OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Peter J on April 12, 2012, 08:35:37 PM

Title: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 12, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
I was going to call this thread "Another thread on Josaphat Kuncevyc", but then I thought that might keep people from clicking on it ;) so I decided to make the title specific.

Earlier today I got into a discussion of Josaphat Kuncevyc with Phillip Rolfes and Alexander Roman, in which they advanced a comparison between Catholic veneration of St. Josaphat and Orthodox veneration of St. Mark of Ephesus, e.g. "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?" and similar statements.

Then the question came up of how the Orthodox would view this. I could possibly guess, but I don't really want to guess; so the question is, would any of you care to illuminate me concerned how you view that comparison?

P.S. I realize the timing of this question is very poor, and I wouldn't have planned it this way. If you prefer to wait and post an answer after Sunday, I'll of course understand.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Iconodule on April 12, 2012, 08:39:30 PM
I don't recall any stories of St. Mark having Catholics murdered.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ICXCNIKA on April 12, 2012, 09:20:11 PM
Do EC deny that Josaphat actually killed Orthodox Christians? Could it be a terrible lie about him? I don't know anything about him.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 14, 2012, 10:07:19 PM
I don't recall any stories of St. Mark having Catholics murdered.

Or Churches destroyed...
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Deacon Lance on April 15, 2012, 08:32:46 PM
Do EC deny that Josaphat actually killed Orthodox Christians? Could it be a terrible lie about him? I don't know anything about him.

Yes, of course we do.  And yes we think it is untrue.  Read the Orthodox propaganda against, read the Catholic propaganda for, and try to find the truth in between is the best I can suggest.  
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 15, 2012, 09:22:23 PM
Do EC deny that Josaphat actually killed Orthodox Christians? Could it be a terrible lie about him? I don't know anything about him.

Sometimes the credibility of claims depends on what side you're on. Read two different books about the Kennedy assassination, or about the life of Abraham Lincoln, and you'll come up with very different pictures. One side will call a person a hero, while the other thinks he is the devil himself.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ICXCNIKA on April 15, 2012, 10:21:11 PM
I looked him up on Wikipedia and there didn't seem to any evidence presented against him. They did cite that the State did some horrible things but I don't see how he could be blamed for their actions.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: MarkosC on April 15, 2012, 10:53:54 PM
Christ is Risen!

I'm not Orthodox, but my opinion......

The analogy only makes sense if you view the two saints as standard bearers of mutually opposing camps.  I would say the following:

1. "all" sainthood means is that God has revealed that the person is in the dwelling place of the Saints, the bosom of Abraham and numbered among the righteous, as evidenced by the veneration of the people (generally due to miracles) and through the authority of the church (traditionally through the local bishop.  For better or worse, for those in union with Rome, that authority has become a formal process in Rome since the 1500s).   

2. This is not the same as politically lionizing someone for a political or sectarian goal (e.g. there's a big difference between Sainthood and the way, say, Communist Parties lionize their "greats")

3. As a bishop at a council, St. Mark had every right to oppose the decree of the council if he thought it was heterodox.   And since the council's result was ultimately rejected, often vehemently, by the people and the other clergy, it's not as if he was the only voice in the world who was opposed.  So one cannot really lay the blame for "failure" of "reunion" on him.   And as far as judging his work....I kind of doubt a critical edition of his full work exists in Greek, and what exists in English is appallingly small and used for polemical purposes.   I would defer on evaluation of his work, how accurate his evaluation of Latin theology presented at the Council was (and to what degree the Latin theology presented at the Council stands critical Catholic theological scrutiny today) to qualified theologians.  This is usually done by people with doctorates, and often yields odd results for polemics*. 

4. as far as St. Josaphat, I really don't know much about him (and don't wish to really tread there since I'm not Ukrainian).  I would, however, say that the sectarian/political/cultural pressure wielded on the (what one Ukranian catholic historian described as a culturally weaker) Kyivan church from the Polish crown/intelligenstia, the Counter-reformation Latin Church, the Calvinist sectarians (who I'm told were an influential part of the Polish elite at the time), and from the Muscovites was immense.  This yielded fierce divisions in the Kyivan church, which combined with political passions would inevitably result in a very bad religious environment.

Finally, the answer to how should ECs view St. Josaphat.... they should view him however objective history can view him.  (and yes, there is such a thing, or at least approximation, and a good historical research does exist).  In my experience, objective history usually knocks people off of hagiographic pedestals (since hagiography's purpose is different from objective history), presents evidence pro and contra (and often shattering) to whatever paradigm one might be looking for, and often has abundant amounts of weird data that show the reader how differently people of the past think compared to people of today.   



*e.g. St. Gregory Palamas, the defender of "Eastern Orthodoxy" against Barlaam the "western scholastic" according to the ridiculous caricature that's been out there for so long, quotes Augustine (without attribution) far more often than his opponent.   [this was in an article in SVS theological quarterly, I can find a citation if one wants]
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ICXCNIKA on April 15, 2012, 11:21:20 PM
Christ is Risen!

I'm not Orthodox, but my opinion......

The analogy only makes sense if you view the two saints as standard bearers of mutually opposing camps.  I would say the following:

1. "all" sainthood means is that God has revealed that the person is in the dwelling place of the Saints, the bosom of Abraham and numbered among the righteous, as evidenced by the veneration of the people (generally due to miracles) and through the authority of the church (traditionally through the local bishop.  For better or worse, for those in union with Rome, that authority has become a formal process in Rome since the 1500s).   

2. This is not the same as politically lionizing someone for a political or sectarian goal (e.g. there's a big difference between Sainthood and the way, say, Communist Parties lionize their "greats")

3. As a bishop at a council, St. Mark had every right to oppose the decree of the council if he thought it was heterodox.   And since the council's result was ultimately rejected, often vehemently, by the people and the other clergy, it's not as if he was the only voice in the world who was opposed.  So one cannot really lay the blame for "failure" of "reunion" on him.   And as far as judging his work....I kind of doubt a critical edition of his full work exists in Greek, and what exists in English is appallingly small and used for polemical purposes.   I would defer on evaluation of his work, how accurate his evaluation of Latin theology presented at the Council was (and to what degree the Latin theology presented at the Council stands critical Catholic theological scrutiny today) to qualified theologians.  This is usually done by people with doctorates, and often yields odd results for polemics*. 

4. as far as St. Josaphat, I really don't know much about him (and don't wish to really tread there since I'm not Ukrainian).  I would, however, say that the sectarian/political/cultural pressure wielded on the (what one Ukranian catholic historian described as a culturally weaker) Kyivan church from the Polish crown/intelligenstia, the Counter-reformation Latin Church, the Calvinist sectarians (who I'm told were an influential part of the Polish elite at the time), and from the Muscovites was immense.  This yielded fierce divisions in the Kyivan church, which combined with political passions would inevitably result in a very bad religious environment.

Finally, the answer to how should ECs view St. Josaphat.... they should view him however objective history can view him.  (and yes, there is such a thing, or at least approximation, and a good historical research does exist).  In my experience, objective history usually knocks people off of hagiographic pedestals (since hagiography's purpose is different from objective history), presents evidence pro and contra (and often shattering) to whatever paradigm one might be looking for, and often has abundant amounts of weird data that show the reader how differently people of the past think compared to people of today.   



*e.g. St. Gregory Palamas, the defender of "Eastern Orthodoxy" against Barlaam the "western scholastic" according to the ridiculous caricature that's been out there for so long, quotes Augustine (without attribution) far more often than his opponent.   [this was in an article in SVS theological quarterly, I can find a citation if one wants]

Excellent post.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 15, 2012, 11:23:55 PM
Christ is risen!
I don't recall any stories of St. Mark having Catholics murdered.

Or Churches destroyed...
Nor was St. Mark supported by the state and trying to promote its agenda.

And St. Mark was venerated by his people.  The Poles, not the Belarussians (his people) nor the Ruthenians nor the Ukrainians, promoted the other cult.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 16, 2012, 08:00:08 AM
Neither St Mark suffered from convertitis.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2012, 10:45:02 AM
Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 16, 2012, 11:06:37 AM
Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.


Christ is Risen!!

A.  What was Phillip Rolfes' "original analogy"?  Or did I miss that here somewhere?

B.  From the relatively little I know about either saint, it seems to me that trying to compare them is like comparing apples to oranges and I can only wonder what purpose it serves.  But, remember....I *am* colossally ignorant  ;D!

C.  Are Eastern Catholics forbidden to venerate St. Josaphat?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2012, 11:51:02 AM
Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 16, 2012, 12:26:15 PM
Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

I am proud to be a charter member of the United Universal Most Humble Orthodox-Catholic Association of Nit-Picking Ignoramuses.  World wide, at last count, there are literally tens of millions of us--give or take one or two!  :laugh: :laugh:

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2012, 12:32:17 PM
As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

I'm sure PR was referring to the fact that Orthodox complain about said veneration. I doubt it was ever forbidden within Catholicism.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 16, 2012, 12:42:43 PM
As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

I'm sure PR was referring to the fact that Orthodox complain about said veneration. I doubt it was ever forbidden within Catholicism.

Yeah, I doubt it, too, but the phrase "not...permitted" that was used seemed a little strong, so I questioned it.

As for Orthodox complaining about said veneration, well, no comment.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2012, 06:01:21 PM
Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.


I forgot to add, Does anyone disagree with that conditional statement? (I'm addressing this to anyone, even if you don't think the stories about Josaphat were made up.)
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 16, 2012, 06:33:47 PM
Christ is risen!
Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

I am proud to be a charter member of the United Universal Most Humble Orthodox-Catholic Association of Nit-Picking Ignoramuses.  World wide, at last count, there are literally tens of millions of us--give or take one or two!  :laugh: :laugh:

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"
Did St. Mark murder anyone in his defense of Orthodoxy? Force Orthodoxy on anyone?  Conclude with anyone to force anyone into Orthodoxy? Deceive anyone? Did Josaphat preach the Truth?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 16, 2012, 06:35:53 PM
Christ is risen!
As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

I'm sure PR was referring to the fact that Orthodox complain about said veneration. I doubt it was ever forbidden within Catholicism.
Indeed, it was foisted on the Ruthenians in submission to the Vatican and in subjugation to the Poles in Galicia by the Poles in colussion with the Vatican.  The Ruthenians refused to have anything to do with his "canonization."
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2012, 06:37:25 PM
Christ is risen!
Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

I am proud to be a charter member of the United Universal Most Humble Orthodox-Catholic Association of Nit-Picking Ignoramuses.  World wide, at last count, there are literally tens of millions of us--give or take one or two!  :laugh: :laugh:

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"
Did St. Mark murder anyone in his defense of Orthodoxy? Force Orthodoxy on anyone?  Conclude with anyone to force anyone into Orthodoxy? Deceive anyone? Did Josaphat preach the Truth?

In the time of St. Mark[bishop] was the Anti-unionist agenda promulgated in Greece and north into Slavic lands without rabble rousing that included violence?  Guess you'd have to go examine the historical record...and we know in which circular file that will end up.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 16, 2012, 07:17:32 PM
In the time of St. Mark[bishop] was the Anti-unionist agenda promulgated in Greece and north into Slavic lands without rabble rousing that included violence?  Guess you'd have to go examine the historical record...and we know in which circular file that will end up.

Give some proofs if you think otherwise. Well, I don't mean Metropolitan Isidore's case but something more widespread.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 16, 2012, 07:30:57 PM
For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  ::) See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2012, 07:50:18 PM
For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  ::) See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?

It's all right.  God forgives.

M.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 16, 2012, 08:45:03 PM
Christ is risen!
Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

I am proud to be a charter member of the United Universal Most Humble Orthodox-Catholic Association of Nit-Picking Ignoramuses.  World wide, at last count, there are literally tens of millions of us--give or take one or two!  :laugh: :laugh:

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"
Did St. Mark murder anyone in his defense of Orthodoxy? Force Orthodoxy on anyone?  Conclude with anyone to force anyone into Orthodoxy? Deceive anyone? Did Josaphat preach the Truth?

In the time of St. Mark[bishop] was the Anti-unionist agenda promulgated in Greece and north into Slavic lands without rabble rousing that included violence?  Guess you'd have to go examine the historical record...and we know in which circular file that will end up.
Examining the historical record is very fruitful.  You should try it some time.

Here, the biggest Slavic lands in 1439 were those ruled by the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania
(http://images.wikia.com/althistory/images/f/f2/1439.jpg)
who recognized Pope Felix V, not the deposed Pope Eugene at Florence, and hence, although sons of the Vatican, didn't force Florence on the Orthodox.  Hence no need for violence.

Moscow and the other Slavic lands further East deposed the apostate Met. Isidore and elected Met. St. Jonas, enthroned at Moscow and recognized by Ryzan, Rostov, Tver, Novgorod, Lithuania, Poland and what is (anachronastically) labelled "Ukraine" here.  So no need for violence here either.

Hungary, at the Vatican's bidding, had for two centuries been trying to "exterminate the schismatic Vlachs" i.e. the Romanian Orthodox, so here, at the Vatican's provocation, there was violence.  It's called self defense.

Which is what the Orthodox populace in the Empire of the Romans and elsewhere did with the ruling rabble who tried to force Florence on them.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 16, 2012, 08:49:30 PM
For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  ::) See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?
Your evidence of Kuncevyc' repentance?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2012, 08:58:42 PM

Which is what the Orthodox populace in the Empire of the Romans and elsewhere did with the ruling rabble who tried to force Florence on them.

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 16, 2012, 09:09:00 PM
Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 16, 2012, 09:12:04 PM
Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2012, 09:17:44 PM
Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

There's not even one shred of evidence for anything like that.  But there is evidence of Orthodox who recanted their lies about the Bishop after he was murdered.

The weight of real documentation is against the Orthodox in this instance.  That's why the myths have to suffice to raise the ire of the newly illumined.

M.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 16, 2012, 09:36:31 PM
Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

There's not even one shred of evidence for anything like that.  But there is evidence of Orthodox who recanted their lies about the Bishop after he was murdered.
Couldn't be.  There were no Orthodox in Poland-Lithuania after 1595.  The King, his courts and the authorities said so.  Of course that leaves the question about all those reprisals the autorities ordered against those non-existent Orthodox in retaliation for the execution of Kuncevyc.  Maybe that has something to do with those "recantations":do you have them?

The weight of real documentation is against the Orthodox in this instance.
 
Then providing some documentation shouldn't be a problem then, now, should it?

That's why the myths have to suffice to raise the ire of the newly illumined.
Michael is on ground zero, and has been illumined for quite some time.  Or was it myths to keep your converts in line that you were referring to?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2012, 09:41:15 PM
Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

Indeed, I'm surprised at Michał for posting it.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2012, 09:42:43 PM
For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  ::) See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?

You're very brave, bringing up Catholics and Anglicans in a positive manner on an Orthodox forum.  :)  :o
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 16, 2012, 09:59:30 PM

Which is what the Orthodox populace in the Empire of the Romans and elsewhere did with the ruling rabble who tried to force Florence on them.

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 
Thanks for the compliment (though the word is "select".  I fixed that for you.).

Any evidence for those imaginary "unionists" in the Slav lands that people your "history"?  The devout got rid of the apostoate Met. Isidore and canonically consecrated Met. St. Jonas.  The indifferent, if they existed, went with the existing devout Orthodox and not the non-existent unionists.  In the Empire of the Romans, the ruling rabble had all the force of state, which it exercised with the Vatican's blessing (an old tradition in Old Rome since Pope Hormisdas) to force the apostacy of Florence on the Orthodox.  The apostates went down with the Emperor, and had no following until the Polish-Lithuanian-Swedish Zygmunt Wasa created one.   By force, of course.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 16, 2012, 10:00:46 PM
Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

Indeed, I'm surprised at Michał for posting it.
Why?  He is known for telling the truth.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2012, 10:12:10 PM
%
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: witega on April 16, 2012, 11:03:56 PM
Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.


I forgot to add, Does anyone disagree with that conditional statement? (I'm addressing this to anyone, even if you don't think the stories about Josaphat were made up.)

I'm actually not clear on what the 'analogy' is supposed to be. But if the point is that RC's should (and do) have the right to venerate whomever they want from their own faith tradition, I'd agree with that--however, I'm not sure you would want me to agree, since I'm one of those who thinks the idea of corporate reunion between Orthodoxy and modern Rome is a pipe-dream, with the fact that Orthodox revere St. Mark for his resistance to the subversion of the Orthodox faith to Latin innovation while Rome reveres Josaphat for his attempts at subjugating and subverting the Orthodox faith as just one more reason why it's a pipe-dream.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 16, 2012, 11:24:47 PM
I looked him up on Wikipedia and there didn't seem to any evidence presented against him. They did cite that the State did some horrible things but I don't see how he could be blamed for their actions.

It's always the state's fault. As if the Vatican administration in the state wasn't supportive, even over the objections of the pope. Sometimes it's what is done after the state takes action, or rather what is not done, that is telling, both for the sorry episodes in Orthodox and Roman Catholic history. That is why leaders such as Patriarch Pavle, who actually took a stand against those who would have used the Church for nationalistic ends, stick out. They are all too few.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 16, 2012, 11:30:16 PM

Which is what the Orthodox populace in the Empire of the Romans and elsewhere did with the ruling rabble who tried to force Florence on them.

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

As is yours, actually. And just as reductionist.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 17, 2012, 01:27:33 AM
%
Are you still having trouble with percentage?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38266.msg615884.html#msg615884
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: jmbejdl on April 17, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?

What a peculiar comparison. Thomas Becket was a Roman Catholic Archbishop murdered at the instigation of a Roman Catholic king for political reasons long before the Anglican Church ever existed so he was inherited as a saint from the RCC - I fail to see how this has anything to do with forgiveness between Rome and the C of E. Are you perhaps thinking of Thomas More or Thomas Cranmer (or both)? The former was executed by a Protestant monarch and is now a saint in the RCC. The latter was executed by a Roman Catholic monarch and is regarded as a Protestant martyr (and I've seen him described as a saint by some Anglicans). Unfortunately for the comparison being made, neither to my knowledge is venerated in any way by the opposite party.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2012, 07:26:00 AM
Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.


I forgot to add, Does anyone disagree with that conditional statement? (I'm addressing this to anyone, even if you don't think the stories about Josaphat were made up.)

I'm actually not clear on what the 'analogy' is supposed to be.

Keep in mind, the quote I gave in the OP (namely, "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?") isn't the only thing he PR said. Perhaps I should have quoted the entire post (at least) that came from:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
I personally do not believe that his veneration among Eastern (particularly Ukrainian) Catholics should be any more of a stumbling block to unity than the veneration of those Orthodox saints who are venerated primarily (not exclusively) because of their opposition to Rome and/or (re)union with the Roman Patriarchate. If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat? In a similar vein, even Western Catholics venerate certain saints who were supporters of anti-Popes during the time of the Great Western Schism.

The point is that saints ought not to be venerated because of their support or opposition to this or that person or institution. Saints ought to be venerated because of the holiness of their lives. Holiness does not mean that they are incapable of error and wrong judgment.

So, for my own two cents I'd say, insofar as he led a holy life St. Josaphat ought to continue to be venerated. But his actions of proselytism should be understood within their historical context, and then condemned as a misguided effort at achieving Church unity dependent on the historical model of Church unity in his day.

St. Josaphat, pray for us!

If you want to see the whole thread that's from: St Josaphat and East-West Ecumenism (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=664504).

But if the point is that RC's should (and do) have the right to venerate whomever they want from their own faith tradition, I'd agree with that--however, I'm not sure you would want me to agree, since I'm one of those who thinks the idea of corporate reunion between Orthodoxy and modern Rome is a pipe-dream, with the fact that Orthodox revere St. Mark for his resistance to the subversion of the Orthodox faith to Latin innovation while Rome reveres Josaphat for his attempts at subjugating and subverting the Orthodox faith as just one more reason why it's a pipe-dream.

I can't say I see it that way, but it's makes sense that you would.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 17, 2012, 11:14:12 AM
Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.


I forgot to add, Does anyone disagree with that conditional statement? (I'm addressing this to anyone, even if you don't think the stories about Josaphat were made up.)

I'm actually not clear on what the 'analogy' is supposed to be.

Keep in mind, the quote I gave in the OP (namely, "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?") isn't the only thing he PR said. Perhaps I should have quoted the entire post (at least) that came from:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
I personally do not believe that his veneration among Eastern (particularly Ukrainian) Catholics should be any more of a stumbling block to unity than the veneration of those Orthodox saints who are venerated primarily (not exclusively) because of their opposition to Rome and/or (re)union with the Roman Patriarchate. If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat? In a similar vein, even Western Catholics venerate certain saints who were supporters of anti-Popes during the time of the Great Western Schism.

The point is that saints ought not to be venerated because of their support or opposition to this or that person or institution. Saints ought to be venerated because of the holiness of their lives. Holiness does not mean that they are incapable of error and wrong judgment.

So, for my own two cents I'd say, insofar as he led a holy life St. Josaphat ought to continue to be venerated. But his actions of proselytism should be understood within their historical context, and then condemned as a misguided effort at achieving Church unity dependent on the historical model of Church unity in his day.

St. Josaphat, pray for us!

If you want to see the whole thread that's from: St Josaphat and East-West Ecumenism (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=664504).

But if the point is that RC's should (and do) have the right to venerate whomever they want from their own faith tradition, I'd agree with that--however, I'm not sure you would want me to agree, since I'm one of those who thinks the idea of corporate reunion between Orthodoxy and modern Rome is a pipe-dream, with the fact that Orthodox revere St. Mark for his resistance to the subversion of the Orthodox faith to Latin innovation while Rome reveres Josaphat for his attempts at subjugating and subverting the Orthodox faith as just one more reason why it's a pipe-dream.

I can't say I see it that way, but it's makes sense that you would.
This inconvenient truth from your linked thread is interesting:
Quote
In fact, the Orthodox St Athanasius of Brest, martyred by Latins for his opposition to the Union of Brest, was much more popular with Eastern Catholics who went to his shrine at Brest for his feastday on September 18th. This upset the Polish Jesuits who then concocted a feastday for St Josaphat on Sept. 16th to try and deflect devotion to Athanasius.

I have a prayerbook from the 19th century that lists the feast of St Josaphat on Sept. 16th - a date that had no connection with his life. It was later changed back to November 12/25.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 12:23:23 PM
For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  ::) See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?

It's all right.  God forgives.

M.

Amen, amen, amen!

It's a good thing, too, because we humans seem to have great difficulty with it oftentimes.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 17, 2012, 12:30:22 PM
Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

There's not even one shred of evidence for anything like that.

Orthodox szlachta wrote it in a complaint for him to Sejm.

http://www.bractwocim.cerkiew.pl/biuletyn/biuletyn4_2011%2854%29.pdf
http://www.przegladprawoslawny.pl/articles.php?id_n=80&id=8
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 12:36:35 PM
Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

There's not even one shred of evidence for anything like that.

Orthodox szlachta wrote it in a complaint for him to Sejm.

http://www.bractwocim.cerkiew.pl/biuletyn/biuletyn4_2011%2854%29.pdf
http://www.przegladprawoslawny.pl/articles.php?id_n=80&id=8

 ??? ??? ???

Am I the only one here *not* fluent in Polish?  That *was* Polish, wasn't it?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 17, 2012, 12:52:14 PM
Am I the only one here *not* fluent in Polish?  That *was* Polish, wasn't it?

I'm aware of that. Otherwise a Jewish person wouldn't have a picture of a Polish antisemite as an avatar.

Try google translate.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 01:29:22 PM
Am I the only one here *not* fluent in Polish?  That *was* Polish, wasn't it?

I'm aware of that. Otherwise a Jewish person wouldn't have a picture of a Polish antisemite as an avatar.

Try google translate.

Are you trying to make some kind of point with that comment?

Usually, where I come from (the USA, where English is the predominant if not official "official" language), when someone really wants someone else to read and/or understand a book or article or essay or whatever that's in a language foreign to them, it is they who provide the translation. 

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 17, 2012, 01:43:18 PM
Usually, where I come from (the USA, where English is the predominant if not official "official" language), when someone really wants someone else to read and/or understand a book or article or essay or whatever that's in a language foreign to them, it is they who provide the translation.  

I did it:

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position.  

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides.  

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 01:47:22 PM
Usually, where I come from (the USA, where English is the predominant if not official "official" language), when someone really wants someone else to read and/or understand a book or article or essay or whatever that's in a language foreign to them, it is they who provide the translation. 

I did it:

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

That didn't make much sense.  You did what?  Provide a translation?  Or dig up corpses?

And what was your point with this comment: "Otherwise a Jewish person wouldn't have a picture of a Polish antisemite as an avatar."?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 17, 2012, 01:49:17 PM
Usually, where I come from (the USA, where English is the predominant if not official "official" language), when someone really wants someone else to read and/or understand a book or article or essay or whatever that's in a language foreign to them, it is they who provide the translation.  

I did it:

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position.  

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides.  

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

That didn't make much sense.  You did what?  Provide a translation?  Or dig up corpses?

In that texts it is written that Kuncewicz was desecrating Orthodox cemeteries. Some of you wrote there are no proofs for that, so I provided them.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 02:05:11 PM
Usually, where I come from (the USA, where English is the predominant if not official "official" language), when someone really wants someone else to read and/or understand a book or article or essay or whatever that's in a language foreign to them, it is they who provide the translation.  

I did it:

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position.  

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides.  

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

That didn't make much sense.  You did what?  Provide a translation?  Or dig up corpses?

In that texts it is written that Kuncewicz was desecrating Orthodox cemeteries. Some of you wrote there are no proofs for that, so I provided them.

A.  I wasn't one of those asking for "proofs", although I could have been  ;D.

B.  You provided the "proofs" but not in a manner legible or understandable to the vast majority of posters here.

C. What  was your point with this comment: "Otherwise a Jewish person wouldn't have a picture of a Polish antisemite as an avatar."?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2012, 02:07:47 PM
Am I the only one here *not* fluent in Polish?  That *was* Polish, wasn't it?

I'm aware of that. Otherwise a Jewish person wouldn't have a picture of a Polish antisemite as an avatar.

Not to get roped in here, but I think the thread we had about M. Kolbe showed that lack of fluency with Polish had little to do with J Michael's avatar.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 17, 2012, 02:11:38 PM
B.  You provided the "proofs" but not in a manner legible or understandable to the vast majority of posters here.

You didn't trust me when I translated it. How can I make it understandable? I provided the original links for not being accused of misrepresentation.

What else can I do? Teach you Polish? Hire an accredited translator?

There are a few more Polish-speaking posters here. You can ask them if you don't believe me.

Quote
C. What  was your point with this comment: "Otherwise a Jewish person wouldn't have a picture of a Polish antisemite as an avatar."?

Nothing particularly. That was only a premise for me to suppose you don't speak Polish. I cannot imagine a Jew when he knows what he thought about your nation to praise him.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 02:30:29 PM
B.  You provided the "proofs" but not in a manner legible or understandable to the vast majority of posters here.

You don't trust me when I translated it. How can I make it understandable. I provided the original links for not being accused of misrepresentation.

What else can I do? Teach you Polish? Hire an accredited translator?

There are a few more Polish-speaking posters here. You can ask them if you don't believe me.

Quote
C. What  was your point with this comment: "Otherwise a Jewish person wouldn't have a picture of a Polish antisemite as an avatar."?

Nothing particularly. That was only a premise for me to suppose you don't speak Polish. I cannot imagine a Jew when he knows what he thought about your nation to praise him.

The accusations against St. Maximilian Kolbe hold about as much credibility as those against Bishop Josaphat.  Mr. Kalina apparently thinks calumny is a sacred trust  ;)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.htm
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 17, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

Sorry if my feelings offend many of you from either 'side' - i.e. our Orthodox 'side' or the Roman Catholic 'side'.

Frankly - there is only one side - that of God. The dead will have to account for their lives at the final judgment day - not just the saints of the title of this thread but all of their biographers as well - including those who spread calumny and falsehoods and exaggerations for their own secular quasi-religious agendas.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 17, 2012, 02:40:25 PM

The accusations against St. Maximilian Kolbe hold about as much credibility as those against Bishop Josaphat.  Mr. Kalina apparently thinks calumny is a sacred trust  ;)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.htm


Yeah. Everybody knows American RC websites are best sources of non-biased information about Polish RC Saints.

http://www.racjonalista.pl/kk.php/s,1815
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 02:41:51 PM
B.  You provided the "proofs" but not in a manner legible or understandable to the vast majority of posters here.

You don't trust me when I translated it. How can I make it understandable. I provided the original links for not being accused of misrepresentation.

What else can I do? Teach you Polish? Hire an accredited translator?

There are a few more Polish-speaking posters here. You can ask them if you don't believe me.

Quote
C. What  was your point with this comment: "Otherwise a Jewish person wouldn't have a picture of a Polish antisemite as an avatar."?

Nothing particularly. That was only a premise for me to suppose you don't speak Polish. I cannot imagine a Jew when he knows what he thought about your nation to praise him.

See my p.m. to you, to follow shortly.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 02:42:53 PM

The accusations against St. Maximilian Kolbe hold about as much credibility as those against Bishop Josaphat.  Mr. Kalina apparently thinks calumny is a sacred trust  ;)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.htm


Yeah. Everybody knows American RC websites are best sources of non-biased information about Polish RC Saints.

http://www.racjonalista.pl/kk.php/s,1815

Let's not go down *that* road....
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

I guess we didn't think to check with you first.  ;)
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 17, 2012, 02:59:55 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

I guess we didn't think to check with you first.  ;)

No, but you all ought to check in your own hearts before blathering away. Nothing funny here as these canards have gone on for centuries from both camps and many souls have been lost to the prince of darkness along the way.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

I guess we didn't think to check with you first.  ;)

No, but you all ought to check in your own hearts before blathering away. Nothing funny here as these canards have gone on for centuries from both camps and many souls have been lost to the prince of darkness along the way.

As you so often do, you cut through the crap that many of us, myself unfortunately included, tend to spew forth here.  Well said.  We make the work of the above-mentioned prince and his minions all too easy.  Thanks for the reality check!
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 03:19:51 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

I guess we didn't think to check with you first.  ;)

No, but you all ought to check in your own hearts before blathering away. Nothing funny here as these canards have gone on for centuries from both camps and many souls have been lost to the prince of darkness along the way.

One thing that I always find interesting is that there is always someone willing to shut the discussion down, but never an admission that the proofs of terrible wrong-doing are slim to non-existent in either case.

So I wonder at the intent of the conversation monitor after all is said and done...

Forgive me for saying so but I cannot help but think the idea is to duck an uncomfortable reality for the Orthodox. 

The Catholics don't need to worry.  We have our saints and the research necessary from the devil's advocate to clear their names of such calumny.

Mary
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Schultz on April 17, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

I guess we didn't think to check with you first.  ;)

No, but you all ought to check in your own hearts before blathering away. Nothing funny here as these canards have gone on for centuries from both camps and many souls have been lost to the prince of darkness along the way.

One thing that I always find interesting is that there is always someone willing to shut the discussion down, but never an admission that the proofs of terrible wrong-doing are slim to non-existent in either case.

So I wonder at the intent of the conversation monitor after all is said and done...

Forgive me for saying so but I cannot help but think the idea is to duck an uncomfortable reality for the Orthodox.  

The Catholics don't need to worry.  We have our saints and the research necessary from the devil's advocate to clear their names of such calumny.

Mary

Or perhaps not all Orthodox are hiding under the beds to slaughter the poor Catholics in the dead of night.

Perhaps some of us are just fricking sick of all this pointless bickering which only serves the demons of triumphalism and deceit.  Perhaps some of us are tired of seeing the same parties engage in mutual verbal masturbation over their pet subjects.  No, we don't have to read it (that's on us), but we also don't want people who may be interested in Eastern Christianity seeing just how much we "love" one another.

All this in this shadowless light of Pascha.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 03:46:17 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

I guess we didn't think to check with you first.  ;)

No, but you all ought to check in your own hearts before blathering away. Nothing funny here as these canards have gone on for centuries from both camps and many souls have been lost to the prince of darkness along the way.

One thing that I always find interesting is that there is always someone willing to shut the discussion down, but never an admission that the proofs of terrible wrong-doing are slim to non-existent in either case.

So I wonder at the intent of the conversation monitor after all is said and done...

Forgive me for saying so but I cannot help but think the idea is to duck an uncomfortable reality for the Orthodox. 

The Catholics don't need to worry.  We have our saints and the research necessary from the devil's advocate to clear their names of such calumny.

Mary

Perhaps I've misinterpreted both of you, but I don't think podkarpatska's intent was to duck any uncomfortable realities.  Rather, it strikes me that he is attempting to keep the tone at least civil, even if we think each other incorrect about this, that, or the other.  The tone on this board, at least on this sub-forum, has a tendency to pretty rapidly degenerate into, as you say, calumny, unwarranted and childish sarcasm, and outright nastiness, all of which is totally unnecessary, even if we disagree with each other.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2012, 04:09:01 PM
One thing that I always find interesting is that there is always someone willing to shut the discussion down, but never an admission that the proofs of terrible wrong-doing are slim to non-existent in either case.

So I wonder at the intent of the conversation monitor after all is said and done...

Forgive me for saying so but I cannot help but think the idea is to duck an uncomfortable reality for the Orthodox.  

I don't know if that's true or not, but I think there can, at times, be a certain tendency on any forum to disallow opposing views.

I don't know if you saw it or not, but St. Josaphat was also discussed a few weeks ago (before Alex started a thread about him) on another part of CAF, namely the group Our Eucharistic Journey. First there were some very positive statements about him (e.g. "Lord, fill your Church with the Spirit that gave Saint Josaphat courage to lay down his life for his people.") Then there was a post by me, in which I quoted from byzcath

Quote from: Irish Melkite
We live in a different time. That said, I'll offer this thought, which will probably cement your opinion ... While I imagine that God will reward St Josaphat for whatever holy things he did in life, I rather doubt that he'll be rewarded for burning Orthodox temples or killing Orthodox Christians who declined conversion. I also expect that the same distinction will likely be applied in judging those Orthodox who murdered Josaphat. Why? Because God is a Just God.

This disappeared not too long after, and this was posted:

Quote from: Amiciel
It may also be helpful to re-post here some of our earlier messages on the Group's Wall when we started the Group.  They shed further light on the purpose of our Group.  Here they are:

November 2, 2010 - "In our Journey, the Eucharist will be our springboard.  It is not our primary goal to engage in a purely intellectual, systematic exercise to accumulate knowledge.  Rather, our hope is that we become better acquainted with Our Lord, appreciate better what He has done for us, and end up with a better understanding of His unique purpose for each of us."

Novembe 24, 2010 - ".... through prayerful conversations, our Group hopes to obtain better knowledge of, and love for, our Lord Jesus, truly present in the Blessed Sacrament ...".
---

Thus, messages leaning towards speculative arguments, discussions or debates (which may be helpful) are best posted in other groups created specifically for this purpose.  Thank you and may the Lord bless us all!

which I take to mean that pro-Josaphat posts are allowed there but anti-Josaphat posts aren't.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 04:13:23 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

I guess we didn't think to check with you first.  ;)

No, but you all ought to check in your own hearts before blathering away. Nothing funny here as these canards have gone on for centuries from both camps and many souls have been lost to the prince of darkness along the way.

One thing that I always find interesting is that there is always someone willing to shut the discussion down, but never an admission that the proofs of terrible wrong-doing are slim to non-existent in either case.

So I wonder at the intent of the conversation monitor after all is said and done...

Forgive me for saying so but I cannot help but think the idea is to duck an uncomfortable reality for the Orthodox.  

The Catholics don't need to worry.  We have our saints and the research necessary from the devil's advocate to clear their names of such calumny.

Mary

Or perhaps not all Orthodox are hiding under the beds to slaughter the poor Catholics in the dead of night.


My dear, I don't think that is at all the issue in this particular discussion.

I think it is quite the other way around.

Question is why do the myths persist?

Mary
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 04:23:34 PM


Quote from: Irish Melkite
We live in a different time. That said, I'll offer this thought, which will probably cement your opinion ... While I imagine that God will reward St Josaphat for whatever holy things he did in life, I rather doubt that he'll be rewarded for burning Orthodox temples or killing Orthodox Christians who declined conversion. I also expect that the same distinction will likely be applied in judging those Orthodox who murdered Josaphat. Why? Because God is a Just God.



If I knew that there was no evidence but one brief letter of complaint about Bishop Josaphat to the negative, with far more documentation to the positive, including the testimony of people after his death who admitted to spreading lies about him...If I knew these things then I would not allow that comment to stand unanswered on any Forum of my own keeping.

I would not however make it disappear.  I have never complimented CAF for their native genius.

M.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 17, 2012, 04:25:50 PM


Quote from: Irish Melkite
We live in a different time. That said, I'll offer this thought, which will probably cement your opinion ... While I imagine that God will reward St Josaphat for whatever holy things he did in life, I rather doubt that he'll be rewarded for burning Orthodox temples or killing Orthodox Christians who declined conversion. I also expect that the same distinction will likely be applied in judging those Orthodox who murdered Josaphat. Why? Because God is a Just God.



If I knew that there was no evidence but one brief letter of complaint about Bishop Josaphat to the negative, with far more documentation to the positive, including the testimony of people after his death who admitted to spreading lies about him
anyone NOT in the custody of the Polish king?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 04:30:54 PM
Second thoughts
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: NicholasMyra on April 17, 2012, 04:35:43 PM
For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed
Wasn't he killed under Roman Law while Constantine was Emperor, versus Constantine having him killed?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 04:44:06 PM
For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed
Wasn't he killed under Roman Law while Constantine was Emperor, versus Constantine having him killed?

Does that somehow make him less killed  ;D?  Or Constantine less responsible?  Didn't he also have his wife and eldest son killed?  Seems I read something somewhere about that, but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2012, 04:51:19 PM
Quote from: Irish Melkite
We live in a different time. That said, I'll offer this thought, which will probably cement your opinion ... While I imagine that God will reward St Josaphat for whatever holy things he did in life, I rather doubt that he'll be rewarded for burning Orthodox temples or killing Orthodox Christians who declined conversion. I also expect that the same distinction will likely be applied in judging those Orthodox who murdered Josaphat. Why? Because God is a Just God.

If I knew that there was no evidence but one brief letter of complaint about Bishop Josaphat to the negative, with far more documentation to the positive, including the testimony of people after his death who admitted to spreading lies about him...If I knew these things then I would not allow that comment to stand unanswered on any Forum of my own keeping.

I would not however make it disappear.  I have never complimented CAF for their native genius.

M.

They did allow the statement "His fidelity to the Roman See and his desire for union between the Ukranian Church and Rome led to his murder at Vitebsk (in 1623).
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 17, 2012, 05:00:43 PM
Y'all may find it really hard to believe, but if you asked 1,000 parishioners in a scientific poll from OCA and ACROD parishes who St. Josaphat was - 99.8% would have no idea whatsoever. We don't think about him. We don't obsess about him. He 'ain't' on the radar.

The 17th century was a fun time in the western world. If I recall it ended in the new world with the Salem Witch trials.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 17, 2012, 05:10:47 PM
This thread is pointless and counterproductive - especially during Paschaltide. Shame on everyone for dredging all of this up again.

I guess we didn't think to check with you first.  ;)

No, but you all ought to check in your own hearts before blathering away. Nothing funny here as these canards have gone on for centuries from both camps and many souls have been lost to the prince of darkness along the way.

One thing that I always find interesting is that there is always someone willing to shut the discussion down, but never an admission that the proofs of terrible wrong-doing are slim to non-existent in either case.

So I wonder at the intent of the conversation monitor after all is said and done...

Forgive me for saying so but I cannot help but think the idea is to duck an uncomfortable reality for the Orthodox. 

The Catholics don't need to worry.  We have our saints and the research necessary from the devil's advocate to clear their names of such calumny.

Mary

Perhaps I've misinterpreted both of you, but I don't think podkarpatska's intent was to duck any uncomfortable realities.  Rather, it strikes me that he is attempting to keep the tone at least civil, even if we think each other incorrect about this, that, or the other.  The tone on this board, at least on this sub-forum, has a tendency to pretty rapidly degenerate into, as you say, calumny, unwarranted and childish sarcasm, and outright nastiness, all of which is totally unnecessary, even if we disagree with each other.


Thank you. I tend to take much of hagiography with, shall we say, a 'grain of salt' - especially so in the case of 'controversial' saints - be they of the Church undivided and of the post schism saints of BOTH the east and the west. This is particularly so in the case of saints of the modern era in the western church as the whole approach to sanctification used by the west strikes my eastern mind as - well, bizarre.

The recent piece on 60 Minutes this winter about the canon lawyer in Rome who specializes in taking on these cases - with a retainer of course - really caught me off guard. Sorry my Catholic friends, but just because I try to be even minded and try to find common ground and calmer waters doesn't mean I buy your polemics or apologetics. (I have no use for polemics in any subject matter 99.9% of my time anyway, but that's a different story altogether.)

And as to St. Josaphat being murdered on account of his fervent desire for union, I suppose he was. After all there were others who had a fervent desire that union not occur on the terms he offered. Not all of those were religiously minded Orthodox believers- shocking revelation here - but there were secular princes etc.... who manipulated the situation on the ground for their own nefarious purposes.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 17, 2012, 05:14:52 PM
Y'all may find it really hard to believe, but if you asked 1,000 parishioners in a scientific poll from OCA and ACROD parishes who St. Josaphat was - 99.8% would have no idea whatsoever. We don't think about him. We don't obsess about him. He 'ain't' on the radar.

The 17th century was a fun time in the western world. If I recall it ended in the new world with the Salem Witch trials.

Not nearly as much "fun" as the 20th century.  Not even close!
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 17, 2012, 05:17:38 PM
Not all of those were religiously minded Orthodox believers- shocking revelation here - but there were secular princes etc.... who manipulated the situation on the ground for their own nefarious purposes.



Name 3.

They did allow the statement "His fidelity to the Roman See and his desire for union between the Ukranian Church and Rome led to his murder at Vitebsk (in 1623).

No. He was killed because he perseccuted the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2012, 05:28:41 PM
The 17th century was a fun time in the western world. If I recall it ended in the new world with the Salem Witch trials.

I think you're trying to hard. It shouldn't take much to get people on this forum to hate the West.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 17, 2012, 05:35:49 PM
Y'all may find it really hard to believe, but if you asked 1,000 parishioners in a scientific poll from OCA and ACROD parishes who St. Josaphat was - 99.8% would have no idea whatsoever. We don't think about him. We don't obsess about him. He 'ain't' on the radar.
I never heard of him the 16 years I was in the OCA that I recall.  I first remember him from a Latin posting praise of him on the Eastern Christian Forum of CAF.   IIRC it was another Latin who posted the letter of the PL Chancellor complaining to Josaphat on his conduct (digging up graves, beheadings, etc...) as the first rebuttal.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2012, 05:44:23 PM
Y'all may find it really hard to believe, but if you asked 1,000 parishioners in a scientific poll from OCA and ACROD parishes who St. Josaphat was - 99.8% would have no idea whatsoever. We don't think about him. We don't obsess about him. He 'ain't' on the radar.
I never heard of him the 16 years I was in the OCA that I recall.  I first remember him from a Latin posting praise of him on the Eastern Christian Forum of CAF. 

To be fair, presumably it's a lot harder for ECs not to have him on their "radar" since Pope John Paul II established the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Saint Josaphat in Parma, in 1983.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 08:00:22 PM

The accusations against St. Maximilian Kolbe hold about as much credibility as those against Bishop Josaphat.  Mr. Kalina apparently thinks calumny is a sacred trust  ;)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.htm


Yeah. Everybody knows American RC websites are best sources of non-biased information about Polish RC Saints.


With respect to false accusations that stick on far longer than the facts should allow:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/claims-of-papal-help-for-nazi-war-criminals-verifiably-false/

“The combination of sloppy work and over-the-top charges provides a textbook example of how a verifiably false account can be reported as fact in the mainstream media,” Rychlak said in the April 2012 issue of the Catholic League’s newsletter The Catalyst.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 08:06:59 PM


Sorry my Catholic friends, but just because I try to be even minded and try to find common ground and calmer waters doesn't mean I buy your polemics or apologetics.



Why dwell on the obvious?  Only the truly blind would think otherwise.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 17, 2012, 09:10:48 PM

The accusations against St. Maximilian Kolbe hold about as much credibility as those against Bishop Josaphat.  Mr. Kalina apparently thinks calumny is a sacred trust  ;)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.htm


Yeah. Everybody knows American RC websites are best sources of non-biased information about Polish RC Saints.


With respect to false accusations that stick on far longer than the facts should allow:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/claims-of-papal-help-for-nazi-war-criminals-verifiably-false/

“The combination of sloppy work and over-the-top charges provides a textbook example of how a verifiably false account can be reported as fact in the mainstream media,” Rychlak said in the April 2012 issue of the Catholic League’s newsletter The Catalyst.
maybe he can explain how Card. Law ended up in the Vatican, away from justice.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 09:32:32 PM

The accusations against St. Maximilian Kolbe hold about as much credibility as those against Bishop Josaphat.  Mr. Kalina apparently thinks calumny is a sacred trust  ;)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.htm


Yeah. Everybody knows American RC websites are best sources of non-biased information about Polish RC Saints.


With respect to false accusations that stick on far longer than the facts should allow:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/claims-of-papal-help-for-nazi-war-criminals-verifiably-false/

“The combination of sloppy work and over-the-top charges provides a textbook example of how a verifiably false account can be reported as fact in the mainstream media,” Rychlak said in the April 2012 issue of the Catholic League’s newsletter The Catalyst.
maybe he can explain how Card. Law ended up in the Vatican, away from justice.

Maybe he can.  You would not accept it in any event, Maester WoolPuller...
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 17, 2012, 09:58:31 PM

The accusations against St. Maximilian Kolbe hold about as much credibility as those against Bishop Josaphat.  Mr. Kalina apparently thinks calumny is a sacred trust  ;)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.htm


Yeah. Everybody knows American RC websites are best sources of non-biased information about Polish RC Saints.


With respect to false accusations that stick on far longer than the facts should allow:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/claims-of-papal-help-for-nazi-war-criminals-verifiably-false/

“The combination of sloppy work and over-the-top charges provides a textbook example of how a verifiably false account can be reported as fact in the mainstream media,” Rychlak said in the April 2012 issue of the Catholic League’s newsletter The Catalyst.
maybe he can explain how Card. Law ended up in the Vatican, away from justice.

Maybe he can.  You would not accept it in any event, Maester WoolPuller...
I wouldn't be on the grand jury. Would they accept it?

Btw, you source disputed, not disproved.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2012, 10:00:21 PM

Btw, you source disputed, not disproved.

Clever by half but not brilliant
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2012, 10:36:15 PM
Yeah. Everybody knows American RC websites are best sources of non-biased information about Polish RC Saints.

Yul Brynner's Paradox: How can it be that everyone knows one thing if many people believe another?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 18, 2012, 05:09:53 AM
with far more documentation to the positive, including the testimony of people after his death who admitted to spreading lies about him...

links?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 18, 2012, 09:43:53 AM
with far more documentation to the positive, including the testimony of people after his death who admitted to spreading lies about him...

links?

Yes, please!  And I'll take my eggs over-easy!  So kind of you to offer  ;D!  (Not that I'm particularly bothered, as I love sausage in most forms, but some here prefer theirs in patties.  Now, is that Polish sausage, i.e. kielbasa, or chorizo, or spicy Italian?  ;D ;D)

Sorry, but after our last little tiff about translation, I just couldn't help myself.  Hope you see the humor, such as it is!
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 18, 2012, 10:21:38 AM
I just wanted to add in connection with my comment about we Orthodox not having St. Josaphat on our radar (and Isa's confirmation of the same) I don't think that it is a coincidence that if one does a Google search of the Saint - under any variety of his names or spellings thereof - you simply will not find any Orthodox source material or discussion about him for pages and pages of links- unless, like here, it is started by non-Orthodox. There are pages and pages of Catholic sourced polemic and apologetics in his hagiography - much of which makes him almost sound like a cartoon character rather than a once living person.

I go back to my point about hagiography - while on one level it may be viewed as positive instructions for the faithful on a Christian life well lived (any number of purposes - charity, kindness, martyrdom etc....) one simply can not deny the propaganda value it may also possess in the struggle between competing ecclesiastical structures during the history of Christendom.

I think that many Catholics - both east and west - like the stories of St. Josaphat because they provide them a 'comfort' level, if you will - which justifies their position regarding claims of being 'Orthodox in union with the Pope.' To call upon his intercession during Rome's 'Week of Prayer for Christian Unity' is insulting to any Orthodox from the most open-minded to the most traditional -regardless of their underlying feelings about ecumenical contact with the Roman Church and unity in general.

As to the revival of the cult of St. Josaphat in the late 20th century - that has as much to do with the heavy handed treatment of Ukrainians and Ukrainian Greek Catholics at the hands of the Soviets and their unwitting allies in the Russian Church as it does with reality.

As for Greek Catholic witnesses and martyrs, for me the real histories of 20th century men, like Blessed Pavel and Blessed Teodor and their resistance to the liquidation of their Greek Catholic Churches post WW2 speak more vibrantly and with more power of truth than do dusty 17th century stories borrowed in many ways from the calumny of the of anti-Semites of east Europe and the myth building regarding saintly lives used to educate peasants by both the Roman and the Orthodox Churches of that era.

That's why I think this discussion is destructive and pointless. And I would add, while I don't expect anyone to 'check with me' before starting a post - be prepared for a response with which you may take issue.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 18, 2012, 10:50:31 AM
I just wanted to add in connection with my comment about we Orthodox not having St. Josaphat on our radar (and Isa's confirmation of the same) I don't think that it is a coincidence that if one does a Google search of the Saint - under any variety of his names or spellings thereof - you simply will not find any Orthodox source material or discussion about him for pages and pages of links- unless, like here, it is started by non-Orthodox. There are pages and pages of Catholic sourced polemic and apologetics in his hagiography - much of which makes him almost sound like a cartoon character rather than a once living person.

I go back to my point about hagiography - while on one level it may be viewed as positive instructions for the faithful on a Christian life well lived (any number of purposes - charity, kindness, martyrdom etc....) one simply can not deny the propaganda value it may also possess in the struggle between competing ecclesiastical structures during the history of Christendom.

I think that many Catholics - both east and west - like the stories of St. Josaphat because they provide them a 'comfort' level, if you will - which justifies their position regarding claims of being 'Orthodox in union with the Pope.' To call upon his intercession during Rome's 'Week of Prayer for Christian Unity' is insulting to any Orthodox from the most open-minded to the most traditional -regardless of their underlying feelings about ecumenical contact with the Roman Church and unity in general.

As to the revival of the cult of St. Josaphat in the late 20th century - that has as much to do with the heavy handed treatment of Ukrainians and Ukrainian Greek Catholics at the hands of the Soviets and their unwitting allies in the Russian Church as it does with reality.

As for Greek Catholic witnesses and martyrs, for me the real histories of 20th century men, like Blessed Pavel and Blessed Teodor and their resistance to the liquidation of their Greek Catholic Churches post WW2 speak more vibrantly and with more power of truth than do dusty 17th century stories borrowed in many ways from the calumny of the of anti-Semites of east Europe and the myth building regarding saintly lives used to educate peasants by both the Roman and the Orthodox Churches of that era.

That's why I think this discussion is destructive and pointless. And I would add, while I don't expect anyone to 'check with me' before starting a post - be prepared for a response with which you may take issue.


I agree with much that is here, in particular, the penultimate paragraph.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: griego catolico on April 20, 2012, 11:23:51 PM
For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland (http://www.bazylianie.pl/)  have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian. (http://www.bazylianie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1146%3A2010-11-14-21-55-50&catid=64%3Akultura&Itemid=3&lang=uk)

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians.  Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting  Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 21, 2012, 09:19:24 AM
For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland (http://www.bazylianie.pl/)  have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian. (http://www.bazylianie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1146%3A2010-11-14-21-55-50&catid=64%3Akultura&Itemid=3&lang=uk)

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians.  Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting  Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 21, 2012, 04:11:21 PM
For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland (http://www.bazylianie.pl/)  have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian. (http://www.bazylianie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1146%3A2010-11-14-21-55-50&catid=64%3Akultura&Itemid=3&lang=uk)

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians.  Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting  Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics,  and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it. 

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies.  We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 21, 2012, 05:15:44 PM
For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland (http://www.bazylianie.pl/)  have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian. (http://www.bazylianie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1146%3A2010-11-14-21-55-50&catid=64%3Akultura&Itemid=3&lang=uk)

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians.  Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting  Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.
Yes, we've dealt with them before.  They can't exist: the King of Poland and Lithuania said the Orthodox did not exist after 1596.  Kuntsevych died 12 November 1623 in the realm of Poland and Lithuania, where no Orthodox existed, as the Union of Brest tells us, after 1596.

"Persecut Saint Josaphat."  Besides the problem of their non-existence, according to the King's enforcement of the "Union of Brest," there the problem of these non-existent Orthodox having power in Vatican supporting Poland-Lithuania, in order to persecute him.

Who are these non-existent Orthodox Christians whose "sworn testimonies" are given.  Surely they had names, no?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 21, 2012, 05:21:15 PM
For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland (http://www.bazylianie.pl/)  have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian. (http://www.bazylianie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1146%3A2010-11-14-21-55-50&catid=64%3Akultura&Itemid=3&lang=uk)

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians.  Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting  Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics,  and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it. 

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies.  We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.


Silly podkarpatska!  Don't you know that the Vatican only tells us the truth?  That the Orthodox gave up their Faith freely and without any coercion on the parts of the Vaticans sons?  No force nor secular inducements were EVER used to bring the Orthodox "into Catholic unity"?  Surely the Latin Poles knew better than Ruthenian Byzantines when the former overruled the latter and pushed for Kuntsevych's canonization?  He's a saint: the Vatican says so.  The case is closed.

 ::)
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 21, 2012, 06:35:41 PM
For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland (http://www.bazylianie.pl/)  have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian. (http://www.bazylianie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1146%3A2010-11-14-21-55-50&catid=64%3Akultura&Itemid=3&lang=uk)

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians.  Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting  Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics,  and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it. 

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies.  We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.


Silly podkarpatska!  Don't you know that the Vatican only tells us the truth?  That the Orthodox gave up their Faith freely and without any coercion on the parts of the Vaticans sons?  No force nor secular inducements were EVER used to bring the Orthodox "into Catholic unity"?  Surely the Latin Poles knew better than Ruthenian Byzantines when the former overruled the latter and pushed for Kuntsevych's canonization?  He's a saint: the Vatican says so.  The case is closed.

 ::)

Haul out the slavering dogs!
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 21, 2012, 07:29:09 PM
Hi all. I'm not sorry to see this thread going again -- and I'm particularly interested to see if anyone will disagree with the conditional statement that I quoted earlier from Phillip Rolfes,

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

-- but I would also like to say, just for the record, that I don't think PR and I have the same purpose in discussing this or the same attitude. I say this in light of what he said more recently:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
The fact of the matter is that he is revered as a saint among Ukrainian Catholics. The rest of us just have to deal with it. :p
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 21, 2012, 10:47:21 PM
For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland (http://www.bazylianie.pl/)  have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian. (http://www.bazylianie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1146%3A2010-11-14-21-55-50&catid=64%3Akultura&Itemid=3&lang=uk)

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians.  Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting  Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics,  and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it. 

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies.  We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.



My comments hardly merited such sarcasm - especially from someone who professes to have much love and understanding of the eastern church. It is not unreasonable from an academic point of view to discount material prepared by a group with a 'stake' in the argument, particularly when the argument is one of such emotional power - and one which has been the source of such exaggeration and lies - from both sides historically.

You would have me accept at face value 'apologia' issued by authors with a stake in the game while dismissing polemics from the other side. Neither can stand the scrutiny of critical analysis.

If you are honestly telling the Orthodox posters here that the use of a Saint of the western Church as controversial as is St. Josaphat is to the eastern Church as the proper 'icon' , symbol for, and representative of 'church unity' than I can only conclude that your view of any future 'unity' entails one thing and one thing only - the east must accept terms from the west on the order of those proposed by Grant to Lee at Appomattox Court House - unconditional surrender. Not gonna happen. And I don't expect it to happen the other way either.  By the way, I also take what your Pope says at face value in these matters and I don't see his public statements on the matter (nor those of his late predecessor) saying any such thing as well.

Give this a break. You will not change any minds here on the subject matter of this thread. I accept the fact that Ukrainian Catholics revere him as a saint. The rest of Orthodoxy has to deal with that at some point in time. Saying that does not mean that I find their hagiography to be much more than propaganda to advance the justification for the schism within traditional Ukrainian Christianity and to advance the disputes between western Ukrainians, their more Russophile minded eastern brothers and with the Russians themselves.


Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 21, 2012, 11:07:29 PM
If you are honestly telling the Orthodox posters here that the use of a Saint of the western Church as controversial as is St. Josaphat is to the eastern Church as the proper 'icon' , symbol for, and representative of 'church unity' than I can only conclude that your view of any future 'unity' entails one thing and one thing only - the east must accept terms from the west on the order of those proposed by Grant to Lee at Appomattox Court House - unconditional surrender.

Could you define "the western Church" and "the eastern Church"?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 21, 2012, 11:11:25 PM
Hi all. I'm not sorry to see this thread going again -- and I'm particularly interested to see if anyone will disagree with the conditional statement that I quoted earlier from Phillip Rolfes,

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

-- but I would also like to say, just for the record, that I don't think PR and I have the same purpose in discussing this or the same attitude. I say this in light of what he said more recently:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
The fact of the matter is that he is revered as a saint among Ukrainian Catholics. The rest of us just have to deal with it. :p
Right believing Ukrainians, i.e. Pravoslavnij, do not.

In fact, he was revered as a saint among the Latin Poles.  THEY pushed for his canonization, not the Ukrainians/Ruthenians, and given the Poles' tyranny over the Ruthenians in Galicia at the time, it would seem it was not without an agenda.  The Poles, NOT the Ukrainians/Ruthenians (much less the Belarus, his nation at least in ancestry) dedicated churches to his memory shortly after his canonization, in not only the Old World, but the new.  Poles, not Ruthenians nor Ukrainians, founded the Basilica of "St. Josaphat" in Milawaukee in 1888
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Basilica_of_St._Josaphat.jpg)
and Kashubians, not Ruthenians nor Ukrainians, built "St. Josaphat" parish in Chicago (I got thrown off of CAF when I admitted that I walked out of my way not to go by it and have to cross myself).  It would seem that he is revered as a saint among Polish Latins. The Ukrainians/Ruthenians just have to deal with it, or so the Vatican said in 1868, at the Poles' urgings (and payment).  Given the history of the "union of brest" in the hands of the Latin Poles, the agenda would be obvious.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 21, 2012, 11:21:04 PM
Hi all. I'm not sorry to see this thread going again -- and I'm particularly interested to see if anyone will disagree with the conditional statement that I quoted earlier from Phillip Rolfes,

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

-- but I would also like to say, just for the record, that I don't think PR and I have the same purpose in discussing this or the same attitude. I say this in light of what he said more recently:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
The fact of the matter is that he is revered as a saint among Ukrainian Catholics. The rest of us just have to deal with it. :p
Right believing Ukrainians, i.e. Pravoslavnij, do not.

In fact, he was revered as a saint among the Latin Poles.  THEY pushed for his canonization, not the Ukrainians/Ruthenians, and given the Poles' tyranny over the Ruthenians in Galicia at the time, it would seem it was not without an agenda.  The Poles, NOT the Ukrainians/Ruthenians (much less the Belarus, his nation at least in ancestry) dedicated churches to his memory shortly after his canonization, in not only the Old World, but the new.  Poles, not Ruthenians nor Ukrainians, founded the Basilica of "St. Josaphat" in Milawaukee in 1888
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Basilica_of_St._Josaphat.jpg)
and Kashubians, not Ruthenians nor Ukrainians, built "St. Josaphat" parish in Chicago (I got thrown off of CAF when I admitted that I walked out of my way not to go by it and have to cross myself).  It would seem that he is revered as a saint among Polish Latins. The Ukrainians/Ruthenians just have to deal with it, or so the Vatican said in 1868, at the Poles' urgings (and payment).  Given the history of the "union of brest" in the hands of the Latin Poles, the agenda would be obvious.

Like I said earlier, he certainly isn't on the radar among the Rusyn Orthodox (Ruthenians) and the modern BCC in the US and Europe (the Ruthenians) make little mention of him as well.

By the way, this whole 'payment' issue for advocates of one 'would be saints' cause or another has not been addressed, even though I referenced the 60 Minutes piece on the subject about two weeks ago....That troubled me and I was hoping to hear a reasonable argument explaining it, none has been forthcoming.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Deacon Lance on April 21, 2012, 11:50:23 PM
Yes, we've dealt with them before.  They can't exist: the King of Poland and Lithuania said the Orthodox did not exist after 1596.  Kuntsevych died 12 November 1623 in the realm of Poland and Lithuania, where no Orthodox existed, as the Union of Brest tells us, after 1596.

"Persecut Saint Josaphat."  Besides the problem of their non-existence, according to the King's enforcement of the "Union of Brest," there the problem of these non-existent Orthodox having power in Vatican supporting Poland-Lithuania, in order to persecute him.

Who are these non-existent Orthodox Christians whose "sworn testimonies" are given.  Surely they had names, no?

Except of course they did exist, they even had an Orthodox bishop in Polotsk: Meletius Smotrytsky.  Decrees can't force people to change their allegiance.  Both Orthodox resistance to the Poles and Greek Catholic resistance to the Soviets prove that.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Deacon Lance on April 22, 2012, 12:17:54 AM

Give this a break. You will not change any minds here on the subject matter of this thread. I accept the fact that Ukrainian Catholics revere him as a saint. The rest of Orthodoxy has to deal with that at some point in time. Saying that does not mean that I find their hagiography to be much more than propaganda to advance the justification for the schism within traditional Ukrainian Christianity and to advance the disputes between western Ukrainians, their more Russophile minded eastern brothers and with the Russians themselves.

I have to agree with my friend.  The issue is just to emotionally charged.  May all the Martyrs under the Soviets, SS Tikhon of Mosocw and Vladimir of Kiev and Blessed Theodore of Mukachevo and Paul of Presov pray for us.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 22, 2012, 01:33:40 AM
By the way, this whole 'payment' issue for advocates of one 'would be saints' cause or another has not been addressed, even though I referenced the 60 Minutes piece on the subject about two weeks ago....That troubled me and I was hoping to hear a reasonable argument explaining it, none has been forthcoming.
where was that?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 22, 2012, 01:40:46 AM
Yes, we've dealt with them before.  They can't exist: the King of Poland and Lithuania said the Orthodox did not exist after 1596.  Kuntsevych died 12 November 1623 in the realm of Poland and Lithuania, where no Orthodox existed, as the Union of Brest tells us, after 1596.

"Persecut Saint Josaphat."  Besides the problem of their non-existence, according to the King's enforcement of the "Union of Brest," there the problem of these non-existent Orthodox having power in Vatican supporting Poland-Lithuania, in order to persecute him.

Who are these non-existent Orthodox Christians whose "sworn testimonies" are given.  Surely they had names, no?

Except of course they did exist, they even had an Orthodox bishop in Polotsk: Meletius Smotrytsky.
Actually, they had an Orthodox bishop in L'viv and Przemyshl/Peremyshl, and would for nearly a century after Kuntsevych, joined later by the Orthodox replacement in Kiev and three other Orthodox bishops.

Decrees can't force people to change their allegiance.  Both Orthodox resistance to the Poles and Greek Catholic resistance to the Soviets prove that.
a point not often acknowledged.  My first question, since we have not been given any details on these "testimonies" beyond that those testifying were reportedly Orthodox (a dangerous thing to admit) and that they admitted persecuting Kuntsevych (on the one hand an even more dangerous thing to admit, on the other a rather odd claim as Kuntsevych was the one with the army and government on his side), is was this testimony, if it exists, given in exchange for immunity?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 22, 2012, 08:33:08 AM

Give this a break. You will not change any minds here on the subject matter of this thread. I accept the fact that Ukrainian Catholics revere him as a saint. The rest of Orthodoxy has to deal with that at some point in time. Saying that does not mean that I find their hagiography to be much more than propaganda to advance the justification for the schism within traditional Ukrainian Christianity and to advance the disputes between western Ukrainians, their more Russophile minded eastern brothers and with the Russians themselves.

I have to agree with my friend.  The issue is just to emotionally charged.  May all the Martyrs under the Soviets, SS Tikhon of Mosocw and Vladimir of Kiev and Blessed Theodore of Mukachevo and Paul of Presov pray for us.

Two ethnically Rusyn Orthodox Bishops of the same generation did much in their lives to heal division in our lifetime.

Metropolitan Laurus of ROCOR worked tirelessly to bring together the long warring factions of Russian Orthodoxy in the face of great internal opposition and the late Metropolitan Nicholas did much to heal the long festering wounds in the American Rusyn communities caused by the schism within Greek Catholicism - both here and in Europe.

Neither would say much about emotionalism or the arguments of the past used to propagandize the faithful - they would merely say that we live in the present and we have our own crosses to bear.

When Metropolitan Nicholas proclaimed the Synaxis of the Orthodox Saints of Carpatho-Rus, he asked the faithful to also remember in their prayers the 20th century martyrs of the Communists - Blessed Teodor or Mukachevo and Paul of Presov.  This was a bold, but if you knew him well,  and the pain that many of his generation suffered on both sides of the church's walls, this was a most understandable and remarkable request.

The acts in lives of these two recently departed Orthodox Bishops are the things we should consider - not the heated acts of the long departed who lived in different times and under difficult political circumstances. I will refrain from judging them, as well as refraining from spreading their 'praises.'

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 22, 2012, 09:51:03 AM
For those of you who read Ukrainian and would like to know what information was collected on Saint Josaphat, the Basilians of Poland (http://www.bazylianie.pl/)  have published in book form the documents that were involved for his glorification. These documents were translated from Latin into Ukrainian. Here is the link in Ukrainian. (http://www.bazylianie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1146%3A2010-11-14-21-55-50&catid=64%3Akultura&Itemid=3&lang=uk)

Also, I would like to recommend the book, Saint Jospahat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. It's been out of print for many years, so your best bet is through an inter-library loan. The book contains excerpts from Saint Josaphat's letters, where he defends his innocence against accusations that he harmed Orthodox Christians.  Also there are the sworn testimonies given by Orthodox Christians who admitted to persecuting  Saint Josaphat, yet defended his innocence and holiness.

I have much respect and admiration for the Basilian fathers, for many years they were our neighbors at the old UGCC in Binghamton before they built a new facility and they were kind and humble men. One of them had gone to seminary with my uncle in Canada prior to my uncle's leaving the Greek Catholic Church to become the first married priest ordained by Bishop Orestes Chornock after his consecration in 1938.

However, any source material on this subject originating from them is not likely to be taken as more than polemic by most Orthodox. As one Orthodox with great empathy for my Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, I have to say that the use of St. Josaphat as an exemplar of Church unity does make all of us Orthodox 'run for the hills.' I just don't get it, no disrespect intended.

You live with the disdain toward Catholics,  and dis-information about Catholics on this board every day and YOU don't get it?...well...I get it. 

And sure...the documentation about St. Josaphat MUST be all lies.  We can rest assured that the saint ate the dogs that ate the Orthodox corpses that the saint dug up and fed to them, however.

M.



My comments hardly merited such sarcasm - especially from someone who professes to have much love and understanding of the eastern church. It is not unreasonable from an academic point of view to discount material prepared by a group with a 'stake' in the argument, particularly when the argument is one of such emotional power - and one which has been the source of such exaggeration and lies - from both sides historically.

You would have me accept at face value 'apologia' issued by authors with a stake in the game while dismissing polemics from the other side. Neither can stand the scrutiny of critical analysis.

If you are honestly telling the Orthodox posters here that the use of a Saint of the western Church as controversial as is St. Josaphat is to the eastern Church as the proper 'icon' , symbol for, and representative of 'church unity' than I can only conclude that your view of any future 'unity' entails one thing and one thing only - the east must accept terms from the west on the order of those proposed by Grant to Lee at Appomattox Court House - unconditional surrender. Not gonna happen. And I don't expect it to happen the other way either.  By the way, I also take what your Pope says at face value in these matters and I don't see his public statements on the matter (nor those of his late predecessor) saying any such thing as well.

Give this a break. You will not change any minds here on the subject matter of this thread. I accept the fact that Ukrainian Catholics revere him as a saint. The rest of Orthodoxy has to deal with that at some point in time. Saying that does not mean that I find their hagiography to be much more than propaganda to advance the justification for the schism within traditional Ukrainian Christianity and to advance the disputes between western Ukrainians, their more Russophile minded eastern brothers and with the Russians themselves.


If I did not give a rat's rump about Orthodoxy, I'd be hawking my wares at CAF.  The reason my note dripped with sarcasm is precisely because I do care and precisely because I can be hurt by you and others, and I am, repeatedly and without much fanfare on my part save for the occasional sarcastic squall when the truth gets lumped in with lies so that nothing at all changes.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I see St. Josaphat as a symbol for unity.  I've never presented that argument at all.  You presume in your haste to chastise.

What concerns me is what I said above, the absolute refusal to consider any evidence gathered from the Catholic point of view simply because it is Catholic.  From your comments here you are not better able to add detail to your rejection than I am when I give the Church, my Church, the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that Orthodox believers continue the kinds of behaviors that have spawned continued disunity and do so with venom and a vengeance tells me something about the past and the present.  I hope to God it is not the bellwether of the future.   When I stop caring, you'll know.  I won't be here.

XB!!

BB!!

M.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

Quote from: Phillip Rolfes
If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

Here's a thought that I will throw out there for consideration: If St. Josaphat did not do those things (and I'm not saying he didn't, just if) then I think it would be quite appropriate to compare him with Alexis Toth, but not really with Mark of Ephesus. Why? Because Josaphat and Alexis were both instrumental in getting people to "switch sides" (from Orthodoxy to Catholicism or vice versa). Mark, however, didn't so much try to get people to switch sides but just focused on defending the integrity of his own side.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 26, 2012, 10:02:27 AM
If Kuncewicz hadn't ordered to kill anyone, desecrated churches and cemeteries townspeople from Viciebsk wouldn't have killed him and nobles wouldn't have complained for him to the king.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 26, 2012, 10:18:35 AM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 26, 2012, 11:11:40 AM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 11:20:49 AM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 11:36:29 AM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

This may not be the best of analogies, but isn't writing or documenting history a little like gathering statistics and then interpreting them?  Mind you, I'm neither an historian nor a statistician--phew!  ;)
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 11:45:03 AM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

(http://www.historians.org/projects/GIRoundtable/Images/Propaganda.gif)


Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 26, 2012, 12:47:40 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 01:24:26 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...


You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection.  So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 26, 2012, 01:33:21 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...


You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection.  So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

The only ones who absolutely KNOW them to be biased are the ones who would rather shoot the messenger than consider any other possibility than the one they have locked on to because it suits an emotional need.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 01:34:09 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...


You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection.  So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

I take it you're referring to "known [Catholic] biased sources"?  If so, are you implying that any known or unknown Orthodox sources are *not* biased?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 02:17:03 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...


You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection.  So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

I take it you're referring to "known [Catholic] biased sources"?  If so, are you implying that any known or unknown Orthodox sources are *not* biased?
The szlachta were not Orthodox, the Orthodox szlach having been all but eliminated, the scions of the Ostrogski, for instance, defiling the memory of their fathers by submitting to the Vatican, and dying out.  Lew Sapieha had apostacized many times over before he submitted to enforcing the Vatican's "union of brest."
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 26, 2012, 02:55:16 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Of course not, but a "history" written by, or encouraged by patrons of, Governor William Bradford is surely going to contain a different 'history' than one commissioned by say, Squanto.

Our Christian heroes who led the expulsion of the Moors from the European continent are surely not written up as heroes by the scribes of Damascus, are they?

I really think that all you you engaging in this endless back and forth know that and you are NEVER going to convince the other that you are right and they are wrong.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Schultz on April 26, 2012, 03:04:39 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Of course not, but a "history" written by, or encouraged by patrons of, Governor William Bradford is surely going to contain a different 'history' than one commissioned by say, Squanto.

Our Christian heroes who led the expulsion of the Moors from the European continent are surely not written up as heroes by the scribes of Damascus, are they?

I really think that all you you engaging in this endless back and forth know that and you are NEVER going to convince the other that you are right and they are wrong.

Of course not.  It's all triumphalism and pride and ego wrapped up in hubris and "good intentions."  Threads like this, full of vainglory and adults acting like crossword kindergartners ("Are so!"), are one of the reasons I burned out as a mod. 
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 03:08:03 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...


You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection.  So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

I take it you're referring to "known [Catholic] biased sources"?  If so, are you implying that any known or unknown Orthodox sources are *not* biased?
The szlachta were not Orthodox, the Orthodox szlach having been all but eliminated, the scions of the Ostrogski, for instance, defiling the memory of their fathers by submitting to the Vatican, and dying out.  Lew Sapieha had apostacized many times over before he submitted to enforcing the Vatican's "union of brest."

 ??? ???

Did that answer my questions?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 26, 2012, 03:41:29 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?

Of course not, but a "history" written by, or encouraged by patrons of, Governor William Bradford is surely going to contain a different 'history' than one commissioned by say, Squanto.

Our Christian heroes who led the expulsion of the Moors from the European continent are surely not written up as heroes by the scribes of Damascus, are they?

I really think that all you you engaging in this endless back and forth know that and you are NEVER going to convince the other that you are right and they are wrong.



I didn't mean to challenge you so doggedly just to be mean.  I do think this clarification is helpful.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 07:17:42 PM
There may be some merit in Peter's comparison although it is probable St. Josaphat had different powers of persuasion available to him in his era than did St. Alexis. After all, we were still burning witches in  Massachusetts Bay Colony in the late 1600's. I try not to be a revisionist so I try to view historical figures not by our modern standards of conduct but rather in the context of their own times.

The St. Josaphat thread is like trying to argue history based on myth or ideology with a true believer - whether an Orthodox believer's one or a Polish Catholic's one.

We Yanks obviously view the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation from a different point of view than do say the descendants of the Native Americans who were displaced by the English. Bloody Sunday has a far different meaning to lives in being residing in the historical boundaries of the UK depending upon one's national perspective.

Honestly, I don't see any real purpose from this thread, other than to increase passions and fuel anger.


Are you suggesting that we cannot really have a documented history that extends back past the early 1700's let's say?
Sure we can: history can document propoganda back millenia.

That's what I thought.

So all that's really being said here is that if the documents are Orthodox Catholic then they are true and if they are Papal Catholic then they are false...

I got that...


You would do better to get the alleged documents (IIRC, you claimed to have seen them once) and produce them for inspection.  So far, we have basically been told to take known biased sources at their word.

I take it you're referring to "known [Catholic] biased sources"?  If so, are you implying that any known or unknown Orthodox sources are *not* biased?
The szlachta were not Orthodox, the Orthodox szlach having been all but eliminated, the scions of the Ostrogski, for instance, defiling the memory of their fathers by submitting to the Vatican, and dying out.  Lew Sapieha had apostacized many times over before he submitted to enforcing the Vatican's "union of brest."

 ??? ???

Did that answer my questions?
I took the bull by the horn and brought up the non-Orthodox sources not biased, at least not in favor of the Orthodox.

So far the sources offered are the general, hagiographical fluff. So far, I haven't seen any hatchet jobs offered against him, just what his contemporaries had to say.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 26, 2012, 07:57:15 PM
So, no one has a problem with killing a man without trial, because you heard some rumors about him?

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

Again, Jesus forgave the people who crucified him.

Who are we if we do less?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 26, 2012, 08:09:07 PM
So, no one has a problem with killing a man without trial, because you heard some rumors about him?

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

Again, Jesus forgave the people who crucified him.

Who are we if we do less?

Bears repeating...
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 26, 2012, 08:13:45 PM
Thank you.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 08:33:24 PM
So, no one has a problem with killing a man without trial, because you heard some rumors about him?

Huh?  ???
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 10:25:35 PM
So, no one has a problem with killing a man without trial, because you heard some rumors about him?
no one who heard some rumors killed him.  He was killed by those who knew his oppression first hand.

Whom did St. Mark kill?  After all, that was the point of the OP, a comparison between the saint and the inquisitor of Brest.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
No, but here are some pages to be on:

The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine By Serhii Plokhy
http://books.google.com/books?id=NCzzxNisc1MC&pg=PA92&dq=Kuntsevych&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m9-ZT5iKJ4HC6AGAgfHJBg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevych&f=false

On a different page-because it deals with the opposition to the Pole promoted hagiagraphy on Kuntsevych-see here, on Kuntsevych's "canonization":
Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine: The Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka
http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=Kuntsevych&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m9-ZT5iKJ4HC6AGAgfHJBg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevych&f=false

Morality and Reality: The Life and Times of Andrei Sheptyts'kyi By Paul R. Magocsi
http://books.google.com/books?id=TmXYeKOISCoC&pg=PA211&dq=Kuntsevych&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XfOZT8alJYz46QGw5vmCBw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevych&f=false

Ukrainians in Canada: The Formative Period, 1891-1924  By Orest T. Martynowych
http://books.google.com/books?id=71Wnflm9lYgC&pg=PA501&dq=Kuntsevych&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XfOZT8alJYz46QGw5vmCBw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevych&f=false
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.
The Ostrogskis and other Ruthenian nobles had the right parents.  They disgraced their memory by turning their backs of the Faith of their Fathers and picking the wrong faith.

Again, Jesus forgave the people who crucified him.

Who are we if we do less?
The right parents.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 27, 2012, 07:25:52 AM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 10:56:16 AM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 11:49:34 AM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 12:20:09 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 12:32:36 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 12:44:13 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.

Yup.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 01:33:38 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.

Yup.
Quote
The Dictates of the Pope
1.That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2.That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3.That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
4.That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5.That the pope may depose the absent.
6.That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7.That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8.That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9.That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10.That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11.That this is the only name in the world.
12.That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13.That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14.That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15.That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16.That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17.That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18.That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19.That he himself may be judged by no one.
20.That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21.That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22.That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23.That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24.That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25.That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26.That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27.That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp
Quote
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/B8-unam.asp
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/PopeKissing_Feet.JPG)
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 01:39:04 PM
Thank you for posting the notes above al Misry!!

These are the very things that the First Vatican Council set out to limit. 

Now we know that papal power and authority does not take the place of the ordinary power of the episcopate.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 01:46:02 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.

Wow - of course the east has much to account for that. Duh. >:(

But - as Roman Catholics, if you really want to maintain a shred of credibility here or in the real world for that matter- and you are pushing my buttons so I can not imagine what you are doing to others here - you should look in the mirror.

For example I suppose you never heard of say Roderic Llançol i de Borja (Pope Alexander II) or  Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (Pope Leo X) and their little ventures into the secular realms and their connivance and duplicitous dealings with the Kings of England, France and Spain - just to name a few - and the Borja Pope's dealings with the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II and his brother and rival to the throne Cem?

How about Cardinal Wolsey, Henry VIII and Pope Julius? That political gig by Wolsey as Lord Chancellor of England for King Henry didn't really work out so well for the Catholic Church did it?

Heck, we could start a whole new thread about how 'my church screwed around with politics in a crappier way than did yours' - wow that would be revealing - at least by providing fuel for the unbelievers who would dance around our ridiculous vanities.

I deleted the last line of my prior post for it ventured astray into contemporary politics. But suffice it to say the allure of intermingling the Church with the sullied hands of crass politicians is as tempting to the USCCB as ever it was to the most scheming of medieval princes of the Church - and likely to end in just as calamitous way, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:49:27 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 01:51:27 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

I hope they remember the old adage, that if you sleep with dogs, you will get fleas. Also, that put not your trust in princes is still good advice.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 27, 2012, 01:52:10 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.

Wow - of course the east has much to account for that. Duh. >:(

But - as Roman Catholics, if you really want to maintain a shred of credibility here or in the real world for that matter- and you are pushing my buttons so I can not imagine what you are doing to others here - you should look in the mirror.

For example I suppose you never heard of say Roderic Llançol i de Borja (Pope Alexander II) or  Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (Pope Leo X) and their little ventures into the secular realms and their connivance and duplicitous dealings with the Kings of England, France and Spain - just to name a few - and the Borja Pope's dealings with the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II and his brother and rival to the throne Cem?

How about Cardinal Wolsey, Henry VIII and Pope Julius? That political gig by Wolsey as Lord Chancellor of England for King Henry didn't really work out so well for the Catholic Church did it?

Heck, we could start a whole new thread about how 'my church screwed around with politics in a crappier way than did yours' - wow that would be revealing - at least by providing fuel for the unbelievers who would dance around our ridiculous vanities.

I deleted the last line of my prior post for it ventured astray into contemporary politics. But suffice it to say the allure of intermingling the Church with the sullied hands of crass politicians is as tempting to the USCCB as ever it was to the most scheming of medieval princes of the Church - and likely to end in just as calamitous way, in my opinion.

Uh, yes, some of us do like to read. It's not necessary to patronize people.

One of many reasons you people on this board have convinced me that many things I've done and hoped over the past few years have been completely wrong. Including, supporting the continued discussion between our two churches.

Just shut the door. There's nothing to see. Hundreds of years ago, a dire mistake was made- and no one seems to care.

Let the dead bury their dead.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 02:03:02 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.

Wow - of course the east has much to account for that. Duh. >:(

But - as Roman Catholics, if you really want to maintain a shred of credibility here or in the real world for that matter- and you are pushing my buttons so I can not imagine what you are doing to others here - you should look in the mirror.

For example I suppose you never heard of say Roderic Llançol i de Borja (Pope Alexander II) or  Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (Pope Leo X) and their little ventures into the secular realms and their connivance and duplicitous dealings with the Kings of England, France and Spain - just to name a few - and the Borja Pope's dealings with the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II and his brother and rival to the throne Cem?

How about Cardinal Wolsey, Henry VIII and Pope Julius? That political gig by Wolsey as Lord Chancellor of England for King Henry didn't really work out so well for the Catholic Church did it?

Heck, we could start a whole new thread about how 'my church screwed around with politics in a crappier way than did yours' - wow that would be revealing - at least by providing fuel for the unbelievers who would dance around our ridiculous vanities.

I deleted the last line of my prior post for it ventured astray into contemporary politics. But suffice it to say the allure of intermingling the Church with the sullied hands of crass politicians is as tempting to the USCCB as ever it was to the most scheming of medieval princes of the Church - and likely to end in just as calamitous way, in my opinion.

So, perhaps we can *all* agree that *both* Churches have an inglorious history throughout history of mixing politics with religion and one isn't necessarily "better" than the other when it comes to that.  And perhaps we can just leave it at that.

A sin is, after all, a sin.  Counting the sins of another is nonsensical and prideful.  Starting a p___ing contest about how bad or sinful the other is serves no useful purpose whatsoever.  It only encourages the rampant triumphalism and pride that a few here so love to wallow in.  Remember the saying about eyes, and planks, and splinters from Scripture?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 02:09:14 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

I hope they remember the old adage, that if you sleep with dogs, you will get fleas. Also, that put not your trust in princes is still good advice.

It is.  And it cuts both ways.  This is highly unlike you, podkarpatska, to write as though you were someone else. 
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 02:10:16 PM
Thank you for posting the notes above al Misry!!

These are the very things that the First Vatican Council set out to limit.
Then why didn't it?

Now we know that papal power and authority does not take the place of the ordinary power of the episcopate.
your Met. Sheptytsky found out otherwise when he presumed to try to exercise that ordinary power of the Ruthenian episcopate.  Papal power and authority rapped him across his fingers so hard that it cut them off, so he could not reach outside of Galicia.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 02:47:56 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.

Wow - of course the east has much to account for that. Duh. >:(

But - as Roman Catholics, if you really want to maintain a shred of credibility here or in the real world for that matter- and you are pushing my buttons so I can not imagine what you are doing to others here - you should look in the mirror.

For example I suppose you never heard of say Roderic Llançol i de Borja (Pope Alexander II) or  Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (Pope Leo X) and their little ventures into the secular realms and their connivance and duplicitous dealings with the Kings of England, France and Spain - just to name a few - and the Borja Pope's dealings with the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II and his brother and rival to the throne Cem?

How about Cardinal Wolsey, Henry VIII and Pope Julius? That political gig by Wolsey as Lord Chancellor of England for King Henry didn't really work out so well for the Catholic Church did it?

Heck, we could start a whole new thread about how 'my church screwed around with politics in a crappier way than did yours' - wow that would be revealing - at least by providing fuel for the unbelievers who would dance around our ridiculous vanities.

I deleted the last line of my prior post for it ventured astray into contemporary politics. But suffice it to say the allure of intermingling the Church with the sullied hands of crass politicians is as tempting to the USCCB as ever it was to the most scheming of medieval princes of the Church - and likely to end in just as calamitous way, in my opinion.

Uh, yes, some of us do like to read. It's not necessary to patronize people.

One of many reasons you people on this board have convinced me that many things I've done and hoped over the past few years have been completely wrong. Including, supporting the continued discussion between our two churches.

Just shut the door. There's nothing to see. Hundreds of years ago, a dire mistake was made- and no one seems to care.

Let the dead bury their dead.

Ohhhhnononono....Don't go down that road.  Don't ever quit once your shoulder is to the plow.

Danger that way lurks!!

Who luvs ya kiddo!!

M.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 02:49:04 PM
Thank you for posting the notes above al Misry!!

These are the very things that the First Vatican Council set out to limit.
Then why didn't it?

Now we know that papal power and authority does not take the place of the ordinary power of the episcopate.
your Met. Sheptytsky found out otherwise when he presumed to try to exercise that ordinary power of the Ruthenian episcopate.  Papal power and authority rapped him across his fingers so hard that it cut them off, so he could not reach outside of Galicia.

Ahhh the sweet breath of forgiveness...

I keep forgetting that Orthodoxy is unblemished.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2012, 02:49:19 PM
Thank you for posting the notes above al Misry!!

These are the very things that the First Vatican Council set out to limit. 

Now we know that papal power and authority does not take the place of the ordinary power of the episcopate.

No, it supersedes it.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2012, 02:50:31 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 02:54:43 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 02:59:05 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?
not at the dictates of a foreign bishop it doesn't.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 03:00:52 PM
Thank you for posting the notes above al Misry!!

These are the very things that the First Vatican Council set out to limit.
Then why didn't it?

Now we know that papal power and authority does not take the place of the ordinary power of the episcopate.
your Met. Sheptytsky found out otherwise when he presumed to try to exercise that ordinary power of the Ruthenian episcopate.  Papal power and authority rapped him across his fingers so hard that it cut them off, so he could not reach outside of Galicia.

Ahhh the sweet breath of forgiveness...

I keep forgetting that Orthodoxy is unblemished.
Then remind yourself.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 03:03:13 PM
If the truth of the faith hinges on yet another of the endless interreligious and interethnic squabbles in Poland, which are in turn byproducts of the endless mess between Poland and Russia, then it becomes a faith that's like the Mandaeans- you're born into it, or you're outside it forever. Good luck to you if you didn't happen to pick the right parents.

What Russia? Russia hadn't been involved with that case until about 30 years after Kuncewicz' death.
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Always the problem, particularly in the west, when the clergy get intoxicated by their relationships with secular rulers.

Sounds to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  :laugh:
A big 'ol black pot calling a little grey kettle, black.

Wow - of course the east has much to account for that. Duh. >:(

But - as Roman Catholics, if you really want to maintain a shred of credibility here or in the real world for that matter- and you are pushing my buttons so I can not imagine what you are doing to others here - you should look in the mirror.

For example I suppose you never heard of say Roderic Llançol i de Borja (Pope Alexander II) or  Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (Pope Leo X) and their little ventures into the secular realms and their connivance and duplicitous dealings with the Kings of England, France and Spain - just to name a few - and the Borja Pope's dealings with the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II and his brother and rival to the throne Cem?

How about Cardinal Wolsey, Henry VIII and Pope Julius? That political gig by Wolsey as Lord Chancellor of England for King Henry didn't really work out so well for the Catholic Church did it?

Heck, we could start a whole new thread about how 'my church screwed around with politics in a crappier way than did yours' - wow that would be revealing - at least by providing fuel for the unbelievers who would dance around our ridiculous vanities.

I deleted the last line of my prior post for it ventured astray into contemporary politics. But suffice it to say the allure of intermingling the Church with the sullied hands of crass politicians is as tempting to the USCCB as ever it was to the most scheming of medieval princes of the Church - and likely to end in just as calamitous way, in my opinion.

Uh, yes, some of us do like to read. It's not necessary to patronize people.

One of many reasons you people on this board have convinced me that many things I've done and hoped over the past few years have been completely wrong. Including, supporting the continued discussion between our two churches.

Just shut the door. There's nothing to see. Hundreds of years ago, a dire mistake was made- and no one seems to care.

Let the dead bury their dead.

Ohhhhnononono....Don't go down that road.  Don't ever quit once your shoulder is to the plow.

Danger that way lurks!!

Who luvs ya kiddo!!

M.

To which I concur, you can't let our little discussion get to you. No one would ever graduate law school or seminary if they did!
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 03:08:20 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?
not at the dictates of a foreign bishop it doesn't.

That wasn't my question.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2012, 03:09:50 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 03:20:56 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 03:23:42 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.
He doesn't want to answer the question because it would undermine his argument. He'd rather take pot-shots at "The Vatican".
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 03:30:07 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.
He doesn't want to answer the question because it would undermine his argument. He'd rather take pot-shots at "The Vatican".

He's not Isa's twin, is he?  ;D
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 03:31:14 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.
having nothing to do with Shangiaski's point.

Papist claimed that the USCCB has the responsibility of submitting their flock to the dictates of a bishop not in it.  No, no Orthodox Church teaches that.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 03:32:08 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.
He doesn't want to answer the question because it would undermine his argument. He'd rather take pot-shots at "The Vatican".
no pot shots.  Just shooting the serpent in the head.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 03:42:12 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.
He doesn't want to answer the question because it would undermine his argument. He'd rather take pot-shots at "The Vatican".
no pot shots.  Just shooting the serpent in the head.

Papist said, "USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."

I asked of Shanghaiski, "Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

And the answer is.........?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 03:42:25 PM

no pot shots.  Just shooting the serpent in the head.

IF that is really your target, I suggest you turn the gun around.

 ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 27, 2012, 03:56:27 PM
Again, I fail to see how a tiny city-state with maybe a few hundred elderly priests and bishops and nuns in it strikes such terror around the world. There are cities with police departments dozens of times that size.

 ???

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2012, 04:04:52 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 04:07:35 PM

no pot shots.  Just shooting the serpent in the head.

IF that is really your target, I suggest you turn the gun around.

 ;) ;) ;)
why? is the Inquisition sneeking up on me?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Again, I fail to see how a tiny city-state with maybe a few hundred elderly priests and bishops and nuns in it strikes such terror around the world. There are cities with police departments dozens of times that size.

 ???




LOL. It's not the tiny city state.


Did the tiny city state launch umpteen Crusades? No. However, it did wield significant power over many other large states with large armies, absolving these soldiers from sins if they killed in the name of the papacy's agenda. Contrariwise, this little old man (or sometimes young man) at the head of this little city state absolved people of oaths (a power not given to any bishop by the holy canons or God himself), fomenting revolution, regicide, and ecclesiastical supremacy over the state.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 04:09:37 PM
Again, I fail to see how a tiny city-state with maybe a few hundred elderly priests and bishops and nuns in it strikes such terror around the world. There are cities with police departments dozens of times that size.

 ???


so you agree with Stalin on how many divisions the pope in the Vatican has.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 04:11:29 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.
He doesn't want to answer the question because it would undermine his argument. He'd rather take pot-shots at "The Vatican".
no pot shots.  Just shooting the serpent in the head.

Papist said, "USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."

I asked of Shanghaiski, "Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

And the answer is.........?
...yes, and it doesn't include submission to the dictates of a foreign bishop.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 04:14:56 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 04:17:45 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.
He doesn't want to answer the question because it would undermine his argument. He'd rather take pot-shots at "The Vatican".
no pot shots.  Just shooting the serpent in the head.

Papist said, "USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."

I asked of Shanghaiski, "Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

And the answer is.........?
...yes, and it doesn't include submission to the dictates of a foreign bishop.

Thank you!!  See, that wasn't so painful now, was it  ;D :laugh:?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 27, 2012, 04:18:07 PM
All bishops are foreign to someone, somewhere. Unless we all live in the same country.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2012, 04:27:04 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 04:46:03 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?

Really??  Oy vey.

Alright....

"po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Better now?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2012, 04:56:04 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?

Really??  Oy vey.

Alright....

"po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Better now?

No. That doesn't help at all.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 05:02:12 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?

Really??  Oy vey.

Alright....

"po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Better now?

No. That doesn't help at all.

Somehow I thought it wouldn't.

Never mind.  I'm done playing your game. 
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2012, 05:27:41 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?

Really??  Oy vey.

Alright....

"po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Better now?

No. That doesn't help at all.

Somehow I thought it wouldn't.

Never mind.  I'm done playing your game. 

I wasn't playing a game, merely trying to get at specifics. Oh well.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: biro on April 27, 2012, 06:38:37 PM
Again, I fail to see how a tiny city-state with maybe a few hundred elderly priests and bishops and nuns in it strikes such terror around the world. There are cities with police departments dozens of times that size.

 ???




LOL. It's not the tiny city state.


Did the tiny city state launch umpteen Crusades? No. However, it did wield significant power over many other large states with large armies, absolving these soldiers from sins if they killed in the name of the papacy's agenda. Contrariwise, this little old man (or sometimes young man) at the head of this little city state absolved people of oaths (a power not given to any bishop by the holy canons or God himself), fomenting revolution, regicide, and ecclesiastical supremacy over the state.

Hundreds of years ago.

I've yet to meet an Orthodox who didn't think the entire world was still stuck in the Middle Ages.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 06:54:59 PM
Again, I fail to see how a tiny city-state with maybe a few hundred elderly priests and bishops and nuns in it strikes such terror around the world. There are cities with police departments dozens of times that size.

 ???




LOL. It's not the tiny city state.


Did the tiny city state launch umpteen Crusades? No. However, it did wield significant power over many other large states with large armies, absolving these soldiers from sins if they killed in the name of the papacy's agenda. Contrariwise, this little old man (or sometimes young man) at the head of this little city state absolved people of oaths (a power not given to any bishop by the holy canons or God himself), fomenting revolution, regicide, and ecclesiastical supremacy over the state.

Hundreds of years ago.

I've yet to meet an Orthodox who didn't think the entire world was still stuck in the Middle Ages.

Never forgive, never forget, never apologize, never let anyone know you've changed....

I get disgusted till I remember they do worse to one another.

M.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 07:01:42 PM

I wasn't playing a game, merely trying to get at specifics. Oh well.

We could get too far into politics with this question if we go into too much detail.  There was a time indeed where the Catholic Church did see the Christian material world as secondary to the heart of the Christian spiritual world, and subject to the moral laws of the Church...and that got messy.

But even today the Vatican has a role to play in international affairs.  We'd have more to say had our bishops not been so wishy-washy on one hand and just damned venal on the other...nonetheless the Vatican still has influence in the world.

Quite frankly I think that is a good thing...better thing if we put our moral capital where our moral mouth is...
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 07:58:40 PM
Again, I fail to see how a tiny city-state with maybe a few hundred elderly priests and bishops and nuns in it strikes such terror around the world. There are cities with police departments dozens of times that size.

 ???




LOL. It's not the tiny city state.


Did the tiny city state launch umpteen Crusades? No. However, it did wield significant power over many other large states with large armies, absolving these soldiers from sins if they killed in the name of the papacy's agenda. Contrariwise, this little old man (or sometimes young man) at the head of this little city state absolved people of oaths (a power not given to any bishop by the holy canons or God himself), fomenting revolution, regicide, and ecclesiastical supremacy over the state.

Hundreds of years ago.

I've yet to meet an Orthodox who didn't think the entire world was still stuck in the Middle Ages.
Your Latin patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, established in the Middle Ages, were still around at Vatican II, when you evidently think your ecclesiastical community's history begins.

Look a few years back, rather than centuries:
(http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/naziq.jpg)
http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?m=201012
Quote
29 December 2010 | 10:21 | Source: Tanjug ZAGREB — A memorial service was held at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Zagreb on Tuesday evening for Ante Pavelić.

The service also mentioned Jure Francetić, commander of the Ustasha Crna Legija (Black Legion).

The service was held by priests Vjekoslav Lasić and Stanislav Kos, who in referred to Pavelić as a respectable man who made sacrifices for all of Croatia.

Lasić, famous for his pro-Ustasha attitude and Pavelić-inspired sermons, called on the attendees to pray not only for Pavelić but also for Francetić, who, according to him, gave his life for Croatia.

Regardless of public criticism, Lasić has never been penalized by the Catholic Church nor by the state of Croatia, whose constitution emphasizes anti-fascist ideology.

Pavelić was at the helm of the WW2 puppet-Nazi Independent State of Croatia (NDH), whose Ustasha regime operated death camps where Serbs, Jews and Roma were imprisoned and murdered, including sites of mass slaughter such as the Jasenovac concentration camp.
Here is Pavelic a few decades, not centuries, earlier:
(http://www.think-israel.org/jan11pix/pavelic.and.church.leaders.jpg)
He's on the left. On the right is this guy
(http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/pope1.jpg)
in the shrine. Who is that kneeling before him on the left?

(http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4724/convertrussia30daysmarc.jpg)
The date on that is 1990.

This was the Orthodox Cathedral of Warsaw.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LaBnKY3Tl98/TBjPRS8Vs3I/AAAAAAAADak/zqiC_a-r8-c/s320/1-aaaRuined_nevsky_cathedralwarsaw.jpg)
The Bolsheviks didn't do that.  Nor the Nazis.  The Polish government which had signed its concordat with the Vatican did that.  Less than a hundred years ago, it looked like this:
(http://i9.fastpic.ru/big/2010/0819/75/5b47ed8196e133014600d7c34dadd975.jpg)
Not even a hundred years ago, let alone hundreds.  The matushka of my old Church used to tell us how the Polish police (she grew up in interwar Poland) would drag the priests out from the altars on Pascha to make them dance with bears in full vestments.  She passed away (memory eternal!) around 1990.  Not hundreds of years old.

Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.  No thank you.  Once was a enough.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 08:09:03 PM

I wasn't playing a game, merely trying to get at specifics. Oh well.

We could get too far into politics with this question if we go into too much detail.  There was a time indeed where the Catholic Church did see the Christian material world as secondary to the heart of the Christian spiritual world, and subject to the moral laws of the Church...and that got messy.

But even today the Vatican has a role to play in international affairs.  We'd have more to say had our bishops not been so wishy-washy on one hand and just damned venal on the other...nonetheless the Vatican still has influence in the world.

Quite frankly I think that is a good thing...better thing if we put our moral capital where our moral mouth is...
(http://blog.gaycatholicpriests.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Cardinal-Law1.jpg)
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 08:23:25 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?

Really??  Oy vey.

Alright....

"po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Better now?

No. That doesn't help at all.

Somehow I thought it wouldn't.

Never mind.  I'm done playing your game. 

I wasn't playing a game, merely trying to get at specifics. Oh well.

Okay, since you say you weren't playing a game, I'll take you at your word.  But let me re-word the question to hopefully avoid confusion and the need for potentially confusing and digressing "specifics".

Here it is:
Does your Church through your bishop or synod teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives?

Hope that works better  ;).

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 08:38:51 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?

Really??  Oy vey.

Alright....

"po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Better now?

No. That doesn't help at all.

Somehow I thought it wouldn't.

Never mind.  I'm done playing your game. 

I wasn't playing a game, merely trying to get at specifics. Oh well.

Okay, since you say you weren't playing a game, I'll take you at your word.  But let me re-word the question to hopefully avoid confusion and the need for potentially confusing and digressing "specifics".

Here it is:
Does your Church through your bishop or synod teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives?

Hope that works better  ;).
so you are admiting they you hold that Unam Sanctam is ex cathedra, and therefore "declare, proclaim, define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 09:06:14 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?

Really??  Oy vey.

Alright....

"po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Better now?

No. That doesn't help at all.

Somehow I thought it wouldn't.

Never mind.  I'm done playing your game. 

I wasn't playing a game, merely trying to get at specifics. Oh well.

Okay, since you say you weren't playing a game, I'll take you at your word.  But let me re-word the question to hopefully avoid confusion and the need for potentially confusing and digressing "specifics".

Here it is:
Does your Church through your bishop or synod teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives?

Hope that works better  ;).
so you are admiting they you hold that Unam Sanctam is ex cathedra, and therefore "declare, proclaim, define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Who said anything about that?  From my recollection, it was me asking a question.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 10:05:05 PM


Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.  No thank you.  Once was a enough.

All you've learned from history is to patch it together to suit yourself.

As I said the modern motto of your ilk al Misry: never forgive, never forget, never apologize and if it's your guys that do it, excuse them or shove them in the closet...quick!!
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 10:45:37 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

 ???  Seemed pretty simple to me.  I mean, either your Church does "teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political", or it doesn't.  How is that not simple or straightforward?



No, because you have not established what is meant by "political." What do you mean? How can I begin to answer without knowing the context and meaning?

Really??  Oy vey.

Alright....

"po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

Better now?

No. That doesn't help at all.

Somehow I thought it wouldn't.

Never mind.  I'm done playing your game. 

I wasn't playing a game, merely trying to get at specifics. Oh well.

Okay, since you say you weren't playing a game, I'll take you at your word.  But let me re-word the question to hopefully avoid confusion and the need for potentially confusing and digressing "specifics".

Here it is:
Does your Church through your bishop or synod teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives?

Hope that works better  ;).
so you are admiting they you hold that Unam Sanctam is ex cathedra, and therefore "declare, proclaim, define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Who said anything about that?  From my recollection, it was me asking a question.
and you were answered.  Many times over, and fully.  Fuller than you wanted it seems.  Do not ask questions you do not want answered.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 10:48:35 PM


Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.  No thank you.  Once was a enough.

All you've learned from history is to patch it together to suit yourself.

Learned that when the guilty say "I never did that" or "that was a long time ago, get over it!" they mean "give me the opportunity, and I will do it again."

As I said the modern motto of your ilk al Misry: never forgive, never forget, never apologize and if it's your guys that do it, excuse them or shove them in the closet...quick!!
when and if your ilk repent of and give up their antics, we can talk about the issue of forgiveness.  Until then, we are keeping the powder dry.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2012, 10:49:42 PM
USCCB has the responsibility to teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political.

In the fine tradition of supremacy.

Does your Church through your bishop or synod not "...teach the entire faith and inform the faithful that our faith must affect every aspect of our lives, including the political."?

I can't think of any Orthodox holy synod that has absolved people from oaths sworn to a monarch or duties to a state or called for the assassination of heads of state.

Sheesh!

That wasn't my question, either.  I think the answer would be a simple yes or no, so why add in all the extra nonsense?  I mean, it's a pretty simple, straightforward question, after all.

I did not find the question either simple or straightforward.

That's ... odd, I suppose would be the word.

From reading your previous couple posts (and reading between the lines) I thought you weren't answering b/c you thought J Michael already knew the answer to his question. I guess that goes to show that I should never think I understand this forum. :)  :-[
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Again, I fail to see how a tiny city-state with maybe a few hundred elderly priests and bishops and nuns in it strikes such terror around the world. There are cities with police departments dozens of times that size.

 ???




LOL. It's not the tiny city state.


Did the tiny city state launch umpteen Crusades?

Trick question! There was no tiny city state back then. :wag finger:
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 11:31:39 PM
I have thought about what I am about to post, I put off saying it for some time but I am going to say it anyway.

Think about what is going on here. This has gone beyond a disagreement about one or another historical act or whether this act or that act was 'representative' of the other's faith.

I have tried to state my disagreements over the years with Roman teaching in a reasoned, dispassionate manner, without resorting to the sort of childish nonsense that this thread has devolved into - and frankly, which every thread on this sub-forum always seems to degenerate into. While not always successful, I do try to disagree without resorting to be disagreeable, but for many of you online that simple task -which I am sure your mother told you to do as children - seems impossible.

If this were a courtroom, no judge would tolerate behavior by counsel which would go on and on like here.

I know I am 'lecturing' and that many of you will no doubt object. Too bad, the behavior here is un-Christian, preposterous, indefensible and does a disservice to the Saints that each of you purport to honor in your own way. You are playing the devil's hand - not that of God. No wonder the Theotokas' tears are manifest in so many churches in our time.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Cavaradossi on April 28, 2012, 03:24:55 AM
Again, I fail to see how a tiny city-state with maybe a few hundred elderly priests and bishops and nuns in it strikes such terror around the world. There are cities with police departments dozens of times that size.

 ???




LOL. It's not the tiny city state.


Did the tiny city state launch umpteen Crusades?

Trick question! There was no tiny city state back then. :wag finger:

Yes, it was more Papal and less city at one point in time, I should suppose. Modern popes are really missing out on getting to wield that sword of temporal power these days. I hear that it's still kept somewhere hidden in the Vatican. :laugh:
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: mike on April 28, 2012, 05:46:54 AM
Russia is always involved as the scapegoat as to the failure of Brest.  Look at the assumption of the Vatican, the Polish government and Latin hierarchy, and the UGCC that the Orthodox Ukrainians etc. would rush to the Vatican at the fall of the Romanovs.  The dismal failure of Poland's Revindication Campaigns, the "Neo-Union" and Card. d'Herbigny etc. took them by complete surprise.

Russian involvement in the religious situation in Rzeczpospolita started with Brest.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 28, 2012, 11:44:29 AM
I have thought about what I am about to post, I put off saying it for some time but I am going to say it anyway.

Think about what is going on here. This has gone beyond a disagreement about one or another historical act or whether this act or that act was 'representative' of the other's faith.

I have tried to state my disagreements over the years with Roman teaching in a reasoned, dispassionate manner, without resorting to the sort of childish nonsense that this thread has devolved into - and frankly, which every thread on this sub-forum always seems to degenerate into. While not always successful, I do try to disagree without resorting to be disagreeable, but for many of you online that simple task -which I am sure your mother told you to do as children - seems impossible.

If this were a courtroom, no judge would tolerate behavior by counsel which would go on and on like here.

I know I am 'lecturing' and that many of you will no doubt object. Too bad, the behavior here is un-Christian, preposterous, indefensible and does a disservice to the Saints that each of you purport to honor in your own way. You are playing the devil's hand - not that of God. No wonder the Theotokas' tears are manifest in so many churches in our time.



Back atcha!!  Talk to al Mis[e]ry. 

There are no grounds for communion here.

Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 28, 2012, 12:05:20 PM
I have thought about what I am about to post, I put off saying it for some time but I am going to say it anyway.

Think about what is going on here. This has gone beyond a disagreement about one or another historical act or whether this act or that act was 'representative' of the other's faith.

I have tried to state my disagreements over the years with Roman teaching in a reasoned, dispassionate manner, without resorting to the sort of childish nonsense that this thread has devolved into - and frankly, which every thread on this sub-forum always seems to degenerate into. While not always successful, I do try to disagree without resorting to be disagreeable, but for many of you online that simple task -which I am sure your mother told you to do as children - seems impossible.

If this were a courtroom, no judge would tolerate behavior by counsel which would go on and on like here.

I know I am 'lecturing' and that many of you will no doubt object. Too bad, the behavior here is un-Christian, preposterous, indefensible and does a disservice to the Saints that each of you purport to honor in your own way. You are playing the devil's hand - not that of God. No wonder the Theotokas' tears are manifest in so many churches in our time.



Back atcha!!  Talk to al Mis[e]ry. 

There are no grounds for communion here.

Could you elaborate on that last part?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 28, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
I have thought about what I am about to post, I put off saying it for some time but I am going to say it anyway.

Think about what is going on here. This has gone beyond a disagreement about one or another historical act or whether this act or that act was 'representative' of the other's faith.

I have tried to state my disagreements over the years with Roman teaching in a reasoned, dispassionate manner, without resorting to the sort of childish nonsense that this thread has devolved into - and frankly, which every thread on this sub-forum always seems to degenerate into. While not always successful, I do try to disagree without resorting to be disagreeable, but for many of you online that simple task -which I am sure your mother told you to do as children - seems impossible.

If this were a courtroom, no judge would tolerate behavior by counsel which would go on and on like here.

I know I am 'lecturing' and that many of you will no doubt object. Too bad, the behavior here is un-Christian, preposterous, indefensible and does a disservice to the Saints that each of you purport to honor in your own way. You are playing the devil's hand - not that of God. No wonder the Theotokas' tears are manifest in so many churches in our time.



Back atcha!!  Talk to al Mis[e]ry.  

There are no grounds for communion here.



I wanted to share something that influenced me greatly as a child.

I remember when I was a boy in the early 1960's, some twenty-five years or so after the bitter, internecine struggles within the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church which led to the schism resulting in today's BCC and the ACROD, hearing a sermon during what we used to call a Lenten Mission, when a visiting elderly priest from a neighboring parish of our Diocese would come, help with confessions and preach.

Exactly what he said is probably lost to the mists of time, but I recall the heart and soul of his sermon and the passion with which he delivered it. He was referring to the residual bitterness, jealousy and name-calling which at that time had formed a part of neighborhood life as the families and friends - many separated by the choices they made during those times - still carried the scars of fear, anger and to some - even hatred from that division.

There had recently been something of a 'scandal' if you would, in the neighborhood as two former friends 'got into it' coming home from work at the camera plant down the road after 'lifting' more than a few 'boilermakers.' They caused quite a commotion, swearing, calling each other names like 'tselibat', 'katzap', 'rimsky' or 'shismatic' and so on. Finally they had to be taken home by the paddy wagon to dry out and calm down. It was the talk of the old neighborhood - one in which everyone was a Slav and was either affiliated with the Metropolia parish, the BCC parish, the ACROD parish, the UOC parish, the UGCC parish, the Slovak Lutheran Church or the Slovak Catholic Church and for the most part, related by blood to probably every other person living there.

This continuing bickering greatly troubled my dad, then a middle-aged priest as it distracted from the real business of the Church. He confided his concerns with the old priest - a man who was ordained Greek Catholic in Europe many years prior, but who joined the Orthodox Church as a young man during the struggles. The old man agreed to speak of these things that evening at the Lenten service.

He reflected on how he, as an old man, looked back at those times  a quarter century beforehand, and he was certain that he made the proper choice in life by joining the Orthodox.

Yet he couldn't help but wonder, especially during the penitential season of the Great Lent as we sat in our respective neighboring churches, sang the same hymns contemplating the sorrow of the Mother of God and the agony of Christ's crucifixion,and prepared in the same traditional way for the coming Great Day - the Pascha - how the Mother of God viewed our earthly behavior and our continued rancor and ill-will.

He turned to Luke, 6:42, chuckling as he noted that Scripture wasn't just something our Protestant friends memorized. He read Our Lord's words of admonition in a stern, but kindly voice: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." "

In order for us to get past the hurt of the past, he went on to say, we had to look inwardly - into the darkness of our own inner fears and cleanse our own self of our own bitterness and acknowledge that while we could be certain we made the right choice to be where we found ourselves that we had to recognize that we, the Orthodox, were not without sin, that we had not purged the evils of jealousy, fear and anger from our hearts and that our brothers and sisters next door were trying their best to do what we were doing - seeking salvation and God's eternal reward.

It hit home a few years later when my father's 'Teta' passed away - his father's sister, who along with her other sisters remained Greek Catholic in 1937 when my grandfather took his family and founded the ACROD parish in their hometown. For over thirty years we didn't speak with 'that' side of the family. 'They' missed my parent's wedding, the birth of their children and the death of one in a tragic accident - despite this, my grandfather refused to go to the funeral home or the funeral. My dad always thought that some year things would be patched up, that there would be another Christmas or Easter to get together and forgive each other for any harm or hurt our mutual behaviors may have caused each other. But, the sad reality was that was not to be.

Over the years I developed a 'zero' tolerance for extreme behavior which is retained only because that's that way it was.

Frankly, I am not directing my comments here to the posters who have in the past and no doubt in the future will continue their eternal game of 'gotcha'. I confess that when I get angered or upset, I too, readily have joined in the fray.

However, I really hope that others of you, who may casually stumble across this thread or ones like it, might realize that most of us - be we Orthodox or be we Catholic - have no illusions about life, about reality and about divisions and that the comments which frequently populate the internet are not really a window into our respective souls, our respective Churches or the God, in whose service we share.

In the end, I still think that most of know that at the very essence of any problem like that confronting the Church and her divided state - any solution has to begin within one's own heart and soul.

dd

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!


Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 29, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
I have thought about what I am about to post, I put off saying it for some time but I am going to say it anyway.

Think about what is going on here. This has gone beyond a disagreement about one or another historical act or whether this act or that act was 'representative' of the other's faith.

I have tried to state my disagreements over the years with Roman teaching in a reasoned, dispassionate manner, without resorting to the sort of childish nonsense that this thread has devolved into - and frankly, which every thread on this sub-forum always seems to degenerate into. While not always successful, I do try to disagree without resorting to be disagreeable, but for many of you online that simple task -which I am sure your mother told you to do as children - seems impossible.

If this were a courtroom, no judge would tolerate behavior by counsel which would go on and on like here.

I know I am 'lecturing' and that many of you will no doubt object. Too bad, the behavior here is un-Christian, preposterous, indefensible and does a disservice to the Saints that each of you purport to honor in your own way. You are playing the devil's hand - not that of God. No wonder the Theotokas' tears are manifest in so many churches in our time.



Back atcha!!  Talk to al Mis[e]ry.  

There are no grounds for communion here.



I wanted to share something that influenced me greatly as a child.

I remember when I was a boy in the early 1960's, some twenty-five years or so after the bitter, internecine struggles within the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church which led to the schism resulting in today's BCC and the ACROD, hearing a sermon during what we used to call a Lenten Mission, when a visiting elderly priest from a neighboring parish of our Diocese would come, help with confessions and preach.

Exactly what he said is probably lost to the mists of time, but I recall the heart and soul of his sermon and the passion with which he delivered it. He was referring to the residual bitterness, jealousy and name-calling which at that time had formed a part of neighborhood life as the families and friends - many separated by the choices they made during those times - still carried the scars of fear, anger and to some - even hatred from that division.

There had recently been something of a 'scandal' if you would, in the neighborhood as two former friends 'got into it' coming home from work at the camera plant down the road after 'lifting' more than a few 'boilermakers.' They caused quite a commotion, swearing, calling each other names like 'tselibat', 'katzap', 'rimsky' or 'shismatic' and so on. Finally they had to be taken home by the paddy wagon to dry out and calm down. It was the talk of the old neighborhood - one in which everyone was a Slav and was either affiliated with the Metropolia parish, the BCC parish, the ACROD parish, the UOC parish, the UGCC parish, the Slovak Lutheran Church or the Slovak Catholic Church and for the most part, related by blood to probably every other person living there.

This continuing bickering greatly troubled my dad, then a middle-aged priest as it distracted from the real business of the Church. He confided his concerns with the old priest - a man who was ordained Greek Catholic in Europe many years prior, but who joined the Orthodox Church as a young man during the struggles. The old man agreed to speak of these things that evening at the Lenten service.

He reflected on how he, as an old man, looked back at those times  a quarter century beforehand, and he was certain that he made the proper choice in life by joining the Orthodox.

Yet he couldn't help but wonder, especially during the penitential season of the Great Lent as we sat in our respective neighboring churches, sang the same hymns contemplating the sorrow of the Mother of God and the agony of Christ's crucifixion,and prepared in the same traditional way for the coming Great Day - the Pascha - how the Mother of God viewed our earthly behavior and our continued rancor and ill-will.

He turned to Luke, 6:42, chuckling as he noted that Scripture wasn't just something our Protestant friends memorized. He read Our Lord's words of admonition in a stern, but kindly voice: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." "

In order for us to get past the hurt of the past, he went on to say, we had to look inwardly - into the darkness of our own inner fears and cleanse our own self of our own bitterness and acknowledge that while we could be certain we made the right choice to be where we found ourselves that we had to recognize that we, the Orthodox, were not without sin, that we had not purged the evils of jealousy, fear and anger from our hearts and that our brothers and sisters next door were trying their best to do what we were doing - seeking salvation and God's eternal reward.

It hit home a few years later when my father's 'Teta' passed away - his father's sister, who along with her other sisters remained Greek Catholic in 1937 when my grandfather took his family and founded the ACROD parish in their hometown. For over thirty years we didn't speak with 'that' side of the family. 'They' missed my parent's wedding, the birth of their children and the death of one in a tragic accident - despite this, my grandfather refused to go to the funeral home or the funeral. My dad always thought that some year things would be patched up, that there would be another Christmas or Easter to get together and forgive each other for any harm or hurt our mutual behaviors may have caused each other. But, the sad reality was that was not to be.

Over the years I developed a 'zero' tolerance for extreme behavior which is retained only because that's that way it was.

Frankly, I am not directing my comments here to the posters who have in the past and no doubt in the future will continue their eternal game of 'gotcha'. I confess that when I get angered or upset, I too, readily have joined in the fray.

However, I really hope that others of you, who may casually stumble across this thread or ones like it, might realize that most of us - be we Orthodox or be we Catholic - have no illusions about life, about reality and about divisions and that the comments which frequently populate the internet are not really a window into our respective souls, our respective Churches or the God, in whose service we share.

In the end, I still think that most of know that at the very essence of any problem like that confronting the Church and her divided state - any solution has to begin within one's own heart and soul.

dd

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!




Amen!
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2012, 02:07:33 PM

I wanted to share something that influenced me greatly as a child.

I remember when I was a boy in the early 1960's, some twenty-five years or so after the bitter, internecine struggles within the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church which led to the schism resulting in today's BCC and the ACROD, hearing a sermon during what we used to call a Lenten Mission, when a visiting elderly priest from a neighboring parish of our Diocese would come, help with confessions and preach.

Exactly what he said is probably lost to the mists of time, but I recall the heart and soul of his sermon and the passion with which he delivered it. He was referring to the residual bitterness, jealousy and name-calling which at that time had formed a part of neighborhood life as the families and friends - many separated by the choices they made during those times - still carried the scars of fear, anger and to some - even hatred from that division.

There had recently been something of a 'scandal' if you would, in the neighborhood as two former friends 'got into it' coming home from work at the camera plant down the road after 'lifting' more than a few 'boilermakers.' They caused quite a commotion, swearing, calling each other names like 'tselibat', 'katzap', 'rimsky' or 'shismatic' and so on. Finally they had to be taken home by the paddy wagon to dry out and calm down. It was the talk of the old neighborhood - one in which everyone was a Slav and was either affiliated with the Metropolia parish, the BCC parish, the ACROD parish, the UOC parish, the UGCC parish, the Slovak Lutheran Church or the Slovak Catholic Church and for the most part, related by blood to probably every other person living there.

This continuing bickering greatly troubled my dad, then a middle-aged priest as it distracted from the real business of the Church. He confided his concerns with the old priest - a man who was ordained Greek Catholic in Europe many years prior, but who joined the Orthodox Church as a young man during the struggles. The old man agreed to speak of these things that evening at the Lenten service.

He reflected on how he, as an old man, looked back at those times  a quarter century beforehand, and he was certain that he made the proper choice in life by joining the Orthodox.

Yet he couldn't help but wonder, especially during the penitential season of the Great Lent as we sat in our respective neighboring churches, sang the same hymns contemplating the sorrow of the Mother of God and the agony of Christ's crucifixion,and prepared in the same traditional way for the coming Great Day - the Pascha - how the Mother of God viewed our earthly behavior and our continued rancor and ill-will.

He turned to Luke, 6:42, chuckling as he noted that Scripture wasn't just something our Protestant friends memorized. He read Our Lord's words of admonition in a stern, but kindly voice: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." "

In order for us to get past the hurt of the past, he went on to say, we had to look inwardly - into the darkness of our own inner fears and cleanse our own self of our own bitterness and acknowledge that while we could be certain we made the right choice to be where we found ourselves that we had to recognize that we, the Orthodox, were not without sin, that we had not purged the evils of jealousy, fear and anger from our hearts and that our brothers and sisters next door were trying their best to do what we were doing - seeking salvation and God's eternal reward.

It hit home a few years later when my father's 'Teta' passed away - his father's sister, who along with her other sisters remained Greek Catholic in 1937 when my grandfather took his family and founded the ACROD parish in their hometown. For over thirty years we didn't speak with 'that' side of the family. 'They' missed my parent's wedding, the birth of their children and the death of one in a tragic accident - despite this, my grandfather refused to go to the funeral home or the funeral. My dad always thought that some year things would be patched up, that there would be another Christmas or Easter to get together and forgive each other for any harm or hurt our mutual behaviors may have caused each other. But, the sad reality was that was not to be.

Over the years I developed a 'zero' tolerance for extreme behavior which is retained only because that's that way it was.

Frankly, I am not directing my comments here to the posters who have in the past and no doubt in the future will continue their eternal game of 'gotcha'. I confess that when I get angered or upset, I too, readily have joined in the fray.

However, I really hope that others of you, who may casually stumble across this thread or ones like it, might realize that most of us - be we Orthodox or be we Catholic - have no illusions about life, about reality and about divisions and that the comments which frequently populate the internet are not really a window into our respective souls, our respective Churches or the God, in whose service we share.

In the end, I still think that most of know that at the very essence of any problem like that confronting the Church and her divided state - any solution has to begin within one's own heart and soul.

dd

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!


Common ground must be accepted as common...This is a moving testimony, and I admit to being moved by it, but it is not the way to renewed communion.

You still need to spend time talking to people like al Misry, where rejection is cold and unforgiving and constant.  I do not think all of Orthodox believers are as rigid.  Thank God.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: J Michael on April 29, 2012, 02:51:33 PM

I wanted to share something that influenced me greatly as a child.

I remember when I was a boy in the early 1960's, some twenty-five years or so after the bitter, internecine struggles within the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church which led to the schism resulting in today's BCC and the ACROD, hearing a sermon during what we used to call a Lenten Mission, when a visiting elderly priest from a neighboring parish of our Diocese would come, help with confessions and preach.

Exactly what he said is probably lost to the mists of time, but I recall the heart and soul of his sermon and the passion with which he delivered it. He was referring to the residual bitterness, jealousy and name-calling which at that time had formed a part of neighborhood life as the families and friends - many separated by the choices they made during those times - still carried the scars of fear, anger and to some - even hatred from that division.

There had recently been something of a 'scandal' if you would, in the neighborhood as two former friends 'got into it' coming home from work at the camera plant down the road after 'lifting' more than a few 'boilermakers.' They caused quite a commotion, swearing, calling each other names like 'tselibat', 'katzap', 'rimsky' or 'shismatic' and so on. Finally they had to be taken home by the paddy wagon to dry out and calm down. It was the talk of the old neighborhood - one in which everyone was a Slav and was either affiliated with the Metropolia parish, the BCC parish, the ACROD parish, the UOC parish, the UGCC parish, the Slovak Lutheran Church or the Slovak Catholic Church and for the most part, related by blood to probably every other person living there.

This continuing bickering greatly troubled my dad, then a middle-aged priest as it distracted from the real business of the Church. He confided his concerns with the old priest - a man who was ordained Greek Catholic in Europe many years prior, but who joined the Orthodox Church as a young man during the struggles. The old man agreed to speak of these things that evening at the Lenten service.

He reflected on how he, as an old man, looked back at those times  a quarter century beforehand, and he was certain that he made the proper choice in life by joining the Orthodox.

Yet he couldn't help but wonder, especially during the penitential season of the Great Lent as we sat in our respective neighboring churches, sang the same hymns contemplating the sorrow of the Mother of God and the agony of Christ's crucifixion,and prepared in the same traditional way for the coming Great Day - the Pascha - how the Mother of God viewed our earthly behavior and our continued rancor and ill-will.

He turned to Luke, 6:42, chuckling as he noted that Scripture wasn't just something our Protestant friends memorized. He read Our Lord's words of admonition in a stern, but kindly voice: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." "

In order for us to get past the hurt of the past, he went on to say, we had to look inwardly - into the darkness of our own inner fears and cleanse our own self of our own bitterness and acknowledge that while we could be certain we made the right choice to be where we found ourselves that we had to recognize that we, the Orthodox, were not without sin, that we had not purged the evils of jealousy, fear and anger from our hearts and that our brothers and sisters next door were trying their best to do what we were doing - seeking salvation and God's eternal reward.

It hit home a few years later when my father's 'Teta' passed away - his father's sister, who along with her other sisters remained Greek Catholic in 1937 when my grandfather took his family and founded the ACROD parish in their hometown. For over thirty years we didn't speak with 'that' side of the family. 'They' missed my parent's wedding, the birth of their children and the death of one in a tragic accident - despite this, my grandfather refused to go to the funeral home or the funeral. My dad always thought that some year things would be patched up, that there would be another Christmas or Easter to get together and forgive each other for any harm or hurt our mutual behaviors may have caused each other. But, the sad reality was that was not to be.

Over the years I developed a 'zero' tolerance for extreme behavior which is retained only because that's that way it was.

Frankly, I am not directing my comments here to the posters who have in the past and no doubt in the future will continue their eternal game of 'gotcha'. I confess that when I get angered or upset, I too, readily have joined in the fray.

However, I really hope that others of you, who may casually stumble across this thread or ones like it, might realize that most of us - be we Orthodox or be we Catholic - have no illusions about life, about reality and about divisions and that the comments which frequently populate the internet are not really a window into our respective souls, our respective Churches or the God, in whose service we share.

In the end, I still think that most of know that at the very essence of any problem like that confronting the Church and her divided state - any solution has to begin within one's own heart and soul.

dd

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!


Common ground must be accepted as common...This is a moving testimony, and I admit to being moved by it, but it is not the way to renewed communion.

You still need to spend time talking to people like al Misry, where rejection is cold and unforgiving and constant.  I do not think all of Orthodox believers are as rigid.  Thank God.

And pray for the softening of hardened hearts.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: Peter J on April 29, 2012, 03:06:03 PM
You still need to spend time talking to people like al Misry, where rejection is cold and unforgiving and constant.

This statement reminds me of certain dismissive "digs" that Orthodox posters have made about us Catholics, e.g. "Peter is completely wrong and typifies the usual Latin understanding of the Eastern Catholics". Perhaps we should be turning-the-other-cheek?
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 29, 2012, 03:08:53 PM

I wanted to share something that influenced me greatly as a child.

I remember when I was a boy in the early 1960's, some twenty-five years or so after the bitter, internecine struggles within the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church which led to the schism resulting in today's BCC and the ACROD, hearing a sermon during what we used to call a Lenten Mission, when a visiting elderly priest from a neighboring parish of our Diocese would come, help with confessions and preach.

Exactly what he said is probably lost to the mists of time, but I recall the heart and soul of his sermon and the passion with which he delivered it. He was referring to the residual bitterness, jealousy and name-calling which at that time had formed a part of neighborhood life as the families and friends - many separated by the choices they made during those times - still carried the scars of fear, anger and to some - even hatred from that division.

There had recently been something of a 'scandal' if you would, in the neighborhood as two former friends 'got into it' coming home from work at the camera plant down the road after 'lifting' more than a few 'boilermakers.' They caused quite a commotion, swearing, calling each other names like 'tselibat', 'katzap', 'rimsky' or 'shismatic' and so on. Finally they had to be taken home by the paddy wagon to dry out and calm down. It was the talk of the old neighborhood - one in which everyone was a Slav and was either affiliated with the Metropolia parish, the BCC parish, the ACROD parish, the UOC parish, the UGCC parish, the Slovak Lutheran Church or the Slovak Catholic Church and for the most part, related by blood to probably every other person living there.

This continuing bickering greatly troubled my dad, then a middle-aged priest as it distracted from the real business of the Church. He confided his concerns with the old priest - a man who was ordained Greek Catholic in Europe many years prior, but who joined the Orthodox Church as a young man during the struggles. The old man agreed to speak of these things that evening at the Lenten service.

He reflected on how he, as an old man, looked back at those times  a quarter century beforehand, and he was certain that he made the proper choice in life by joining the Orthodox.

Yet he couldn't help but wonder, especially during the penitential season of the Great Lent as we sat in our respective neighboring churches, sang the same hymns contemplating the sorrow of the Mother of God and the agony of Christ's crucifixion,and prepared in the same traditional way for the coming Great Day - the Pascha - how the Mother of God viewed our earthly behavior and our continued rancor and ill-will.

He turned to Luke, 6:42, chuckling as he noted that Scripture wasn't just something our Protestant friends memorized. He read Our Lord's words of admonition in a stern, but kindly voice: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." "

In order for us to get past the hurt of the past, he went on to say, we had to look inwardly - into the darkness of our own inner fears and cleanse our own self of our own bitterness and acknowledge that while we could be certain we made the right choice to be where we found ourselves that we had to recognize that we, the Orthodox, were not without sin, that we had not purged the evils of jealousy, fear and anger from our hearts and that our brothers and sisters next door were trying their best to do what we were doing - seeking salvation and God's eternal reward.

It hit home a few years later when my father's 'Teta' passed away - his father's sister, who along with her other sisters remained Greek Catholic in 1937 when my grandfather took his family and founded the ACROD parish in their hometown. For over thirty years we didn't speak with 'that' side of the family. 'They' missed my parent's wedding, the birth of their children and the death of one in a tragic accident - despite this, my grandfather refused to go to the funeral home or the funeral. My dad always thought that some year things would be patched up, that there would be another Christmas or Easter to get together and forgive each other for any harm or hurt our mutual behaviors may have caused each other. But, the sad reality was that was not to be.

Over the years I developed a 'zero' tolerance for extreme behavior which is retained only because that's that way it was.

Frankly, I am not directing my comments here to the posters who have in the past and no doubt in the future will continue their eternal game of 'gotcha'. I confess that when I get angered or upset, I too, readily have joined in the fray.

However, I really hope that others of you, who may casually stumble across this thread or ones like it, might realize that most of us - be we Orthodox or be we Catholic - have no illusions about life, about reality and about divisions and that the comments which frequently populate the internet are not really a window into our respective souls, our respective Churches or the God, in whose service we share.

In the end, I still think that most of know that at the very essence of any problem like that confronting the Church and her divided state - any solution has to begin within one's own heart and soul.

dd

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!


Common ground must be accepted as common...This is a moving testimony, and I admit to being moved by it, but it is not the way to renewed communion.

You still need to spend time talking to people like al Misry, where rejection is cold and unforgiving and constant.  I do not think all of Orthodox believers are as rigid.  Thank God.

I disagree because the path to true union must begin with self awareness and self criticism.

If our churches and their leaders truly seek unity, it may only occur with the presence of the grace of the Holy Spirit.  As Scripture and the Fathers teach us, the way into one's heart and/or soul is for one to acknowledge one's own sinful nature for unless one does so, one may not challenge the sinfulness of another. (i.e. Let he who is without sin....) If one insists on pointing out the flaws of another without proper self-awareness, any such effort is bound to break down and fail.

St. Ephraim the Syrian said it best, as we pray during the Great Fast:

"O Lord and Master of my life,
Grant not unto me a spirit of idleness,
of discouragement,
of lust for power,
and of vain speaking.

But bestow upon me, Thy servant,
the spirit of chastity,
of meekness,
of patience,
and of love.

Yea, O Lord and King,
grant that I may perceive
my own transgressions,
and judge not my brother,
for blessed art Thou
unto ages of ages.
Amen."

I don't think it is productive to point fingers or single out one poster from another.  I have made it clear that I believe there are some issues where we can not reconcile our differences -at least at the internet level -  but we should at least try to tone down the rancor and judgment we express towards each other if we are ever to at least better understand each other and accept the fact that we do stand on some common ground - unlike the unbelievers, the apostates and the unfaithful.




Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: podkarpatska on April 29, 2012, 03:14:37 PM
You still need to spend time talking to people like al Misry, where rejection is cold and unforgiving and constant.

This statement reminds me of certain dismissive "digs" that Orthodox posters have made about us Catholics, e.g. "Peter is completely wrong and typifies the usual Latin understanding of the Eastern Catholics". Perhaps we should be turning-the-other-cheek?

It is true that this is easier said than done.

Indeed, all of us are human and all of us need to get past the occasions where, in the heat of making an argument or trying to prove a point, or out of frustration,  we may have overstated our point of view or miscatagorized the opinions of others. We all are charged by our faith and we must strive to not let past offenses, perceived or otherwise - color our judgment to the extent where it may no longer fairly be offered. Sometimes in life, our opinions of strangers may be colored by the actions of real persons with whom we have interacted and whose words or actions caused real pain. It happens to us all, I am afraid.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: ialmisry on April 29, 2012, 04:47:35 PM

I wanted to share something that influenced me greatly as a child.

I remember when I was a boy in the early 1960's, some twenty-five years or so after the bitter, internecine struggles within the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church which led to the schism resulting in today's BCC and the ACROD, hearing a sermon during what we used to call a Lenten Mission, when a visiting elderly priest from a neighboring parish of our Diocese would come, help with confessions and preach.

Exactly what he said is probably lost to the mists of time, but I recall the heart and soul of his sermon and the passion with which he delivered it. He was referring to the residual bitterness, jealousy and name-calling which at that time had formed a part of neighborhood life as the families and friends - many separated by the choices they made during those times - still carried the scars of fear, anger and to some - even hatred from that division.

There had recently been something of a 'scandal' if you would, in the neighborhood as two former friends 'got into it' coming home from work at the camera plant down the road after 'lifting' more than a few 'boilermakers.' They caused quite a commotion, swearing, calling each other names like 'tselibat', 'katzap', 'rimsky' or 'shismatic' and so on. Finally they had to be taken home by the paddy wagon to dry out and calm down. It was the talk of the old neighborhood - one in which everyone was a Slav and was either affiliated with the Metropolia parish, the BCC parish, the ACROD parish, the UOC parish, the UGCC parish, the Slovak Lutheran Church or the Slovak Catholic Church and for the most part, related by blood to probably every other person living there.

This continuing bickering greatly troubled my dad, then a middle-aged priest as it distracted from the real business of the Church. He confided his concerns with the old priest - a man who was ordained Greek Catholic in Europe many years prior, but who joined the Orthodox Church as a young man during the struggles. The old man agreed to speak of these things that evening at the Lenten service.

He reflected on how he, as an old man, looked back at those times  a quarter century beforehand, and he was certain that he made the proper choice in life by joining the Orthodox.

Yet he couldn't help but wonder, especially during the penitential season of the Great Lent as we sat in our respective neighboring churches, sang the same hymns contemplating the sorrow of the Mother of God and the agony of Christ's crucifixion,and prepared in the same traditional way for the coming Great Day - the Pascha - how the Mother of God viewed our earthly behavior and our continued rancor and ill-will.

He turned to Luke, 6:42, chuckling as he noted that Scripture wasn't just something our Protestant friends memorized. He read Our Lord's words of admonition in a stern, but kindly voice: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." "

In order for us to get past the hurt of the past, he went on to say, we had to look inwardly - into the darkness of our own inner fears and cleanse our own self of our own bitterness and acknowledge that while we could be certain we made the right choice to be where we found ourselves that we had to recognize that we, the Orthodox, were not without sin, that we had not purged the evils of jealousy, fear and anger from our hearts and that our brothers and sisters next door were trying their best to do what we were doing - seeking salvation and God's eternal reward.

It hit home a few years later when my father's 'Teta' passed away - his father's sister, who along with her other sisters remained Greek Catholic in 1937 when my grandfather took his family and founded the ACROD parish in their hometown. For over thirty years we didn't speak with 'that' side of the family. 'They' missed my parent's wedding, the birth of their children and the death of one in a tragic accident - despite this, my grandfather refused to go to the funeral home or the funeral. My dad always thought that some year things would be patched up, that there would be another Christmas or Easter to get together and forgive each other for any harm or hurt our mutual behaviors may have caused each other. But, the sad reality was that was not to be.

Over the years I developed a 'zero' tolerance for extreme behavior which is retained only because that's that way it was.

Frankly, I am not directing my comments here to the posters who have in the past and no doubt in the future will continue their eternal game of 'gotcha'. I confess that when I get angered or upset, I too, readily have joined in the fray.

However, I really hope that others of you, who may casually stumble across this thread or ones like it, might realize that most of us - be we Orthodox or be we Catholic - have no illusions about life, about reality and about divisions and that the comments which frequently populate the internet are not really a window into our respective souls, our respective Churches or the God, in whose service we share.

In the end, I still think that most of know that at the very essence of any problem like that confronting the Church and her divided state - any solution has to begin within one's own heart and soul.

dd

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!


Common ground must be accepted as common...This is a moving testimony, and I admit to being moved by it, but it is not the way to renewed communion.

You still need to spend time talking to people like al Misry, where rejection is cold and unforgiving and constant.  I do not think all of Orthodox believers are as rigid.  Thank God.

And pray for the softening of hardened hearts.
and the stiffening of spines.
Title: Re: Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2012, 05:00:55 PM

I wanted to share something that influenced me greatly as a child.

I remember when I was a boy in the early 1960's, some twenty-five years or so after the bitter, internecine struggles within the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church which led to the schism resulting in today's BCC and the ACROD, hearing a sermon during what we used to call a Lenten Mission, when a visiting elderly priest from a neighboring parish of our Diocese would come, help with confessions and preach.

Exactly what he said is probably lost to the mists of time, but I recall the heart and soul of his sermon and the passion with which he delivered it. He was referring to the residual bitterness, jealousy and name-calling which at that time had formed a part of neighborhood life as the families and friends - many separated by the choices they made during those times - still carried the scars of fear, anger and to some - even hatred from that division.

There had recently been something of a 'scandal' if you would, in the neighborhood as two former friends 'got into it' coming home from work at the camera plant down the road after 'lifting' more than a few 'boilermakers.' They caused quite a commotion, swearing, calling each other names like 'tselibat', 'katzap', 'rimsky' or 'shismatic' and so on. Finally they had to be taken home by the paddy wagon to dry out and calm down. It was the talk of the old neighborhood - one in which everyone was a Slav and was either affiliated with the Metropolia parish, the BCC parish, the ACROD parish, the UOC parish, the UGCC parish, the Slovak Lutheran Church or the Slovak Catholic Church and for the most part, related by blood to probably every other person living there.

This continuing bickering greatly troubled my dad, then a middle-aged priest as it distracted from the real business of the Church. He confided his concerns with the old priest - a man who was ordained Greek Catholic in Europe many years prior, but who joined the Orthodox Church as a young man during the struggles. The old man agreed to speak of these things that evening at the Lenten service.

He reflected on how he, as an old man, looked back at those times  a quarter century beforehand, and he was certain that he made the proper choice in life by joining the Orthodox.

Yet he couldn't help but wonder, especially during the penitential season of the Great Lent as we sat in our respective neighboring churches, sang the same hymns contemplating the sorrow of the Mother of God and the agony of Christ's crucifixion,and prepared in the same traditional way for the coming Great Day - the Pascha - how the Mother of God viewed our earthly behavior and our continued rancor and ill-will.

He turned to Luke, 6:42, chuckling as he noted that Scripture wasn't just something our Protestant friends memorized. He read Our Lord's words of admonition in a stern, but kindly voice: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." "

In order for us to get past the hurt of the past, he went on to say, we had to look inwardly - into the darkness of our own inner fears and cleanse our own self of our own bitterness and acknowledge that while we could be certain we made the right choice to be where we found ourselves that we had to recognize that we, the Orthodox, were not without sin, that we had not purged the evils of jealousy, fear and anger from our hearts and that our brothers and sisters next door were trying their best to do what we were doing - seeking salvation and God's eternal reward.

It hit home a few years later when my father's 'Teta' passed away - his father's sister, who along with her other sisters remained Greek Catholic in 1937 when my grandfather took his family and founded the ACROD parish in their hometown. For over thirty years we didn't speak with 'that' side of the family. 'They' missed my parent's wedding, the birth of their children and the death of one in a tragic accident - despite this, my grandfather refused to go to the funeral home or the funeral. My dad always thought that some year things would be patched up, that there would be another Christmas or Easter to get together and forgive each other for any harm or hurt our mutual behaviors may have caused each other. But, the sad reality was that was not to be.

Over the years I developed a 'zero' tolerance for extreme behavior which is retained only because that's that way it was.

Frankly, I am not directing my comments here to the posters who have in the past and no doubt in the future will continue their eternal game of 'gotcha'. I confess that when I get angered or upset, I too, readily have joined in the fray.

However, I really hope that others of you, who may casually stumble across this thread or ones like it, might realize that most of us - be we Orthodox or be we Catholic - have no illusions about life, about reality and about divisions and that the comments which frequently populate the internet are not really a window into our respective souls, our respective Churches or the God, in whose service we share.

In the end, I still think that most of know that at the very essence of any problem like that confronting the Church and her divided state - any solution has to begin within one's own heart and soul.

dd

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!


Common ground must be accepted as common...This is a moving testimony, and I admit to being moved by it, but it is not the way to renewed communion.

You still need to spend time talking to people like al Misry, where rejection is cold and unforgiving and constant.  I do not think all of Orthodox believers are as rigid.  Thank God.

I disagree because the path to true union must begin with self awareness and self criticism.

If our churches and their leaders truly seek unity, it may only occur with the presence of the grace of the Holy Spirit.  As Scripture and the Fathers teach us, the way into one's heart and/or soul is for one to acknowledge one's own sinful nature for unless one does so, one may not challenge the sinfulness of another. (i.e. Let he who is without sin....) If one insists on pointing out the flaws of another without proper self-awareness, any such effort is bound to break down and fail.

St. Ephraim the Syrian said it best, as we pray during the Great Fast:

"O Lord and Master of my life,
Grant not unto me a spirit of idleness,
of discouragement,
of lust for power,
and of vain speaking.

But bestow upon me, Thy servant,
the spirit of chastity,
of meekness,
of patience,
and of love.

Yea, O Lord and King,
grant that I may perceive
my own transgressions,
and judge not my brother,
for blessed art Thou
unto ages of ages.
Amen."

I don't think it is productive to point fingers or single out one poster from another.  I have made it clear that I believe there are some issues where we can not reconcile our differences -at least at the internet level -  but we should at least try to tone down the rancor and judgment we express towards each other if we are ever to at least better understand each other and accept the fact that we do stand on some common ground - unlike the unbelievers, the apostates and the unfaithful.


Shall we suggest to the administration of this forum that they go from light moderation to no moderation at all in the spirit of St. Ephraim?

I do not disagree with you.  I simply understand that it is never that simple.  My suggestion, as far as I am concerned, stands.