OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 05:55:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 91 
 on: Today at 12:19:06 PM 
Started by Minnesotan - Last post by The young fogey
I agree that it was probably a gradual estrangement, and this may seem to you like mere historical quibbling, but did an Orthodox emissary place a formal notice of excommunication on the altar at St. Peter's in Rome, and did the Latin deacons run after him, begging him to take it back? Or vice versa? Who left whom, exactly?

I think the consensus on both sides now is this only affected the individuals involved, not the churches, which was how it was seen at the time, too, and anyway Humbert no longer had the authority to do it, I think because the Pope who sent him had died.

Likewise the symbolic lifting of the excommunications in 1965 was only symbolic (some Catholics think we're back together!) because the excommunications were of individuals (and no longer apply when you're dead) and didn't affect the churches; again if you want a cutoff year, it's when the Russians officially said no to Ferrara-Florence, in the 1400s.

 92 
 on: Today at 12:14:53 PM 
Started by Minnesotan - Last post by ialmisry
As a new Catholic 30 years ago  I had this conversation with a seminarian, a relatively older gentleman with a theological background (Assemblies of God to Episcopal monk and seminarian to Catholic postulant in a religious order): I thought the "Uniates" were the natural bridge for dialogue with the Orthodox, the perfect Catholic "interface" with you guys, and he set me straight right quick. "Oh, they HATE the Uniates! They think they're turncoats." So it would be with a Uniate Pope. Some Orthodox would love it. Some would hate it. So no net difference in our relations.

Mr. Podkarpatska, observing his own background (Greek Catholic in Slovakia), noted that Orthodox, and Roman Rite Catholics, who KNOW the Uniates personally don't hate them. Roman Rite Slovaks knew and thus understood his grandparents; the Roman Riters DIDN'T understand them in America, which caused splits to Orthodoxy. Most Greeks and Russians have never met a Uniate, thus...

I still say the Greek Catholics deserve a place at the table of ecumenical dialogue. The Russians still use them as an excuse not to talk, or for the patriarch not to meet the Pope, but that's a whole other can of worms, as Mr. Podkarpatska agrees: under the Soviets they committed crimes against the Ukrainian Catholics, stealing their churches and otherwise persecuting them, setting back Catholic/Orthodox relations (the Ukrainian Catholics I knew 30 years ago wanted nothing to do with you), yet the Russians claim they're victims because when Communism fell, the Ukrainian Catholics resurfaced and took their parishes back. But Rome-educated Greek Catholic clergy*, steeped in Orthodox tradition and theology, are a good "interface" to talk to the Orthodox, better than a Roman Riter who doesn't understand you, plus, as their existence as churches is part of what's being debated, they deserve a say!

*The most "Orthodox" Greek Catholic priests I've met were trained literally in the city of Rome.
We don't "hate" Eastern Catholics. A lot of us like them, and they often have a good understanding of Orthodoxy. It's just that they were converted to Catholicism by Poland from Orthodoxy, perhaps sometimes forcibly. It might be like having Janissaries running the Turkish Muslim side of interfaith dialogue between Greeks and Muslim Turks. Or like Ex-Catholic converts to Protestantism carrying out interfaith dialogue with Catholics.

Do you see what I mean?

Sounds like you like them because in person you know them.
Many of us do.

The Poles didn't directly force the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Orthodox to convert.

Pope St. Meletios I Pegas of Alexandria announced the nullity of the pseudo-council of Brest, as locum tenes of the EP and hence the highest authority in the Church of Kiev at the time-and having served in the Metropolitinate in Lithuania and Poland, as well as Ukraine.  That didn't stop the Vatican's minions from persecuting the Orthodox, who, both in the 17th and 18th centuries, called on the Czar to move west to defend the Orthodox and Orthodoxy.  You seem to approve of that persecution-beheading Orthodox archimandrites, hunting down Orthodox bishops, taking their parishes and giving them to the Vatican's control etc. to the point of denying it happened.
Actually they didn't care. They were ethnocentric bad guys in this story who did persecute those peoples, so those people tried to get relief by becoming Catholic, which didn't work; the Poles still hated them because they're not Polish. The Rusyn Greek Catholic mountaineers in Poland fought a guerrilla war against the Communists and lost; the Poles with gusto ethnically cleansed their part of the Carpathian Mountains, giving Rusyn Greek Catholic churches to the Roman Riters, just like the Soviets and the Russian Orthodox did to the Ukrainian Catholics.

I see what you mean.

Quote
Bring them all in?  Huh   When did we leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?  Huh

Yes, "bring them all in."

The Sunday-school answer as most here know is "1054!" but it's really more complicated. We would say it was a gradual estrangement in the Middle Ages. The Russians were in communion with Rome after 1054, which is why the moving of St. Nicholas' body to Bari is on their calendar and not the Greeks'; it happened after. If you wanted to pick a cutoff year, you could say when the Russians officially repudiated the Council of Ferrara-Florence, as the Greeks did in 1484.
hardly. The Metropolitan of Kiev John II wrote to Pope Clement of Old Rome in 1080 denouncing the Vatican's errors.
http://books.google.com/books?id=X8F9EghcuD8C&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=epistle+of+Metropolitan+of+Kiev+to+antipope&source=bl&ots=cBR5IVJ1gw&sig=RF3pWKk-oys1trMKJeI0NHhXZqc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_QIbVOqcGMSPyASTt4LYCw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=epistle%20of%20Metropolitan%20of%20Kiev%20to%20antipope&f=false
That was 7 years before the Translation, which happened when Met. John II still ruled as bishop in Kiev.

 93 
 on: Today at 12:14:06 PM 
Started by Minnesotan - Last post by katherineofdixie
I agree that it was probably a gradual estrangement, and this may seem to you like mere historical quibbling, but did an Orthodox emissary place a formal notice of excommunication on the altar at St. Peter's in Rome, and did the Latin deacons run after him, begging him to take it back? Or vice versa? Who left whom, exactly?

 94 
 on: Today at 12:13:35 PM 
Started by MarianCatholic - Last post by Mor Ephrem
Off topic, this is sad. I wonder what the Orthodox rate is?



Where's Raylight?  IIRC, he's our point man for that stuff. 

 95 
 on: Today at 12:11:33 PM 
Started by Minnesotan - Last post by The young fogey
As a new Catholic 30 years ago  I had this conversation with a seminarian, a relatively older gentleman with a theological background (Assemblies of God to Episcopal monk and seminarian to Catholic postulant in a religious order): I thought the "Uniates" were the natural bridge for dialogue with the Orthodox, the perfect Catholic "interface" with you guys, and he set me straight right quick. "Oh, they HATE the Uniates! They think they're turncoats." So it would be with a Uniate Pope. Some Orthodox would love it. Some would hate it. So no net difference in our relations.

Mr. Podkarpatska, observing his own background (Greek Catholic in Slovakia), noted that Orthodox, and Roman Rite Catholics, who KNOW the Uniates personally don't hate them. Roman Rite Slovaks knew and thus understood his grandparents; the Roman Riters DIDN'T understand them in America, which caused splits to Orthodoxy. Most Greeks and Russians have never met a Uniate, thus...

I still say the Greek Catholics deserve a place at the table of ecumenical dialogue. The Russians still use them as an excuse not to talk, or for the patriarch not to meet the Pope, but that's a whole other can of worms, as Mr. Podkarpatska agrees: under the Soviets they committed crimes against the Ukrainian Catholics, stealing their churches and otherwise persecuting them, setting back Catholic/Orthodox relations (the Ukrainian Catholics I knew 30 years ago wanted nothing to do with you), yet the Russians claim they're victims because when Communism fell, the Ukrainian Catholics resurfaced and took their parishes back. But Rome-educated Greek Catholic clergy*, steeped in Orthodox tradition and theology, are a good "interface" to talk to the Orthodox, better than a Roman Riter who doesn't understand you, plus, as their existence as churches is part of what's being debated, they deserve a say!

*The most "Orthodox" Greek Catholic priests I've met were trained literally in the city of Rome.
We don't "hate" Eastern Catholics. A lot of us like them, and they often have a good understanding of Orthodoxy. It's just that they were converted to Catholicism by Poland from Orthodoxy, perhaps sometimes forcibly. It might be like having Janissaries running the Turkish Muslim side of interfaith dialogue between Greeks and Muslim Turks. Or like Ex-Catholic converts to Protestantism carrying out interfaith dialogue with Catholics.

Do you see what I mean?

Sounds like you like them because in person you know them.

The Poles didn't directly force the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Orthodox to convert. Actually they didn't care. They were ethnocentric bad guys in this story who did persecute those peoples, so those people tried to get relief by becoming Catholic, which didn't work; the Poles still hated them because they're not Polish. The Rusyn Greek Catholic mountaineers in Poland fought a guerrilla war against the Communists and lost; the Poles with gusto ethnically cleansed their part of the Carpathian Mountains, giving Rusyn Greek Catholic churches to the Roman Riters, just like the Soviets and the Russian Orthodox did to the Ukrainian Catholics.

I see what you mean.

Quote
Bring them all in?  Huh   When did we leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?  Huh

Yes, "bring them all in."

The Sunday-school answer as most here know is "1054!" but it's really more complicated. We would say it was a gradual estrangement in the Middle Ages. The Russians were in communion with Rome after 1054, which is why the moving of St. Nicholas' body to Bari is on their calendar and not the Greeks'; it happened after. If you wanted to pick a cutoff year, you could say when the Russians officially repudiated the Council of Ferrara-Florence, as the Greeks did in 1484.

I'm not quite sure I got the answer to my " When did the Orthodox Church leave the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church? " And if you are sticking with your above statement, you are concluding from this that we are NOT the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church by your reasoning?   I'm sure that all the Orthodox on this forum will be pleased to know this....  ( We know our history and we know it's complicated )

I am a Roman Catholic.

 96 
 on: Today at 12:09:00 PM 
Started by Minnesotan - Last post by JoeS2
As a new Catholic 30 years ago  I had this conversation with a seminarian, a relatively older gentleman with a theological background (Assemblies of God to Episcopal monk and seminarian to Catholic postulant in a religious order): I thought the "Uniates" were the natural bridge for dialogue with the Orthodox, the perfect Catholic "interface" with you guys, and he set me straight right quick. "Oh, they HATE the Uniates! They think they're turncoats." So it would be with a Uniate Pope. Some Orthodox would love it. Some would hate it. So no net difference in our relations.

Mr. Podkarpatska, observing his own background (Greek Catholic in Slovakia), noted that Orthodox, and Roman Rite Catholics, who KNOW the Uniates personally don't hate them. Roman Rite Slovaks knew and thus understood his grandparents; the Roman Riters DIDN'T understand them in America, which caused splits to Orthodoxy. Most Greeks and Russians have never met a Uniate, thus...

I still say the Greek Catholics deserve a place at the table of ecumenical dialogue. The Russians still use them as an excuse not to talk, or for the patriarch not to meet the Pope, but that's a whole other can of worms, as Mr. Podkarpatska agrees: under the Soviets they committed crimes against the Ukrainian Catholics, stealing their churches and otherwise persecuting them, setting back Catholic/Orthodox relations (the Ukrainian Catholics I knew 30 years ago wanted nothing to do with you), yet the Russians claim they're victims because when Communism fell, the Ukrainian Catholics resurfaced and took their parishes back. But Rome-educated Greek Catholic clergy*, steeped in Orthodox tradition and theology, are a good "interface" to talk to the Orthodox, better than a Roman Riter who doesn't understand you, plus, as their existence as churches is part of what's being debated, they deserve a say!

*The most "Orthodox" Greek Catholic priests I've met were trained literally in the city of Rome.
We don't "hate" Eastern Catholics. A lot of us like them, and they often have a good understanding of Orthodoxy. It's just that they were converted to Catholicism by Poland from Orthodoxy, perhaps sometimes forcibly. It might be like having Janissaries running the Turkish Muslim side of interfaith dialogue between Greeks and Muslim Turks. Or like Ex-Catholic converts to Protestantism carrying out interfaith dialogue with Catholics.

Do you see what I mean?

Sounds like you like them because in person you know them.

The Poles didn't directly force the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Orthodox to convert. Actually they didn't care. They were ethnocentric bad guys in this story who did persecute those peoples, so those people tried to get relief by becoming Catholic, which didn't work; the Poles still hated them because they're not Polish. The Rusyn Greek Catholic mountaineers in Poland fought a guerrilla war against the Communists and lost; the Poles with gusto ethnically cleansed their part of the Carpathian Mountains, giving Rusyn Greek Catholic churches to the Roman Riters, just like the Soviets and the Russian Orthodox did to the Ukrainian Catholics.

I see what you mean.

Quote
Bring them all in?  Huh   When did we leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?  Huh

Yes, "bring them all in."

The Sunday-school answer as most here know is "1054!" but it's really more complicated. We would say it was a gradual estrangement in the Middle Ages. The Russians were in communion with Rome after 1054, which is why the moving of St. Nicholas' body to Bari is on their calendar and not the Greeks'; it happened after. If you wanted to pick a cutoff year, you could say when the Russians officially repudiated the Council of Ferrara-Florence, as the Greeks did in 1484.

I'm not quite sure I got the answer to my " When did the Orthodox Church leave the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church? " And if you are sticking with you above statement you are concluding from this is that we are NOT the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church by your reasoning?   Im sure that all the Orthodox on this forum will be pleased to know this....  ( We know our history and we know its complicated )

 97 
 on: Today at 12:05:22 PM 
Started by wainscottbl - Last post by Mor Ephrem
So...didn't Christ say something about not seeking after the high seats of honor?

No one said he "sought it." 

Maybe every Pope should resign immediately after being elected so as not to make anyone think he is seeking "high seats of honor," at least according to your interpretation of what Christ said.

Or they should decline when the newly-elected is asked to accept his election and become the Pope.

 98 
 on: Today at 12:04:09 PM 
Started by SolEX01 - Last post by Justin Kolodziej
I like Delaware.

Despite the presence of sometimes irritating in-laws  Tongue

Anyway, I wonder how much that is per casino? I only actually know of a couple in Delaware.
I spent a few weeks with a friend you loves to gamble (I get no thrill out of it, even when I win) in Delaware.  I think I must have been to all of them in the state, but telling, we went to the one in south Philly more often.
Turns out there's only 3 anyway  Cheesy
I think there's an evil vibe to them though, to be perfectly honest.

 99 
 on: Today at 12:01:20 PM 
Started by Minnesotan - Last post by Anna.T
I would also say that if you have not yet attended any services, the thing that ought to be highest on your list is to get to Church. You need to experience the liturgy, and find yourself in the community. Hopefully the Church there has a good community to be involved with. Every one I've seen has had, though I've heard a few people say that some Churches do lack that.

But Orthodoxy isn't something you primarily get through theology, or ideas, or history, etc. It's certainly a great starting point - it is how I came to become interested. But I'd extend Katherine's analogy (which is a good one) to say that being an inquirer who has not yet been to Church is more like browsing ads for mail-order brides - a far cry even from dating.

The distance - I understand you want it to be closer. But for the US, you have no idea how blessed you are to have many parishes within 10 miles! I travel almost an hour on the interstate to get to Church however many times I go in a week, and for the part of the country I am in, I'm even fortunate. Another lady I know in Florida must travel about 2-1/2 hours, so she has to go stay overnight with someone just to go to Church on a Sunday. If someone 10 miles from the Church needed a ride on my way, I'd be MORE than happy to stop and pick them up. I'd be equally pleased if someone out my way wanted to share a ride. I also doubt a mission parish would be a high priority in such a situation. Remember, there are quite a few Churches out there that do not even have priests, and need to wait for one to come serve a Divine Liturgy once a month or even less often, and can only have reader services otherwise. And people drive long distances to get to them as well. They need priests more urgently.

Family can be difficult, and the Orthodox Church is so different from Evangelical Protestantism, especially mega-churches and especially if they happen to be the "relevant" sort that deliver entertaining and focused services that are crafted to serve the interests of the people and get them in and out in an hour or so. My brother and sister recently started attending church, and it is one of those churches, so I don't even bring the Orthodox Church up to them right now. I've been a family outcast as far as religion is concerned much of my life, and this would be no different.

It's good that your friends would likely be more accepting, and especially if they have similar interests and would be likely to have productive dialogue with you. Smiley

As far as coming across to others - a "soft sell" is much better. I would suggest you to wait. Attend Church. Start doing a prayer rule. It will almost surely start to change you, and they will probably notice, and when they ask - that is a good time to start giving soft answers. They will be interested, and you won't have to push. The difficult part is NOT bubbling over with enthusiasm and having all kinds of discussions in the meantime - at least that was the hard part for me. And for people who oppose your choice, that is not what you want to do.

Just very briefly speaking, I don't have too many experiences with too many different parishes in many jurisdictions. However, I will say that my home parish (Greek) is more formal, more ritualistic, etc. and my husband who is very opposed to Catholicism did not react well. However, he also attended a little OCA parish with me that was in a temporary building. It was less ritualistic in the most visible ways (with the exception of the way the bowing is done when venerating icons) and he was able to better enjoy it. He also prefers the singing mode to the formal chants at my home parish. It might be worth considering what your family is likely to accept/reject, and see what parish is more likely to be less shocking or jarring to them if you ask them to visit with you.

I don't have any suggestions for approaching people at your church. It is so different, that would be difficult. But studying Church history seems to be a good way to open people's eyes to the fact that "things are not as we have always been told" (from an evangelical perspective). Just a slow introduction to something like that might be the best bet. But if church leadership saw it leading in a different direction, they would be likely to squash that quickly. And I don't mean that to speak badly of them. If they think what they are doing is right, it is their responsibility to protect their flock. Such learning and changing of mind and way of thinking can take a long time. I honestly think some people just are not ready for it, which is why I don't discuss it with my brother and sister yet. May the Lord please forgive me if I am wrong in this. (Just my opinion on this stuff.)

God bless you. Smiley


 100 
 on: Today at 11:59:25 AM 
Started by Minnesotan - Last post by ialmisry


I still say the Greek Catholics deserve a place at the table of ecumenical dialogue. The Russians still use them as an excuse not to talk, or for the patriarch not to meet the Pope, but that's a whole other can of worms, as Mr. Podkarpatska agrees: under the Soviets they committed crimes against the Ukrainian Catholics, stealing their churches and otherwise persecuting them, setting back Catholic/Orthodox relations (the Ukrainian Catholics I knew 30 years ago wanted nothing to do with you), yet the Russians claim they're victims because when Communism fell, the Ukrainian Catholics resurfaced and took their parishes back. But Rome-educated Greek Catholic clergy*, steeped in Orthodox tradition and theology, are a good "interface" to talk to the Orthodox, better than a Roman Riter who doesn't understand you, plus, as their existence as churches is part of what's being debated, they deserve a say!

*The most "Orthodox" Greek Catholic priests I've met were trained literally in the city of Rome.

Its not only the Patriarch of Russia but even the Ecumenical Patriarch has decried the eastern catholics as a "non-starter" with regards to talks about unity even though he continues dialogues with the RC who bring EC prelates to the dialogues despite his "ban."

As a Turkish Greek he probably doesn't know any Byzantine Catholics, and "banning" the Byzantine Catholics from the talks is still wrong.
HAH is a Greek Turk, and why wouldn't he know any, as they have a couple parishes not far (15 minutes by subway IIRC) from his own.

Define "wrong."

I remembered as I was writing that there is a Greek Byzantine (papal) Catholic parish church in Constantinople/Istanbul. Whether Patriarch Bartholomew knows them, I can't say.

"Wrong": two honchos meet to decide whether to fire you and/or evict you from your home. You're not invited. That's how Eastern (papal) Catholics are sometimes treated in papal/Orthodox ecumenical relations.
and when you are a squatter?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.065 seconds with 17 queries.