, 2011, 07:46:15 PM
I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? ...Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
My purpose has been to learn a little bit about the Orthodox Church. A while back, I did try to take an Orthodox catechism class which was given by an Orthodox priest, however, he said that  I would not be able to join since his class was not open to heretics.  
I have been somewhat distressed by some of what has gone on in the RCC recently with the huge  increase in marriage annulments (in the USA),  the sex scandals, the so-called "abuses" in the Roman liturgy, changes in disciplinary teachings, etc.  I see the Orthodox Church as an Apostolic Church, with an exceptionally fine liturgy and a certain stability in teaching, and I wanted to know a little more about what are the differences between the two Churches. R. Catholics have been talking about possible reunion with the E. Orthodox Church, but since neither side is willing to make concessions to the other, and since there is a whole lot of bad blood between the two Churches,  I don't see it happening (at least for a long while at best).

I was in your shoes back in the early 1990's.

Finally, an Orthodox Christian priest challenged me to put aside all thoughts of remaining with the Roman Catholic Church and all her liturgical and sexual abuses, and look into the Apostolic Catholic Church (the Holy Orthodox Church). Once I did so, I have not returned to Roman Catholicism. I rejoice that I have been accepted into communion with Holy Orthodoxy.

Regarding the ecumenist nature of the papal visits with the EP, it seems like only the Western church will benefit and that Orthodoxy has everything to lose. If a hypothetical union were to occur, then Orthodoxy would be challenged to CHANGE
1. their calendar
2. their honoring of the saints of the Catholic Church (union would imply that saints of both churches would be on equal pedestals)
3. their Divine Liturgy (because the RC has always been about changes starting in the 8th century)
4. their Holy Sacraments

Personally, I think the overtures of the EP and the MP toward Rome are fraught with dangers.
As Father Ambrose has stated, thankfully, so far there are a lot of roadblocks being placed in the way of a false unity with Rome.
And I am thankful that the SSPX has not given in to the pressures of Pope Benedict XVI.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Maria on December 06, 2011, 07:57:22 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.
It is amusing to me how similar this is to what a member of the Society of St. Pius X might say.

If one understands that Jonathan is a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church (a traditionalist church), then it is not surprising that a member of the SSPX would express similar sentiments.

I did look into the SSPX before becoming an Orthodox Catechumen. And not surprisingly, there are marriages between the SSPX and Orthodox Christian faithful because both spouses hold traditional beliefs. In those cases, the Orthodox Crowning Ceremony in an Orthodox Church was followed immediately with an SSPX wedding in an SSPX chapel. Talk about a long day.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: username! on December 06, 2011, 08:02:16 PM
Food for thought;  Is the Roman Catholic Church truly the same church it was before the split?  Have they moved so far away from the original Deposit of Faith that they are no longer the See of Rome?  Or is it equal to the Orthodox trying to re-unite with Anglicans?  Make sense?  
We just assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the same body as it was nearly 1000 years ago, as if Antioch and Constantinople broke communion over say, having royal doors and the other not and then saying, ok, we really have no differences other than royal doors, ok, they believe in the same Deposit of Faith as they did when they broke communion, so you know you are re-uniting with the same original church.  
When the Russian church split in the USA and the Metropolia and the Synod were formed they didn't change beliefs they just weren't in communion with anyone.  While being separated from communion they maintained the same beliefs and practices.  So when they acknowledged and repented or whatever you want to call it (pretty much the bishops deciding the split wasn't dogmatic but pride-matic) there wasn't any issue other than hashing out who got to sit in what seat at the sobor.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Maria on December 06, 2011, 08:11:16 PM
Food for thought;  Is the Roman Catholic Church truly the same church it was before the split?  Have they moved so far away from the original Deposit of Faith that they are no longer the See of Rome?  Or is it equal to the Orthodox trying to re-unite with Anglicans?  Make sense?  
We just assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the same body as it was nearly 1000 years ago, as if Antioch and Constantinople broke communion over say, having royal doors and the other not and then saying, ok, we really have no differences other than royal doors, ok, they believe in the same Deposit of Faith as they did when they broke communion, so you know you are re-uniting with the same original church.  
When the Russian church split in the USA and the Metropolia and the Synod were formed they didn't change beliefs they just weren't in communion with anyone.  While being separated from communion they maintained the same beliefs and practices.  So when they acknowledged and repented or whatever you want to call it (pretty much the bishops deciding the split wasn't dogmatic but pride-matic) there wasn't any issue other than hashing out who got to sit in what seat at the sobor.

With the developments in doctrine that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church, she is definitely NOT the same church as before the 1054 Great Schism.

Case in point, Vatican I which defined Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility.
And let us not forget the Council of Trent, which defined the differences between mortal and venial sin. This was a dangerous innovation because all sin seriously offends God. To accept venial sin as a lesser sin is to enter the slippery slope. In addition, scrupulosity was introduced as Catholics tried to distinguish between mortal and venial sins to satisfy the confessional requirements to state species and kinds of sins. (Thank God I am Orthodox and do not have to worry about such things.)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Maria on December 06, 2011, 08:21:27 PM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

Sadly, many of us Christians, myself included, when it comes to circles, often seem to prefer the circular firing squad formation.

Lord have mercy.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 06, 2011, 09:19:20 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all. 

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply. 

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 06, 2011, 09:31:34 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all. 

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply. 

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

Well here's a case of Internet Whiplash!

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 :)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: jnorm888 on December 06, 2011, 09:56:50 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.
I'm tempted to agree with you.

I don't think that's possible in the extreme secular environment we both live in today. They will do what they want to do. What they feel is necessary.


Thus, they will continue to talk regardless if we like it or not. Whatever will be will be.

It is what it is.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: jnorm888 on December 06, 2011, 10:05:36 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

You make it sound as if eradication is a bad thing? It's obviously a major issue/problem/concern in Eastern Europe and so it should be revisited!

If there is going to be talks between the two communions then this issue must be put on the table!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 06, 2011, 10:10:38 PM
Um... this is just a guess on my part, but I don't think anyone wants to eliminate a church in which they are a deacon.  ;)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 06, 2011, 10:11:21 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

You make it sound as if eradication is a bad thing? It's obviously a major issue/problem/concern in Eastern Europe and so it should be revisited!

If there is going to be talks between the two communions then this issue must be put on the table!

If eradication were a good thing, more eastern Catholics would now be Orthodox.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 06, 2011, 10:42:00 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

You make it sound as if eradication is a bad thing? It's obviously a major issue/problem/concern in Eastern Europe and so it should be revisited!

If there is going to be talks between the two communions then this issue must be put on the table!

It is really easy for some of you to speak so boldly in terms of 'eradication' etc... I hope to end my input after one final observation here. (provided that I can resist the urge to restate my position endlessly like many here.....)

Unless you have 'walked the walk' with respect to the situation between and among Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics in various regions across the world, speaking of 'eradication' is foolhardy and speaks to a lack of understanding of the complex realities of the relationship. 'Uniatism' has never really been faced by either the Greek or the Russian clergy or hierarchy in their homelands. As Augustin and others have pointed out here the relationship between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics in areas where they do have to live with each other is complicated and not always what meets the eye or fits neatly into one's myopic pigeonhole (whether the myopia is in the eye of one who is Orthodox or one who is Roman Catholic for that matter.)

One final note: If we, as  Orthodox Christians, were to read a line on a Catholic blog or discussion board in which a poster spoke of the 'eradication' of the Orthodox as a condition to 'rejoining' the Church of Rome, this board would light up with outrage and hysteria. Like I said earlier, many Christians prefer the circular firing squad when it comes to 'discussing' issues of faith with others.

Another 'duh' - in the unlikely future event of a 'reunion' between east and west which would be accepted by the Church, the issue of 'Uniatism' would be moot, would it not?

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: jnorm888 on December 06, 2011, 11:04:42 PM
Um... this is just a guess on my part, but I don't think anyone wants to eliminate a church in which they are a deacon.  ;)

Yes, I guess that would be a problem. But he needs to understand why we see their existence as a problem. Especially if we are going to have talks with Rome. For what will their(eastern catholics) purpose be? That issue shouldn't be ignored. It should be talked about.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 06, 2011, 11:06:20 PM
Question: not that I anticipate this happening anytime soon, but can someone who was a deacon in one church become a deacon in another?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: jnorm888 on December 06, 2011, 11:08:27 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

You make it sound as if eradication is a bad thing? It's obviously a major issue/problem/concern in Eastern Europe and so it should be revisited!

If there is going to be talks between the two communions then this issue must be put on the table!

If eradication were a good thing, more eastern Catholics would now be Orthodox.

If the two communions are going to talk then this issue has to be addressed. I mean, it's the pink elephant in the room! Isn't it?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: jnorm888 on December 06, 2011, 11:10:24 PM
Question: not that I anticipate this happening anytime soon, but can someone who was a deacon in one church become a deacon in another?

It happens all the time (figure of speech, meaning......don't take the statement super literally, but yes, it happens)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 06, 2011, 11:11:23 PM
Okay, thanks.

 :)
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: jnorm888 on December 06, 2011, 11:23:26 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

You make it sound as if eradication is a bad thing? It's obviously a major issue/problem/concern in Eastern Europe and so it should be revisited!

If there is going to be talks between the two communions then this issue must be put on the table!

It is really easy for some of you to speak so boldly in terms of 'eradication' etc... I hope to end my input after one final observation here. (provided that I can resist the urge to restate my position endlessly like many here.....)

Unless you have 'walked the walk' with respect to the situation between and among Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics in various regions across the world, speaking of 'eradication' is foolhardy and speaks to a lack of understanding of the complex realities of the relationship. 'Uniatism' has never really been faced by either the Greek or the Russian clergy or hierarchy in their homelands. As Augustin and others have pointed out here the relationship between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics in areas where they do have to live with each other is complicated and not always what meets the eye or fits neatly into one's myopic pigeonhole (whether the myopia is in the eye of one who is Orthodox or one who is Roman Catholic for that matter.)

One final note: If we, as  Orthodox Christians, were to read a line on a Catholic blog or discussion board in which a poster spoke of the 'eradication' of the Orthodox as a condition to 'rejoining' the Church of Rome, this board would light up with outrage and hysteria. Like I said earlier, many Christians prefer the circular firing squad when it comes to 'discussing' issues of faith with others.

Another 'duh' - in the unlikely future event of a 'reunion' between east and west which would be accepted by the Church, the issue of 'Uniatism' would be moot, would it not?

If they still existed even then then why would it be mute? Also, what about our western rites? These things should be talked about. Now maybe the word eradication was too rude. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but Deacon Lance used the word first. So I used it. However, at the end of the day these issues shouldn't be ignored.

Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: biro on December 06, 2011, 11:25:46 PM
I suppose there's nothing they couldn't talk about it, if they wished to do so. I know it will take a long time and there is a lot of work to do. But if "the right way" ever comes up, I trust they could sit down at the table and hash it out.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: jnorm888 on December 06, 2011, 11:31:18 PM
I suppose there's nothing they couldn't talk about it, if they wished to do so. I know it will take a long time and there is a lot of work to do. But if "the right way" ever comes up, I trust they could sit down at the table and hash it out.

What will be will be. All I know is that they seem to like talking to each-other. And so it is what it is.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 06, 2011, 11:51:34 PM
Food for thought;  Is the Roman Catholic Church truly the same church it was before the split?  Have they moved so far away from the original Deposit of Faith that they are no longer the See of Rome?  Or is it equal to the Orthodox trying to re-unite with Anglicans?  Make sense?  
We just assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the same body as it was nearly 1000 years ago, as if Antioch and Constantinople broke communion over say, having royal doors and the other not and then saying, ok, we really have no differences other than royal doors, ok, they believe in the same Deposit of Faith as they did when they broke communion, so you know you are re-uniting with the same original church.  
When the Russian church split in the USA and the Metropolia and the Synod were formed they didn't change beliefs they just weren't in communion with anyone.  While being separated from communion they maintained the same beliefs and practices.  So when they acknowledged and repented or whatever you want to call it (pretty much the bishops deciding the split wasn't dogmatic but pride-matic) there wasn't any issue other than hashing out who got to sit in what seat at the sobor.

With the developments in doctrine that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church, she is definitely NOT the same church as before the 1054 Great Schism.

Case in point, Vatican I which defined Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility.
And let us not forget the Council of Trent, which defined the differences between mortal and venial sin. This was a dangerous innovation because all sin seriously offends God. To accept venial sin as a lesser sin is to enter the slippery slope. In addition, scrupulosity was introduced as Catholics tried to distinguish between mortal and venial sins to satisfy the confessional requirements to state species and kinds of sins. (Thank God I am Orthodox and do not have to worry about such things.)

Hm, I'm not so sure about this. Are you disagreeing with the particular definition of mortal and venial sin given by Trent, or are you disagreeing with the distinction itself? I'm positive that the Orthodox Church recognizes a distinction between mortal and venial (aka "pardonable") sin, but it's possible that our understanding of the distinction differs from the RC one in certain respects.

I refer you to this page:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_sintypes.aspx
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2011, 12:06:41 AM
We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all. 

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.
 

No, Mary you are blessedly optimistic but wrong.  I can believe that your inner circle of Orthodox bishops and theologians gravitate to your point of view, like to like, but there is another more rigorist view.  Examples of such theologians and such bishops can easily be plucked off the net.  For example you will recall the words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London saying that Catholicism's desire is to swallow Orthodoxy and that the dialoghue is meaningless.  See message 109
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41126.msg675922.html#msg675922

If I may repeat the wise words of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware...

"But there also exists in the Orthodox Church a more rigorous group, who hold that since Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox
cannot be a member of the Church. Thus Metropolitan Antony, head of the Russian Church in Exile and one of the most distinguished of modern Russian theologians, wrote in his Catechism:

Question: Is it possible to admit that a split within the Church or among the Churches could ever take place?

"Answer: Never. Heretics and schismatics have from time to time fallen away from the one indivisible Church, and, by so doing, they ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church itself can never lose its unity according to Christ’s promise’.

"Of course (so this stricter group add) divine grace is certainly active among many non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them; but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church.

"Workers for Christian unity who do not often encounter this rigorist school should not forget that such opinions are held by many Orthodox of great learning and holiness."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P1S.HTM
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2011, 12:25:14 AM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all. 

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply. 

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

Well here's a case of Internet Whiplash!

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 :)
And ALL of the Vatican is only participating in the hope of making "Eastern Catholic Churches" out of the Orthodox Churches.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 07, 2011, 12:27:38 AM
"Rigorist school"? This sounds like there are various equally permissible opinions about the ecclesiological status of the heterodox among the Fathers. But, as I'm sure Fr Ambrose is aware, there is in fact only one permissible opinion, that which Met Kallistos calls "rigorist", but which in fact should be more simply known as "Orthodox".
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2011, 01:10:22 AM
"Rigorist school"? This sounds like there are various equally permissible opinions about the ecclesiological status of the heterodox among the Fathers. But, as I'm sure Fr Ambrose is aware, there is in fact only one permissible opinion, that which Met Kallistos calls "rigorist", but which in fact should be more simply known as "Orthodox".

Your own Church is riddled with discrepancies on this question.   Your teaching is that the Orthodox are unbaptized but all the same you commune us.  Your Church communes the Unbaptized !!!!!    I'd like to see that justified from the Fathers !!!
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 07, 2011, 01:27:46 AM
"Rigorist school"? This sounds like there are various equally permissible opinions about the ecclesiological status of the heterodox among the Fathers. But, as I'm sure Fr Ambrose is aware, there is in fact only one permissible opinion, that which Met Kallistos calls "rigorist", but which in fact should be more simply known as "Orthodox".

Your own Church is riddled with discrepancies on this question.   Your teaching is that the Orthodox are unbaptized but all the same you commune us.  Your Church communes the Unbaptized !!!!!    I'd like to see that justified from the Fathers !!!

I don't know what you're referring to.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2011, 01:32:13 AM
"Rigorist school"? This sounds like there are various equally permissible opinions about the ecclesiological status of the heterodox among the Fathers. But, as I'm sure Fr Ambrose is aware, there is in fact only one permissible opinion, that which Met Kallistos calls "rigorist", but which in fact should be more simply known as "Orthodox".

Your own Church is riddled with discrepancies on this question.   Your teaching is that the Orthodox are unbaptized but all the same you commune us.  Your Church communes the Unbaptized !!!!!    I'd like to see that justified from the Fathers !!!

I don't know what you're referring to.

I believe you participated just recently on another forum in a thread about this very point.  Clergy of your own Church spoke to the matter of communing the world Orthodox.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Cavaradossi on December 07, 2011, 01:34:00 AM
Whoever your sources are I think they are pretty useless, shallow.   Why, we all remember a few months back when you persisted in offending us all by repeating that the Orthodox allow abortion.  Nobody with access to our bishops and theologians could possibly have tried to maintain that attitude.  And you were all at sea over Orthodox second marriages.  You gave up on that when I finally quoted Fr Ambrose Young.

We are remarkably amused.

You punch your favorite buttons.  I punch mine.

When you play straight and stop poking at me as though I am the enemy, I'll give it some thought as well.

We do not hold our breath.

We are amused by the use of the majestic plural in this thread. Please continue for our entertainment.

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.
It is amusing to me how similar this is to what a member of the Society of St. Pius X might say.

SSPX or sedevacantists? I would be tempted to say they're more similar to the latter than the former.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 07, 2011, 01:42:52 AM
"Rigorist school"? This sounds like there are various equally permissible opinions about the ecclesiological status of the heterodox among the Fathers. But, as I'm sure Fr Ambrose is aware, there is in fact only one permissible opinion, that which Met Kallistos calls "rigorist", but which in fact should be more simply known as "Orthodox".

Your own Church is riddled with discrepancies on this question.   Your teaching is that the Orthodox are unbaptized but all the same you commune us.  Your Church communes the Unbaptized !!!!!    I'd like to see that justified from the Fathers !!!

I don't know what you're referring to.

I believe you participated just recently on another forum in a thread about this very point.  Clergy of your own Church spoke to the matter of communing the world Orthodox.

No, a priest who is not a member of our Church made such claims, but I debunked them by posting information about our ecclesiological position. You have no grounds on which to claim that we commune the unbaptized.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Jonathan Gress on December 07, 2011, 01:45:56 AM
From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Quote
Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.
But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.
It is amusing to me how similar this is to what a member of the Society of St. Pius X might say.

So what? I guess by your reasoning it would be questionable if I also said abortion was murder, since a SSPX member would be sure to say that, too.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 07, 2011, 10:13:44 AM
"Rigorist school"? This sounds like there are various equally permissible opinions about the ecclesiological status of the heterodox among the Fathers. But, as I'm sure Fr Ambrose is aware, there is in fact only one permissible opinion, that which Met Kallistos calls "rigorist", but which in fact should be more simply known as "Orthodox".
Only one permissible opinion? By whose decree?
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: podkarpatska on December 07, 2011, 10:45:52 AM
Alas, the circular firing squad has widened its perimeter.

With respect to the issue of 'uniatism' and the continuation of ecumenical dialogue, I would suggest that those not familiar with the so-called Balamand Declaration read it, keeping in mind that what it says doesn't please everyone and what it doesn't say may be more important. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Balamand_Statement

I will concede that Rome has not been entirely consistent with the ideals of Balamand in the intervening decades and that 'hot heads' on both sides have contributed to continued strife in some areas. However, on the whole things have improved.

Balamand should be read together with the North American Consultation's 1994 response to Balamand, which expresses more than a few cautionary thoughts on the entire issue. http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/27.html


However, these words from the Consultation's response continue to ring true:   "In a balanced and even-handed way, it (Balamand) seeks to put an end to the present tensions occasioned by the existence of the Eastern Catholic churches. On the one hand, as the Document points out repeatedly: "... `uniatism' can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed or as a model of the unity our churches are seeking" , "because it is opposed to the common tradition of our churches". At the same time, as the document also states, "concerning the Oriental Catholic churches (i.e. the Eastern Catholics), it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their faithful."

At the local level in America, relations between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic communities who share a common lineage has improved considerably over the past twenty years. Families have worked to heal their long standing divisions over this issue and the climate has improved WITHOUT anyone conceding their own faith and while ACKNOWLEDGING the reality that we are NOT the same.

Likewise in Europe, the reality on the ground is that over the past two decades things have largely calmed down as the influence of the West in terms of human rights issues and greater contact with the rest of the world has occurred. In many parts of Slovakia and Ukraine, parishes SHARE or alternate use of facilities while one side or the other builds new temples.

The fears of the MP I suspect have more to do with two issues which historically trump issues of 'faith' in Russian politics: fear of Roman Rite growth in areas where population shifts have occurred since the collapse of the USSR and fear of Ukrainian nationalism as evidenced by the cooperation between the UOC-KP and the UGCC. (After all Rome has never been able to suppress her own  'old school' anti-ecumenical extremists who still view Russia (and the rest of Orthodoxy) as 'unchurched' and seek the Romanization of Russia. (About as likely I suspect as the Greek recapture of Constantinople.) We need to worry about real problems and realistic goals.....subjects for another discussion however, as this thread is way off the rails by now!)

Frankly, any attempt by Rome to 'force' the return of Eastern Catholics to Orthodoxy in advance of any ultimate reunion would likely drive most to the Roman Church. Let them be and when, and if, God wills that our Churches attain the basis for reunion their existence will be moot and they will have preserved their eastern orientation and patrimony.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: Wyatt on December 07, 2011, 11:01:58 AM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

You make it sound as if eradication is a bad thing? It's obviously a major issue/problem/concern in Eastern Europe and so it should be revisited!

If there is going to be talks between the two communions then this issue must be put on the table!
The Eastern Catholic Churches do not deserve to be eradicated. I'm a Roman Rite Catholic, and I don't wish all the Western Rite Orthodox Churches to be eradicated.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: JR on December 07, 2011, 01:08:43 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

You make it sound as if eradication is a bad thing? It's obviously a major issue/problem/concern in Eastern Europe and so it should be revisited!

If there is going to be talks between the two communions then this issue must be put on the table!
The Eastern Catholic Churches do not deserve to be eradicated. I'm a Roman Rite Catholic, and I don't wish all the Western Rite Orthodox Churches to be eradicated.

I would not want that neither ! I like the eastern rite and the cultural differences.
Title: Re: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew
Post by: elijahmaria on December 07, 2011, 01:39:57 PM
Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

Well here's a case of Internet Whiplash!

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 :)
And ALL of the Vatican is only participating in the hope of making "Eastern Catholic Churches" out of the Orthodox Churches.

This is an outright falsehood.  

Recent popes have made that perfectly clear.

The real problem in the bi-lateral talks today is inside Orthodoxy.

Most of the Greek Catholics would revert back to their root home in the GOC.  

That is what has the MP's knickers in a bunch!

That and Ukraine.

Let's dump all those high-priced, uselessly multiplied patriarchates while we're at it...what say?

PS: and what Podkarpatska said too!!


language modified due to the use of the U word   forum policy on use of the u word:http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13388.0.html -username! orthodox catholic moderator
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) I am sorry to inform you that you are being placed on post moderation for 7 days for using the U word when referring to Eastern Rite/Greek Catholics.  I realise that you are Byzantine/Greek Catholic.  However I must step in because it wouldn't be fair to let the Greek Catholics use this term (and I think they are the ones that requested this policy here in the first place) and not let the non-Eastern Catholics use this term and moderate/warn them for doing so.  You were already on official warning status therefore I must place you on post moderaton.  If you feel that you haven't used the U word please contact our administrator, Fr. Christ.  -username! Orthodox Catholic section moderator