May 25/June 7: Commemoration of the Reunion of 3,000,000 'Eastern Catholics'

[Papist]

Your pope has all right to determine the rules of his own gig, but in Orthodox theology truth is determined by the consensus patrorum. That isn't always democracy, but in circumstances like this, individual believers, especially if their notions of justice come from outside the Church, should not lightly question such matters.

Any rational and clear thinking individual can see that the the tactics you suggest are acceptable are, rather,  evil, vile, and to be detested by all Christians. I cannot believe that His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholemew would accept such tactics. Convert or die is not a Christian method of evangelism.

[lubeltri]

Indeed, we would be mighty hypocritical by criticizing radical Islam for this if we espoused it ourselves.

[Fr. George]

Any rational and clear thinking individual can see that the the tactics you suggest are acceptable are, rather,  evil, vile, and to be detested by all Christians. I cannot believe that His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholemew would accept such tactics. Convert or die is not a Christian method of evangelism.

And the 4th Crusade was, what?  Right.  Vladimir is a pre-schism saint, correct, so his tactics were accepted by both our churches, right?  I know the taking of human life sounds detestible - right or wrong that's our modern sensibilities.  I know that in this day and age "convert or die" (which it wasn't exactly that...) would not be accepted by any Church - but unless you want to hop in the time machine and see the context of the period, I don't know if you should pass judgment on the fathers who made the Church what it is.

As for +BARTHOLOMEW, I'm sure he 1) would not condone it in the 20th or 21st centuries, 2) would not do it himself, and 3) would not condemn the tactics of a major saint of the Church when those tactics are central to their lives and works.

[SouthSerb99]

Convert or die is not a Christian method of evangelism.

Well, while I agree with Cleveland and CRC (that this needs to be put in context - time period).  I would also add that isn't "convert or die" a central tenet of most faiths?

What I mean by that is "believe as we do, or run the risk of suffering spiritual death".

If I might ask Papist... what happens to me (from the RC point of view), as an OC, if I do not take part in RC sacraments (or otherwise live as a RC)? 

[Tzimis]

Well, while I agree with Cleveland and CRC (that this needs to be put in context - time period).  I would also add that isn't "convert or die" a central tenet of most faiths?

Mostly a Muslim tenet.

In this case I believe that the monarch had free Raine. The Orthodox just didn't do anything to stop it. That doesn't really make them guilty of anything other than allowing it to happen. This can be classified as an act of God. He was the radiation the Church needed for the cancer.

[SouthSerb99]

I don't mean die, in terms of an earthly life, but die in the spiritual sense.

[lubeltri]

If I might ask Papist... what happens to me (from the RC point of view), as an OC, if I do not take part in RC sacraments (or otherwise live as a RC)? 

Well, Rome considers Eastern sacraments to be efficacious, though we be separated.

[Papist]

And the 4th Crusade was, what?  Right.  Vladimir is a pre-schism saint, correct, so his tactics were accepted by both our churches, right?  I know the taking of human life sounds detestible - right or wrong that's our modern sensibilities.  I know that in this day and age "convert or die" (which it wasn't exactly that...) would not be accepted by any Church - but unless you want to hop in the time machine and see the context of the period, I don't know if you should pass judgment on the fathers who made the Church what it is.

As for +BARTHOLOMEW, I'm sure he 1) would not condone it in the 20th or 21st centuries, 2) would not do it himself, and 3) would not condemn the tactics of a major saint of the Church when those tactics are central to their lives and works.

The intention of the Crusades was vastly different. That was to protect Christians traveling in the Holy Land and establish Christian kingdoms to Protect Christians and Holy sites there. That is noble. However, I will not try to justify many of the evil actions comitted by many of the crusaders. I recongnize that many did reprehensible things and that those things should be juged most harshly. As for His Holiness Partriarch Bartholomew, He is way to Holy to not condemn things like what we are discussing.

[Papist]

Well, while I agree with Cleveland and CRC (that this needs to be put in context - time period).  I would also add that isn't "convert or die" a central tenet of most faiths?

What I mean by that is "believe as we do, or run the risk of suffering spiritual death".

If I might ask Papist... what happens to me (from the RC point of view), as an OC, if I do not take part in RC sacraments (or otherwise live as a RC)? 

It depends on you spiritual state. I do not know if you will die in a state of grace. I do not know if you are sufficiently ignorant of the truth of the Catholic faith to fall into the category of invincible ignorance. I would never judge your soul. All I know is that the Catholic Church is the Universal Ark of salvation and the sure way into heaven. But I am NOT going to threaten to kill you if you do not convert. That would not be Christian.

[Papist]

Well, Rome considers Eastern sacraments to be efficacious, though we be separated.

But we also believe that the Catholic Church is the Universal Ark of salvation, apart from which none can be saved. That being said, we do make the one exception of invincible ignorance, i.e. those who are outside of the Church, seeking the truth, but are sufficiently ignorant of the Truth of the Catholic faith so as to make it impossible for them to know that the Catholic faith is the true faith. Such persons, we comend to the mercy of God, for although we are bound to the Sacraments, God is not. In a sense such persons are outside of the Ark but hanging on to it for dear life. It is not the surest way of salvation. In fact, it is very dangerous compared to the situation of those in the Ark/Church, but in this sense the Church is still involved in their salvation.

[Papist]

But we also believe that the Catholic Church is the Universal Ark of salvation, apart from which none can be saved. That being said, we do make the one exception of invincible ignorance, i.e. those who are outside of the Church, seeking the truth, but are sufficiently ignorant of the Truth of the Catholic faith so as to make it impossible for them to know that the Catholic faith is the true faith. Such persons, we comend to the mercy of God, for although we are bound to the Sacraments, God is not. In a sense such persons are outside of the Ark but hanging on to it for dear life. It is not the surest way of salvation. In fact, it is very dangerous compared to the situation of those in the Ark/Church, but in this sense the Church is still involved in their salvation.
As we say, "Extra Ecclesiam, nulla solus".

[lubeltri]

The Vatican II decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio says,

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Eastern Orthodox churches are considered "authentic local Churches" with grace-filled sacraments. Protestant churches are called "ecclesial communities," as they are not "authentic local Churches."

The Catechism (#838) says,

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."³²² Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."³²³ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."³²⁴

[griego catolico]

Could we please stay on topic...again?

Do all the Orthodox Churches have this commemoration in their liturgical calendars?

[Papist]

The Vatican II decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio says,

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Eastern Orthodox churches are considered "authentic local Churches" with grace-filled sacraments. Protestant churches are called "ecclesial communities," as they are not "authentic local Churches."

The Catechism (#838) says,

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."³²² Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."³²³ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."³²⁴

That lack of precision in these decrees and statements makes it difficult to determine what they are saying. However, you must remember that all modern Catholic teaching must be interprated in light of past Catholic teaching. And, in the Past, the Catholic Church taught "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus".

[dantxny]

I've never run across the celebration in the Russian Church.  That isn't to say that it doesn't occur.  It could just be a local feast elsewhere.

[Fr. George]

The intention of the Crusades was vastly different. That was to protect Christians traveling in the Holy Land and establish Christian kingdoms to Protect Christians and Holy sites there. That is noble. However, I will not try to justify many of the evil actions comitted by many of the crusaders. I recongnize that many did reprehensible things and that those things should be juged most harshly. As for His Holiness Partriarch Bartholomew, He is way to Holy to not condemn things like what we are discussing.

I said the 4th Crusade - there is scholarly debate as to whether this crusade ever had the intention of really going to the Holy Land - regardless, its only accomplishment was the sacking of Constantinople (the Easterners didn't think they were there to invade, and opened the doors), the establishment of a "Latin" emperor on the throne, the replacement of the True Patriarch with one who would assent to Papal supremacy, etc.  They tried to convert the East through means of the sword - blessed by the pope, no less.  It was only 5 centuries later that an apology was made (which is pretty empty considering Constantinople was plundered of relics and religious items, besides the innumerable other valuable items).

[Fr. George]

Nope, I haven't seen the commemoration in question in the GOA synaxarion... Nor the Church of Greece.

[Αριστοκλής]

With our concurrent 'forced conversion' thread, this 1204 event stands out still and all others to me, even the 'conversion' of the native Meso and South Americans, pale in comparison.

[Αριστοκλής]

I've never run across the celebration in the Russian Church.  That isn't to say that it doesn't occur.  It could just be a local feast elsewhere.

I wonder about ACROD? I must find out.

[Papist]

With our concurrent 'forced conversion' thread, this 1204 event stands out still and all others to me, even the 'conversion' of the native Meso and South Americans, pale in comparison.

Look. I openly and honestly admit that Catholics have been guilty of grievous crimes at times. Furthermore, I would never try to justify those actions. My problem is that some of the Eastern Orthodox persons on this forum are actually trying to justify the convert or die method. Any true Christian should appalled by this.

[Papist]

I said the 4th Crusade - there is scholarly debate as to whether this crusade ever had the intention of really going to the Holy Land - regardless, its only accomplishment was the sacking of Constantinople (the Easterners didn't think they were there to invade, and opened the doors), the establishment of a "Latin" emperor on the throne, the replacement of the True Patriarch with one who would assent to Papal supremacy, etc.  They tried to convert the East through means of the sword - blessed by the pope, no less.  It was only 5 centuries later that an apology was made (which is pretty empty considering Constantinople was plundered of relics and religious items, besides the innumerable other valuable items).

Yeah, and we are sorry about that. We do not try to justify the actions of our ancestors in this matter. We only pray that God would grant them mercy. The Eastern Orthodox on this forum, on the other hand, are actually trying to justify the convert or die method of "evangelism". If they truely believe it is just, then thank God they do have rule in many powerful countries.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: May 25/June 7: Commemoration of the Reunion of 3,000,000 'Eastern Catholics'