OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 10:49:41 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope says Orthodox Church is Defective, Others Don't Even Rate  (Read 22828 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« on: July 10, 2007, 10:15:46 AM »

Extract:
Quote
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Source: Associated Press Article http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3898289.html
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2007, 11:01:27 AM »

That's OK with me. I've exactly the corresponding opinion of them.

(Monks on the Holy Mountain go wild! "See, we told you!")
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2007, 11:06:06 AM »

Extract:
Source: Associated Press Article http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3898289.html

The Pope also noted the sky was blue.

As he was the architect being Dominus Iesus last century, I hardly find this surprising.  

Isn't this, though, the Orthodox view of things, that those not within the fold of Orthodoxy have, at best, a defective understanding of ekklesia?  
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2007, 11:30:57 AM »

Quote
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"

How nice of them to make their grace available to us!
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2007, 01:15:27 PM »

Why read these articles? The secular press has been salivating for days ever since this the release of this document was announced. The Pope "says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches." Sigh. Of course, no context or clarification (note the change of "suffer from defects" to the blunt "defective").

The actual document can be found here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/07/congregation-for-doctrine-of-faith.html

It restates---SURPRISE---Catholic ecclesiology.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 01:19:24 PM by lubeltri » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2007, 01:26:19 PM »

The re-statement of the ecclesiological stand does however essentially line up with the headline.  I did read the text of the document itself.

I think it's interesting that this came out before the next round of Catholic-Orthodox dialog, and I hope this will serve as a wake up call to our hierarchs.
Logged
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2007, 01:29:17 PM »

While I hope our Orthodox leaders say 'thanks but no thanks' to the Emperor Darth Sidius'... sorry, Pope's gracious and generous open door of grace, I do have to say that the two moves he's made this week have raised my opinion of him.  Finally a Pope with some cojones. 

I can respect and feel more Christian kinship with a tough, conservative, traditional worshipping, Catholic Church a lot more than the spiritually namby pamby mess they've got now.  Chop off all the liberal parts, weed out the weirdos, and take 'em back to the good old days.  (Though, this is probably wishful thinking - these changes may be too little, too late.)
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2007, 01:29:54 PM »

The re-statement of the ecclesiological stand does however essentially line up with the headline.  I did read the text of the document itself.

I think it's interesting that this came out before the next round of Catholic-Orthodox dialog, and I hope this will serve as a wake up call to our hierarchs.

I doubt your hierarchs would want union with a Church that would give away the farm!  Smiley

This document, however, is more for us Catholics, I think. A good number of Catholics suffer from delusions of universalism, an impression encouraged, no doubt, by dissenting liberals in the Church.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,141


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2007, 01:37:55 PM »

Didn't we have another discussion in another thread that mentioned Pope Benedict being lenient on the case of Papal supremacy?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2007, 01:39:01 PM »

I can respect and feel more Christian kinship with a tough, conservative, traditional worshipping, Catholic Church a lot more than the spiritually namby pamby mess they've got now.  Chop off all the liberal parts, weed out the weirdos, and take 'em back to the good old days.  (Though, this is probably wishful thinking - these changes may be too little, too late.)

Ditto. I think the Eastern prelates will only be heartened by a more vibrant orthodoxy.

This document, following Dominus Iesus, is only emphasizing once again the teaching clarified and re-iterated by the Second Vatican Council. It needs to be emphasized because the heterodox speaking of the "spirit of Vatican II" are always trying to paint the council as a rupture, a break with tradition. This document and last week's Motu Proprio both emphasize that there is but one Church (not an "old" Church and a "new" Church) and that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted in the light of the Church's constant tradition.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 01:39:33 PM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2007, 01:40:33 PM »

Didn't we have another discussion in another thread that mentioned Pope Benedict being lenient on the case of Papal supremacy?

Yes, Benedict has spoken in the past about coming to an understanding of Petrine ministry with regard to the East as it was understood in the first millennium.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2007, 02:14:02 PM »

I doubt your hierarchs would want union with a Church that would give away the farm!  Smiley

This document, however, is more for us Catholics, I think. A good number of Catholics suffer from delusions of universalism, an impression encouraged, no doubt, by dissenting liberals in the Church.

It's too late, you're all fighting a loosing battle...just give up, it's so much easier. Who wouldn't want peace, tranquility, and unity for all Christians? Don't fight it, just let the Church evolve naturally Wink Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2007, 02:30:09 PM »


I think it's interesting that this came out before the next round of Catholic-Orthodox dialog, and I hope this will serve as a wake up call to our hierarchs.

Worry not. My own bishop headed our last 'dialog' and what was published for public consumption and what was actually accomplished were a bit different. 'Agreement to continue disagreement, but be nicer about it' was more the reality.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2007, 02:32:50 PM »

Yes, Benedict has spoken in the past about coming to an understanding of Petrine ministry with regard to the East as it was understood in the first millennium.

I don't suppose that means he or any of his successors are willing to give up the big chair and just be one of the boys?  How about Head Boy (would that be a good Harry Potter analogy?)
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2007, 02:47:03 PM »

I don't suppose that means he or any of his successors are willing to give up the big chair and just be one of the boys?  How about Head Boy (would that be a good Harry Potter analogy?)

No, because in our view, that was not the way it was before the schism. I mean, he IS one of the boys, but he isn't ONLY one of the boys.

In other words, the pope would exercise a primacy of more than honor only and less than total supremacy. In an eventual restoration of full communion, I can see the pope with regard to the East as being in a "head of state" kind of role, the chief spokesman to the wider world, a high court of appeal, and probably little more. The Eastern Catholic Churches already have increasing independence.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 02:48:14 PM by lubeltri » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2007, 03:44:40 PM »

The Papacy is a divinely instituted office present in the church from the beginning or it isn't.
The Pope has supreme, full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire church or he doesn't.
The Pope can without reference to or consent of the church proclaim doctrine infallible in certain circumstances or he can't.
The Orthodox Church contains the fullness of faith, without defects, or it doesn't.

Those questions to me, among others, really are that simple; and I don't see how one side or the other could change it's tune on these and not fundamentally compromise something about itself.

I'm glad the document came out, because the Pope is really saying by it that they will not be the ones to compromise.  That leaves one possible party to do so.
Logged
aserb
asinner
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 1,188


« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2007, 04:06:34 PM »

Yawn:

What else is new.
Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2007, 04:18:41 PM »

Those questions to me, among others, really are that simple; and I don't see how one side or the other could change it's tune on these and not fundamentally compromise something about itself.

I'm glad the document came out, because the Pope is really saying by it that they will not be the ones to compromise.  That leaves one possible party to do so.

I think the distinction must be that this present Pope will not be the one to compromise.  However, a pope who'd compromise this principal is probably going to be of the liberal, anything goes variety.  Orthodox certainly don't need or want that. 
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,757


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2007, 04:26:06 PM »

The Pope also noted the sky was blue.

As he was the architect of Dominus Iesus last century, I hardly find this surprising. 

Isn't this, though, the Orthodox view of things, that those not within the fold of Orthodoxy have, at best, a defective understanding of ekklesia

Yeppers. Sauce for the goose, taste your own (cyber-)venom and all that.

Anyway just like I'm not offended by praying for the conversion of the Jews so it is with Rome maintaining its claim to be the one true church. It's really not news! The Pope can't contradict past defined doctrines even if he wanted to (which he doesn't).

This like Dominus Iesus gets my respect.

Now how about some highest-common-denominator ecumenism? Each side believes it's the one true church; let's have each explain why, face to face, without any of the shrill online junk from both sides (about 'graceless heretics' and all that).
Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2007, 04:40:48 PM »

Orthodoxy or Death!

oops...wrong forum Undecided
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2007, 04:53:44 PM »

In other words, the pope would exercise a primacy of more than honor only and less than total supremacy. In an eventual restoration of full communion, I can see the pope with regard to the East as being in a "head of state" kind of role, the chief spokesman to the wider world, a high court of appeal, and probably little more.
Not a head of state, but an ambassador perhaps. I like the original title best, though: "First among equals." It perfectly describes the Papacy as it ought to be.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2007, 05:12:54 PM »

Not a head of state, but an ambassador perhaps.

Should reconciliation ever take place (yeah, right) would the Orthodox have a problem with the Pope still retaining his temporal status as potentate of the Vatican City?  Or would Orthodox hierarchs force him to be a spiritual leader only and leave the Vatican to be governed by secular authorities? 

I like the original title best, though: "First among equals." It perfectly describes the Papacy as it ought to be.

And that is exactly how it is worded in the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. 
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2007, 05:22:58 PM »

Should reconciliation ever take place (yeah, right) would Orthodox hierarchs force him to be a spiritual leader only and leave the Vatican to be governed by secular authorities? 

I don't think Orthodox hierarchs would force him to do anything--we just don't force anything upon anyone. As a condition of reconciliation, though, we would definitely require that he renounce his place of supremacy, though we would not revoke his place of honour. As far as the Vatican is concerned, I don't know. I'm not sure we would require it, as I personally don't see it as an obstacle to reconciliation. It may be something a Pope chooses to do himself, though.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2007, 05:23:04 PM »

Should reconciliation ever take place (yeah, right) would the Orthodox have a problem with the Pope still retaining his temporal status as potentate of the Vatican City?  Or would Orthodox hierarchs force him to be a spiritual leader only and leave the Vatican to be governed by secular authorities? 

I would hope not. You want the Holy Father to end up like the Ecumenical Patriarch? I can only imagine the constraints the Italian government would put on him.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 05:24:19 PM by lubeltri » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2007, 05:32:49 PM »

I would hope not. You want the Holy Father to end up like the Ecumenical Patriarch? I can only imagine the constraints the Italian government would put on him.

Are you saying that the Italians would behave in such a ruthless, reckless fashion towards the pope worthy of the Turks?  If that's the case, then Europe's soul has been sold to the evil one!  Details at 11!
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2007, 05:54:07 PM »

Are you saying that the Italians would behave in such a ruthless, reckless fashion towards the pope worthy of the Turks?  If that's the case, then Europe's soul has been sold to the evil one!  Details at 11!

You never know---Catholic monarchs were bad enough in the old days. But fascist and Marxist governments have been even worse. Henry II did public penance when Thomas Becket was killed. In the 20th century, masses of Catholic nuns, priests and bishops were killed in Mexico, Germany and elsewhere without a thought.

Then there's always the "soft" oppression of secularist governments, and the Italian republic is one of them. Look what they did to the Popes a century ago.

And hostile secular governments interfering with the Church are nothing new, in East or West. Remember the czars?
Logged
Jonas Suender
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2007, 06:45:53 PM »

The Papacy is a divinely instituted office present in the church from the beginning or it isn't.
The Pope has supreme, full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire church or he doesn't.
The Pope can without reference to or consent of the church proclaim doctrine infallible in certain circumstances or he can't.
The Orthodox Church contains the fullness of faith, without defects, or it doesn't.

Those questions to me, among others, really are that simple; and I don't see how one side or the other could change it's tune on these and not fundamentally compromise something about itself.

I'm glad the document came out, because the Pope is really saying by it that they will not be the ones to compromise.  That leaves one possible party to do so.


Well said.
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2007, 07:18:28 PM »

Thinking about this a little more, the timing of this statement is interesting to me.  The Pope, with his motu proprio declares the Tridentine Rite is to be celebrated whereever, whenever without any infringement upon priests by diocesean bishops.  Why did the pope do this?  Was it to bring the schismatic Society of St. Pius X and other sedevacantists back into full communion with Rome?  If so, does this recent statement by Pope Benedict XVI signify to the SSPX and others that the Roman Catholic Church is not at all diluting its doctrines with regard to ecumenism and other "churches"?  Or is it meant to clarify that the papacy is the true mark of a church and that the SSPX and other sedevacantists are still schismatic?  My point is that this statement is meant for Catholic housecleaning rather than dialogue or disinvite dialogue with other "churches" that are "defective."  MHO.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2007, 07:56:14 PM »

You are right on the money. Ever since he spoke famously about the "hermeneutic of continuity" in 2005, Pope Benedict has been embarking on reclaiming the Second Vatican Council for the whole of Catholic tradition. In this project he is extending and expanding upon the work begun by John Paul II. The two recent documents coming from Rome are part and parcel of this labor.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 07:57:55 PM by lubeltri » Logged
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2007, 08:34:40 PM »

Quote
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches

While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
BasilCan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 204


« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2007, 08:36:48 PM »

So what does this mean for Orthodoxy and our Bishops, who are our representatives? It means that, Pope Benedict has confirmed the "elephant in the room" papal supremacy. I think he needs to be commended for this statement. Now, are we going to accept this? No, of course not. So, what should we do. A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do. Love and respect each other. Even possibly inviting each other to great feast days and speaking out against common concerns, but otherwise, leaving each other be.

Basil
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2007, 08:51:57 PM »

While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.
I don't think Pope Benedict has shown any confusion at all.  You seem to be projecting onto his statements an Orthodox ecclesiology that says that those outside the Church (in his case, the RCC) are heretics with whom prayer is forbidden.  Pope Benedict has never proclaimed this regarding us EO, AFAIK; to the contrary, even though the Pope has stated that the EO Church is defective for its lack of the Papacy, he still sees our church as a valid church with grace-filled sacraments, not as a body of heretics.

His statement that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church, together with his conscious avoidance of any statement that the Church is the Catholic Church seems to say in different words essentially what many Orthodox say, "I know where the Church is, but I do not presume to define where the Church is not."
« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 08:58:49 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2007, 09:14:31 PM »

I don't think Pope Benedict has shown any confusion at all.  You seem to be projecting onto his statements an Orthodox ecclesiology that says that those outside the Church (in his case, the RCC) are heretics with whom prayer is forbidden. 

Lol so the canons the Church made forbidding prayer with heretics which were made before the West went into schism didnt apply to Rome?  Either one of two things: Rome has rejected this canon (like many other canons) or recognizes this canon as valid but just goes against the canon (like how they treat many of their canons as well).
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2007, 10:17:01 PM »

the heterodox speaking of the "spirit of Vatican II" are always trying to paint the council as a rupture, a break with tradition.

Ditto Vatican I.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2007, 10:19:05 PM »

Are you saying that the Italians would behave in such a ruthless, reckless fashion towards the pope worthy of the Turks?

Ever heard of Charlemagne?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
fatman2021
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Banned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Old-Orthodox Church
Posts: 152

Protopope Avvakum, pray for us.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2007, 10:29:13 PM »

So what does this mean for Orthodoxy and our Bishops, who are our representatives? It means that, Pope Benedict has confirmed the "elephant in the room" papal supremacy. I think he needs to be commended for this statement. Now, are we going to accept this? No, of course not. So, what should we do. A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do. Love and respect each other. Even possibly inviting each other to great feast days and speaking out against common concerns, but otherwise, leaving each other be.

Basil

The Pope of Rome is a heretic...
Logged

O God be merciful to me a sinner. You, O Lord who created me, have mercy on me. I have sinned without number,O Lord, have mercy on me and forgive me, a sinner.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2007, 10:31:27 PM »

It's a damn Jesuit conspiracy... Cool

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2007, 10:32:56 PM »

The Pope of Rome is a heretic...

*yawn*...thanks for sharing.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2007, 10:39:08 PM »

A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do.
I love this analogy! I especially like the part about being "good friends". I also think it was very courageous of the Pope to make the Catholic position clear, and Orthodoxy has also made its position clear. Reconciliation may not be what many envisage it to be (i.e. full Communion and Unity), but if we can be honest and draw our lines in the sand and say: "OK, this is what we not prepared to compromise on", at least we know where we both stand, and can avoid a false ecumenism. Honesty is the basis of any relationship.

The Pope of Rome is a heretic...
The Oracle has spoken..... Roll Eyes

« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 11:08:39 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2007, 11:38:04 PM »

While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.

I think that when comparing RCs and EOs in terms of how "ecumenical" they are, we almost always end up comparing apples and oranges.

On the one hand, Orthodox see RCs praying with Orthodox and Protestants; receiving converts from Orthodoxy without re-chrismation and recognizing Protestant baptisms; admitting Orthodox (and PNCC and Assyrians) to communion, and allowing Catholics to request communion from those groups under some circumstances, etc., and conclude that Catholics are liberally ecumenical.
Or they sees RCs counting several councils as ecumenical which had little or no Eastern participation; counting as dogmas several teachings which weren't agree upon by the East; celebrating the anniversary (1996) of the Union of Brest, etc., and conclude that Catholics are fanatically un-ecumenical.

On the other hand, Catholics might thinks EOs are liberally ecumenical since, for example, in Orthodoxy A can be in full communion with both B and C, without B and C being in full communion with each other (as was the case, until recently, with the ROCOR situation); or because of Orthodox participation in the WCC. Or Catholics might think EOs fanatically un-ecumenical with re-chrismating (or even re-baptizing) Catholic converts; calling Catholics "heretics"; denying Catholics communion; the fairly harsh statements against Eastern Catholics, etc.

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2007, 11:42:44 PM »

Lol so the canons the Church made forbidding prayer with heretics which were made before the West went into schism didnt apply to Rome?
Again, you're looking at things from OUR perspective, which I don't think applies here.  Looking at this from Rome's POV, how much force does canon law have when the Pope is above the canons?

Quote
Either one of two things: Rome has rejected this canon (like many other canons) or recognizes this canon as valid but just goes against the canon (like how they treat many of their canons as well).
Returning to what I said earlier, I suggest a third approach:  Pope Benedict doesn't see the Orthodox as heretics, so the canons forbidding prayer with heretics don't apply to prayers with the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 11:46:50 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2007, 11:48:26 PM »

The Pope of Rome is a heretic...
Would you care to justify this drive-by stabbing?
Logged
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2007, 12:01:33 AM »

Would you care to justify this drive-by stabbing?

Well here is one thing I found so far from St. Mark of Ephesus: "We have cut the Latins off from us for no other reason than that they are not only schismatics, but heretics. For this reason it is wholly improper to unite with them.... The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics as well. However, the Church was silent on this because their race is large and more powerful than ours... and we wished not to fall into triumphalism over the Latins as heretics but to be accepting of their return and to cultivate brotherliness."

More can be found here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 12:08:58 AM by drewmeister2 » Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2007, 12:17:10 AM »

The Pope of Rome is a heretic...
Fatman,

Would you care to justify this drive-by stabbing?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2007, 01:55:08 AM »

Again, you're looking at things from OUR perspective, which I don't think applies here.  Looking at this from Rome's POV, how much force does canon law have when the Pope is above the canons?

Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 01:55:51 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2007, 01:59:04 AM »


Very handy site. Without reading an article I found there, I would have never known that St. Francis of Assisi (to whom I pray) was inspired by the Devil. Phew, dodged that bullet.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2007, 02:01:48 AM »

Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.
AFAIK, Drewmeister is a member of a traditionalist Orthodox group, as can be surmised from his sig line "Orthodoxia i Thanatos" (Orthodoxy or Death).  He's probably pointed his finger at the EP way too much already for the very reason you mention.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 02:05:37 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2007, 02:03:25 AM »

Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.

Our canonists have well defined this issue and while I will confess that we take a rather byzantine approach to the canons (and for good reason, most canons would simply be damaging to the Church and faithful today if applied literally, rather than in a figurative spiritual manner) a valid point has been made, Rome's complete disregard for the ancient councils and canons is manifested in her codification of canon law to the exclusion of several canons and canonical principles. The system was far richer and truer to the traditions of the Church up through the 19th century. It is fortunate that the attempts to codify our canon law have been halted by significant opposition at all levels.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2007, 02:05:26 AM »

While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.

Your churches ARE considered sister churches. Yesterday's statement even says so. Catholic ecclesiology is of a quite different sort than Orthodox ecclesiology. It is possible in our ecclesiology for the Church's sacramental grace to be operating outside the visible bounds of the fullness of the faith, which (for us) is the Catholic Church. Being true "churches" in the venerable sense of the word, with apostolic succession and true, grace-filled sacraments (and efficacious, too, since blame for the schism rests on people now long-dead), the Orthodox Churches have a communion with the Catholic Churches "so profound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Here's an excerpt from the new document:

. . . In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church8, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.9 Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.10

Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?

Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"11.

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"12.

Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"13, they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"14, and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches15.

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"16. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches17.

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.


« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 02:16:53 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2007, 02:19:30 AM »

AFAIK, Drewmeister is a member of a traditionalist Orthodox group, as can be surmised from his sig line "Orthodoxia i Thanatos" (Orthodoxy or Death).  He's probably pointed his finger at the EP way too much already for the very reason you mention.

Thanks for the info.
Logged
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2007, 02:43:51 AM »

Yes, Benedict has spoken in the past about coming to an understanding of Petrine ministry with regard to the East as it was understood in the first millennium.
Could you let us know a little more about this please?

From my understanding, the ancient view was that the Pope of Rome was first among equals.
We could here enter a debate about the positions of the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch but there seems to be enough Christian charity between these now to avoid this sort of debate.
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2007, 03:17:38 AM »

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.[/i]

As the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch is the Successor of St. Peter, does that mean that "the fullness of universality" is realised in the Oriental Orthodox Church?
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #52 on: July 11, 2007, 04:04:46 AM »

As the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch is the Successor of St. Peter, does that mean that "the fullness of universality" is realised in the Oriental Orthodox Church?

This is not the venue for such a debate. Besides, there are probably a dozen old threads on this chestnut already. I will say, though, that our Church sees Peter and Paul's martyrdom in Rome, as well as Rome's place as the center of the empire, as having special divine significance. Thus the See of Peter, the Apostolic See, is ascribed to Rome, the primatial See of the Church. This was, of course, accepted many centuries ago by the undivided Church, even before the founding of Constantinople.

(this is no insult to Antioch, of course, one of the celebrated Pentarchy, and a patriarchate more ancient than Constantinople)
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #53 on: July 11, 2007, 04:26:24 AM »

There we go with that 'THE Apostolic See' again...
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #54 on: July 11, 2007, 05:04:07 AM »

This is not the venue for such a debate. Besides, there are probably a dozen old threads on this chestnut already.
You're probably right about that however there is the question here about whether or not The Orthodox Church is defective.

I will say, though, that our Church sees Peter and Paul's martyrdom in Rome, as well as Rome's place as the center of the empire, as having special divine significance. Thus the See of Peter, the Apostolic See, is ascribed to Rome, the primatial See of the Church. This was, of course, accepted many centuries ago by the undivided Church, even before the founding of Constantinople.

(this is no insult to Antioch, of course, one of the celebrated Pentarchy, and a patriarchate more ancient than Constantinople)
Thank you for this information. I didn't know the Roman Catholic Church saw divine significance in Sts. Peter and Paul's martyrdoms in Rome. Do you see any divine significance in the martyrdom of St. James in Jerusalem as well?

This website:
http://phoenicia.org/syriacs.html refers to "the Apostolic See of Antioch".

A general querry:
As the Pope of Alexandria reigns on the Throne of St. Mark and the Catholicos of India reigns on the Throne of St. Thomas, upon what does the Patriarch of Antioch reign?
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #55 on: July 11, 2007, 05:07:22 AM »

This was, of course, accepted many centuries ago by the undivided Church, even before the founding of Constantinople.

There is no 'of course' about it. The fact that Rome was particularly honoured due to the martyrdoms of saints Peter and Paul there we would agree with, the rest, particularly the idea of some divine significance, of what you said is late Roman interpretation built upon that. Even St Gregory the Great referred not to Rome alone as the See of Peter, but Rome, Antioch and Alexandria together.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #56 on: July 11, 2007, 08:36:17 AM »

I thought this was a good response:

Quote
Vatican's honest position furthers dialogue - Metropolitan Kirill

Moscow, July 11, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church has called "honest" the position of the Vatican published in a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stating that the Catholic Church is the only Church approved by Christ.

"It is an honest statement. It is much better than the so-called 'church diplomacy'." It shows how close or, on the contrary, how divided we are," Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, who heads the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, told journalists in Moscow.

"For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side," because "it helps understand how different we are," he said. Basically, the Vatican's current document has nothing new and is in "full conformity with the doctrine of the Catholic Church," Metropolitan Kirill said.

"The Orthodox Church is, according to Apostolic Succession, successor and heir to the old, undivided Church. Which is why everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church," the Metropolitan added.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3311
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #57 on: July 11, 2007, 09:16:17 AM »

I thought this was a good response:

Thanks for providing that, Welkodox. I thought it was a great response. (Well, except that I don't see the language "the only Church approved by Christ" in the document.)

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2007, 09:20:29 AM »

Nice response. I also like the use of the phrase "approved by Christ." Indeed, you could use the analogy that the Catholic Church considers itself the "authorized" Church, while the Orthodox Churches are "unauthorized" Churches. After all, the only major remaining sticking point for us is an acknowledgement of the actual, not symbolic or honorific, primacy of Roman pontiff, which is what we consider a divinely instituted authority. Orthodoxy, not accepting this, is an "unauthorized" Church in that sense (along with the OO, Polish National Catholic Church, Assyrian Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, and---possibly---some traditional branches of Anglicans and Old Catholics).

[My opinion here:] The sacraments do not stop in such Churches, though they are likely not efficacious for the unrepentent people responsible for the original separation (as they would be for any unrepentant Catholic too). Most Orthodox and most Catholics were, of course, blameless in the division of centuries ago. While their Churches remain, they still receive grace through the sacraments via God's great love and mercy.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 10:21:13 AM by lubeltri » Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2007, 09:37:48 AM »

Most Orthodox and most Catholics were, of course, blameless in the division of centuries ago. While their Churches remain, they still receive grace through the sacraments via God's great love and mercy.

Very good point. It's wonderful to see that our human frailty cannot stop God from giving his grace to us.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
JSOrthodoxy
Orthodox Antiochian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2007, 09:49:20 AM »

So what does this mean for Orthodoxy and our Bishops, who are our representatives? It means that, Pope Benedict has confirmed the "elephant in the room" papal supremacy. I think he needs to be commended for this statement. Now, are we going to accept this? No, of course not. So, what should we do. A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do. Love and respect each other. Even possibly inviting each other to great feast days and speaking out against common concerns, but otherwise, leaving each other be.

Basil

Basil,

I really like this analogy.  Can I borrow it?

Joe
Logged
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #61 on: July 11, 2007, 10:10:54 AM »

Please excuse - this is just a test
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,757


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #62 on: July 11, 2007, 10:15:10 AM »

More from me on the matter here.
Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #63 on: July 11, 2007, 10:25:31 AM »

More from me on the matter here.

Superlative analysis. I'm going to put you at the top of my favorites list under "blogs" (next to Father Z; who, incidentally, tore apart Joan Chittister's reaction to the Motu Proprio with delicious relish yesterday).
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 10:28:30 AM by lubeltri » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2007, 10:26:24 AM »

After all, the only major remaining sticking point for us is an acknowledgement of the actual, not symbolic or honorific, primacy of Roman pontiff, which is what we consider a divinely instituted authority.

But that in itself is really a refutation of the Orthodox position (and while I agree it's the major issue, I don't think it's the only one).  Metropolitan Kirill re-affirmed what I believe to be the case.  The RCC views itself as the church, containing the fullness of faith, and that other churches ecclesial communities are in some sense defective and/or missing something.  The Orthodox view, as stated by the Metroplitan, is exactly the same but in reverse.  That is what we believe about the Orthodox Church.  In reality what has to happen for the RCC and Orthodoxy to reconcile is somebody has to say in effect "we are wrong, and up to this point we have not had the fullness of faith".  Your suggestion for Orthdoxy is really what that means.

There is no way to reconcile and keep both views in tact.  My hope is the RCC accepts the Orthodox position and admits they have developed a deficient understanding of the Papacy that communion with Orthodoxy would correct.  I think the statement is really a sign they won't though.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #65 on: July 11, 2007, 10:30:34 AM »

There is no way to reconcile and keep both views in tact.  My hope is the RCC accepts the Orthodox position and admits they have developed a deficient understanding of the Papacy that communion with Orthodoxy would correct.  I think the statement is really a sign they won't though.

If Richard McBrien or Hans Kung or Gary Wills had their way, we would accept it. But believe me, you wouldn't want those guys in your Church. Smiley
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #66 on: July 11, 2007, 10:50:38 AM »

If Richard McBrien or Hans Kung or Gary Wills had their way, we would accept it. But believe me, you wouldn't want those guys in your Church. Smiley

Never heard of any of them, but I did manage to come up with some examples of their theology:
Richard McBrien: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1994/sep1994p14_835.html
Hans Kung: http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/kung.htm ,
http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/religion/rl_dhHansKung.htm
Gary Wills: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19643_1.html

It seems to me that all three of these are well-educated, well-intentioned men who are led astray by their belief that the Church ought to be a medium for social change, that it is something to be used rather than to be conformed to. Interesting articles, all.

I think we'd love to have them in the Church (if they're not already--God alone knows the answer to that). The Church is a place where God works to restore people to Himself (note that I say a place). God is not incapable of transforming anyone. In fact, these men may more easily accept the teachings of the Church since they are obviously so interested in her work on earth. The Church is a place for everyone; God's grace is given to all.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #67 on: July 11, 2007, 11:15:02 AM »

But that in itself is really a refutation of the Orthodox position

Well I, as a Catholic, would like to think it's a refutation of the Orthodox position, but I'm a little surprised to hear an Orthodox say so.

 Grin Tongue Cool
But seriously, folks ...

Metropolitan Kirill re-affirmed what I believe to be the case.  The RCC views itself as the church, containing the fullness of faith, and that other churches ecclesial communities are in some sense defective and/or missing something.  The Orthodox view, as stated by the Metroplitan, is exactly the same but in reverse.  That is what we believe about the Orthodox Church. 

I quite agree. I'm not so sure, however, about your conclusion that:

In reality what has to happen for the RCC and Orthodoxy to reconcile is somebody has to say in effect "we are wrong, and up to this point we have not had the fullness of faith". 

As I've said somewhere else (I think it was in "Which Obstacles?"), historically when the East and the West have reconciled with each other after a schism, each continued to believe that it always had the fullness of faith.

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JSOrthodoxy
Orthodox Antiochian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2007, 12:32:38 PM »

But that in itself is really a refutation of the Orthodox position (and while I agree it's the major issue, I don't think it's the only one).  Metropolitan Kirill re-affirmed what I believe to be the case.  The RCC views itself as the church, containing the fullness of faith, and that other churches ecclesial communities are in some sense defective and/or missing something.  The Orthodox view, as stated by the Metroplitan, is exactly the same but in reverse.  That is what we believe about the Orthodox Church.  In reality what has to happen for the RCC and Orthodoxy to reconcile is somebody has to say in effect "we are wrong, and up to this point we have not had the fullness of faith".  Your suggestion for Orthdoxy is really what that means.

There is no way to reconcile and keep both views in tact.  My hope is the RCC accepts the Orthodox position and admits they have developed a deficient understanding of the Papacy that communion with Orthodoxy would correct.  I think the statement is really a sign they won't though.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Since, I am convinced that we will not capitulate, then it is up to Rome to abandon her additions to the apostolic faith and return to Holy Orthodoxy.  Or, we can continue where we are and strive for more respect, kindness, and cooperation.  But, what we need to avoid is the false hope that somehow everything is just based on misunderstandings and we will eventually reunite on some new basis.

Joe
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2007, 10:59:17 PM »

If Richard McBrien or Hans Kung or Gary Wills had their way, we would accept it. But believe me, you wouldn't want those guys in your Church. Smiley

Amen.  You RCs are welcome to keep those guys!  Would you mind if we unloaded a few "Orthodox" on you as well?  Grin
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #70 on: July 11, 2007, 11:17:56 PM »

Amen.  You RCs are welcome to keep those guys!  Would you mind if we unloaded a few "Orthodox" on you as well?  Grin

I somehow don't think they want GiC... Cheesy
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2007, 11:35:43 PM »

I somehow don't think they want GiC... Cheesy

I'm sure I'd get along with the American liberals...but probably wouldn't sit too well with Rome Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #72 on: July 11, 2007, 11:37:27 PM »

On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate. Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #73 on: July 11, 2007, 11:58:04 PM »

Do these canons apply to His All-Holiness Bartholomew too? I think Drewmeister perhaps needs to first point that finger at the hierarchs with which he is in communion.

Actually, I am not in communion with them, I am with the Old Calendarists.
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #74 on: July 12, 2007, 01:03:04 AM »

On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate. Grin

 More like the kind of person who needs attention.  Grin
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #75 on: July 12, 2007, 01:07:58 AM »

Quote
On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate. Grin

Dam son...you're one of a kind!  Grin
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Jonas Suender
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #76 on: July 12, 2007, 07:09:26 AM »

So what does this mean for Orthodoxy . . .  ?

Hopefully, it means good fences make good neighbors.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #77 on: July 12, 2007, 07:52:08 AM »

On second thought, maybe not: I love the pomp and ceremony, I'd fight quite strongly for the Latin Tridentine Mass...almost as strongly as I'd fight for the right of a woman to preside over it. Guess I'm just the kind of person everyone loves to hate. Grin

Yes, I do find that to be a slightly odd combination. But on the other hand, it might be a refreshing change to have a Trindentine-ist who also wants to return to the old way of saying the creed.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #78 on: July 12, 2007, 09:31:31 AM »

More like the kind of person who needs attention.  Grin

Ah, attention is only half of it...I don't like positive attention, it's boring. Scandal is what I really love, and to be right there fanning the flames and getting to see the looks on people's faces when their entire world view and system of belief is assaulted and turned on its head. Cheesy And if you're wondering, no, I do not have any respect for the human race (they're all, or at the very least with VERY few exceptions, worthless) and yes, I do have a sadistic streak. Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #79 on: July 12, 2007, 09:42:07 AM »

And if you're wondering, no, I do not have any respect for the human race (they're all, or at the very least with VERY few exceptions, worthless) and yes, I do have a sadistic streak. Grin

And, no doubt, that was said to assault the entire worldview and system of belief of most people here. Smiley
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #80 on: July 12, 2007, 11:00:17 AM »

And if you're wondering,
I wasn't.  Wink
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #81 on: July 12, 2007, 11:44:23 AM »

I wasn't.  Wink

You should know by now that I play to the mob...not the individual. It's amazing how you can twist an otherwise rational person when you threaten them with the façade of the displeasure of their peers. Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #82 on: July 12, 2007, 11:56:18 AM »

^ A new definition of trolling?  Roll Eyes

...or were you talking about the Pope  Cheesy
« Last Edit: July 12, 2007, 11:56:59 AM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #83 on: July 12, 2007, 11:56:34 AM »

You should know by now that I play to the mob...not the individual. It's amazing how you can twist an otherwise rational person when you threaten them with the façade of the displeasure of their peers. Grin
But I thought we were all worthless? So some of us are worthless AND rational? Or are the rational ones those whom you see as having worth? But wait, if you see those whom are rational as having worth, why do you want to twist and threaten them? Because they're worthless? But that would mean... Oh gosh, my head is spinning from the circular logic of GiC and his sinister plots. 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2007, 12:12:05 PM by Jibrail Almuhajir » Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #84 on: July 12, 2007, 03:01:27 PM »

But I thought we were all worthless? So some of us are worthless AND rational? Or are the rational ones those whom you see as having worth? But wait, if you see those whom are rational as having worth, why do you want to twist and threaten them? Because they're worthless? But that would mean... Oh gosh, my head is spinning from the circular logic of GiC and his sinister plots. 

It's only circular to those who insist on a nonsensical connection between rationality and worth. It is quite possible for one to be very rational, but utterly worthless. For instance, the fact that one is capable of being subdued by primal fears, whether or not someone actually tried to exploit this, essential negates any claim of rationality, for it is only a conditional rationality...that is to say, they are only rational so long as the weather is fair and all is easy. Also, what use is rationality if it accomplishes nothing? So what if someone is rational if they do not expand the frontiers of knowledge and civilization? They are simply leeches, surviving on what a few worthy people have accomplished.

So who has worth and is deserving of the dignity we diminish by calling it human? Those who rational, and unable to be controlled by propaganda, be it religious or secular, who ignore and overcome their primal fears and desires. AND, who also contribute to human knowledge and civilization in a significant way...a very small number of accomplished scientists, an even smaller number of accomplished industrialists, and an even smaller yet number of artists, writers, etc. In short, only a handful of those people history has judged to be 'great' have risen above 'leech' to become what we idealize as 'human' (though this ideal is far from the reality).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #85 on: July 12, 2007, 03:56:56 PM »

^
You're so vain. You probably think this thread is about you. Don't you? Don't you? Grin
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #86 on: July 12, 2007, 04:07:23 PM »

^
You're so vain. You probably think this thread is about you. Don't you? Don't you? Grin

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #87 on: July 12, 2007, 04:19:50 PM »

"We have heard of the pride of Moab--he is very proud--
         Of his haughtiness, his pride, his arrogance and his self-exaltation.
    "I know his fury," declares the LORD,
         "But it is futile;
         His idle boasts have accomplished nothing.
    "Therefore I will wail for Moab,
         Even for all Moab will I cry out;
         I will moan for the men of Kir-heres.
    "More than the weeping for Jazer
         I will weep for you, O vine of Sibmah!
         Your tendrils stretched across the sea,
         They reached to the sea of Jazer;
         Upon your summer fruits and your grape harvest
         The destroyer has fallen.
    "So gladness and joy are taken away
         From the fruitful field, even from the land of Moab
         And I have made the wine to cease from the wine presses;
         No one will tread them with shouting,
         The shouting will not be shouts of joy.
    "From the outcry at Heshbon even to Elealeh, even to Jahaz they have raised their voice, from Zoar even to Horonaim and to Eglath-shelishiyah; for even the waters of Nimrim will become desolate.
    "I will make an end of Moab," declares the LORD, "the one who offers sacrifice on the high place and the one who burns incense to his gods.
    "Therefore My heart wails for Moab like flutes; My heart also wails like flutes for the men of Kir-heres Therefore they have lost the abundance it produced."

Jeremiah 48:29-36
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #88 on: July 12, 2007, 04:28:19 PM »

In celebration of the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, and after reading the recent inanity on this thread, I will proceed to prepare and imbibe a large Scotch & Soda, perhaps followed by another, and then maybe...
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #89 on: July 12, 2007, 04:30:29 PM »

Sounds like a very good idea.  Cool BTW, is that today for Old Calendarists? I never can remember by how many days we are apart.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2007, 04:31:35 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #90 on: July 12, 2007, 04:36:49 PM »

In celebration of the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, and after reading the recent inanity on this thread, I will proceed to prepare and imbibe a large Scotch & Soda, perhaps followed by another, and then maybe...

If I have driven someone to drink, then I have done a good deed. Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #91 on: July 12, 2007, 04:42:11 PM »

In celebration of the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, and after reading the recent inanity on this thread, I will proceed to prepare and imbibe a large Scotch & Soda, perhaps followed by another, and then maybe...

Thanks for the reminder!!! Really... I did not realize that you are an Old Calendarist, too, brother Aristokles... Great! Time to go home and pour myself something, too. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #92 on: July 12, 2007, 05:21:36 PM »

Sounds like a very good idea.  Cool BTW, is that today for Old Calendarists? I never can remember by how many days we are apart.

For those of us on the Julian calendar, yes. The 'Old Calendarists' by definition are on THE calendar also.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #93 on: July 12, 2007, 05:22:03 PM »

If I have driven someone to drink, then I have done a good deed. Grin

First one's away...next

Speaking of 'defective'...anyone remember Fr Guido Sarducci and his "Pope ona rope" from SNL (1980-ish)?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2007, 05:23:46 PM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #94 on: July 12, 2007, 05:24:44 PM »

For those of us on the Julian calendar, yes. The 'Old Calendarists' by definition are on THE calendar also.

Of course. I only meant to ask is today June 29 on the Old Calendar. I did not mean to suggest anything else. Forgive me if it sounded like I was trying to detract from the feast. Happy Ss. Peter and Paul Day to all.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #95 on: July 12, 2007, 05:44:26 PM »

No offense taken. I like some of those 'walled off' folks. We're way to touchy here lately - relax!
have another drink!

Here's one to Fr Sarducci!
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #96 on: July 12, 2007, 05:54:05 PM »

My wife just reminded me that in Ukraine, they now have an OFFICIAL SS Peter and Paul holiday on July 12!  Grin
Logged

Love never fails.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #97 on: July 12, 2007, 06:23:20 PM »

Here's one to Fr Sarducci!

Some of the best sketches on the old SNL were with him.  My favorite was when he was in Mexico gathering up relics like the femur bone of St. Augustine, which he didn't get because it was chipped, the High School graduation picture of Jesus before the long hair and beard, the bill for the last supper, which he couldn't afford so settled for the bill from the Last Brunch!  Classic!
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2007, 06:54:43 PM »

http://www.kyivpost.com/bn/26935/

Romanian Orthodox Patriarch condemns Vatican document on other Christians
Jul 12 2007, 18:22

BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) - The leader of Romania's dominant Orthodox Church condemned July 12 a Vatican document in which Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, describing it as "brutal" and saying it made inter-church dialogue difficult.

Patriarch Teoctist said the document, which claims that other Christian communities were either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation, was pitting Christian churches against one other.

"We were stunned by such a statement, which troubles the entire Christian world. Such things do not make God happy," said Teoctist. "With such a brutal statement, it is hard to find a way to continue the dialogue with the Catholic Church, as long as it does not even recognize us as a church."

The document, which was published on July 10, also brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries.

On July 11, the cardinal in charge of relations with other Christians reacted to criticism by the Protestant churches saying the document contained nothing new and that there was no "objective reason for indignation or motive to feel themselves harshly treated."

Teoctist said the Romanian Orthodox Church had expected Pope Benedict XVI to continue his predecessor's efforts to reconcile the Christian churches to find "holy unity." He said the Romanian Orthodox Church was hoping for "rays of reason," including from the other churches, so that "we don't fall into chaos and to avoid crushing so brutally a (reconciliation) activity which has been carried out in recent decades."

Pope John Paul II was the first pope to visit predominantly Orthodox Romania in 1999, when he met with Teoctist and the two leaders called for the healing of divisions within Christianity. John Paul's visit was the first by a Roman pontiff to a mainly Orthodox country in nearly 1,000 years.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2007, 06:57:52 PM »

Sigh. . .do people not even read anymore? Somebody needs to cancel the Patriarch's subscription to the New York Times.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #100 on: July 12, 2007, 07:05:50 PM »

Sigh. . .do people not even read anymore? Somebody needs to cancel the Patriarch's subscription to the New York Times.

No, it merely seems that Patriarch Teoctist has mastered the language of religious declaration-speak, which similarly to diplomat-speak, hides one's true meaning beneath multiple layers of understatement and polite phrasing.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #101 on: July 12, 2007, 08:28:16 PM »

relax!
have another drink!

Here's one to Fr Sarducci!



Grazie... Cool

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,757


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #102 on: July 12, 2007, 09:57:05 PM »

Some of the best sketches on the old SNL were with him [Don Novello as Fr Guido Sarducci].  My favorite was when he was in Mexico gathering up relics like the femur bone of St. Augustine, which he didn't get because it was chipped...

I've got the chip!
Logged

Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #103 on: July 12, 2007, 10:19:05 PM »

my dad and I have gotten to talking about this whole issue and he seems to have been brainwashed into thinking that the Alexandrian Church (as a whole...whether byzantine or coptic) was THE ROME before the Western Rome or Constantinople came to power...he thinks that The Alexandrine Church was the original church due to its proximity to Jerusalem....but I tried explaining to him that the Apostles went everywhere around the Mediteranean, Middle East and Far East...and besides Antioch is even closer than Alexandria...

so my question for you  ecclesiastical history buffs out there is which patriarchate came to its powerful zenith first? Certainly not Constantinople...that came a lil later...but was it Antioch, Alexandria, or  Western Rome? I've read in history books that Antioch and Alexandria always vyied for power but which one was first? Alexandria took care of "All of Africa" and Egypt and surrounding area...but Antioch had under its omorphion all of the Middle East besides Egypt and including part of Persia (if not all of it) according to wikipedia...so my conclusion would be that Antioch was the 1st most powerful patriarchate quickly followed by Alexandria and then Constantinople and finally Rome...
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #104 on: July 12, 2007, 10:40:53 PM »

so my question for you  ecclesiastical history buffs out there is which patriarchate came to its powerful zenith first? Certainly not Constantinople...that came a lil later...but was it Antioch, Alexandria, or  Western Rome? I've read in history books that Antioch and Alexandria always vyied for power but which one was first? Alexandria took care of "All of Africa" and Egypt and surrounding area...but Antioch had under its omorphion all of the Middle East besides Egypt and including part of Persia (if not all of it) according to wikipedia...so my conclusion would be that Antioch was the 1st most powerful patriarchate quickly followed by Alexandria and then Constantinople and finally Rome...
I don't know for certain, but my knowledge of the Scriptures (Acts 11:19-26) suggests that the Church in Antioch became a major Christian center even before the fall of the Jerusalem Church in A.D. 70.  Rome being the commercial center, as well as being the capital, of the Empire, I'm sure any major religious movement would quickly gain a strong following in Rome, even without an as-of-yet apostolic foundation.  But if one looks only to apostolic foundation (Antioch with Ss. Peter and Paul--remember that Antioch was the community that ordained Paul for his apostolic ministry--; Alexandria with St. Andrew; later, Rome with Ss. Peter and Paul), I think Antioch has to be considered the first major Christian Church founded on the ministry of a resident Apostle.
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #105 on: July 12, 2007, 11:03:00 PM »

In terms of prominence, I think it's rather hard to dispute the idea that the See of Alexandria (which btw, was established by St Mark, not St Andrew) lead the way in that regard. Alexandria was, well before Christianity was even introduced to Egypt, the intellectual centre of the world. The Alexandrian Museum (“Shrine of the Muses”) was a reputably academically prestigious institution for intellectual elite. Alexandria’s intellectual atmosphere was also promoted by the Great Library which accompanied the Museum. Once Christianity was introduced into Alexandria, the Church continued the city's legacy through the Didascalia. In his Life of Athanasius, the Apostolic, Kamel Saleh Nakhla quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as saying, ‘The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.’
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #106 on: July 12, 2007, 11:32:59 PM »

the See of Alexandria (which btw, was established by St Mark, not St Andrew)
Thanks for correcting me on this.  (seriously; no sarcasm intended Smiley)
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #107 on: July 12, 2007, 11:37:53 PM »

No problem. As far as I can recall, the foundation of the See of Constantinople is commonly attributed to St Andrew, but I think this is a rather late tradition so i'm not sure how much historical credence it possesses.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #108 on: July 13, 2007, 09:23:57 AM »

"We were stunned by such a statement, which troubles the entire Christian world. Such things do not make God happy," said Teoctist. "With such a brutal statement, it is hard to find a way to continue the dialogue with the Catholic Church, as long as it does not even recognize us as a church."


It's hard to imagine why Patriarch Teoctist would say that the Catholic Church "does not even recognize us as a church". Did he simply misread the document?

Also, how is Patriarch Teoctist regarded within Orthodoxy in terms of ecumenism? I.e. is he considered ecumenically liberal?

Thanks,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #109 on: July 13, 2007, 09:46:04 AM »


It's hard to imagine why Patriarch Teoctist would say that the Catholic Church "does not even recognize us as a church". Did he simply misread the document?

Also, how is Patriarch Teoctist regarded within Orthodoxy in terms of ecumenism? I.e. is he considered ecumenically liberal?

Thanks,
Peter.

Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church. I dare say his reaction is due to what he feels is rather a betrayal (it sounds very different to the sorts of things he was hearing previously from Rome). I'm very glad that the Pope made that statement and even more glad to see His Holiness' reaction. I was hoping it might temper our church's over-enthusiasm for ecumenism and certain rather unrealistic hopes and it looks like my hopes might be being fulfilled.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #110 on: July 13, 2007, 10:11:15 AM »

Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks for the info, James. In the interest of fairness, let me add that the only thing I really find unusual about Teoctist's statement is the fact that it is coming from an Orthodox patriarch -- the attitude he expresses is one that I am used to seeing not only in complaints made against Catholics by ecumenically liberal Anglicans, but also against Orthodox by ecumenically liberal Catholics. So perhaps I should (as someone else has, I think, said recently) be pointing the finger first at people with whom I am in full communion.

I dare say his reaction is due to what he feels is rather a betrayal (it sounds very different to the sorts of things he was hearing previously from Rome). I'm very glad that the Pope made that statement and even more glad to see His Holiness' reaction. I was hoping it might temper our church's over-enthusiasm for ecumenism and certain rather unrealistic hopes and it looks like my hopes might be being fulfilled.

Interesting ... time will tell, I suppose.

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #111 on: July 13, 2007, 12:09:52 PM »

Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church. I dare say his reaction is due to what he feels is rather a betrayal (it sounds very different to the sorts of things he was hearing previously from Rome). I'm very glad that the Pope made that statement and even more glad to see His Holiness' reaction. I was hoping it might temper our church's over-enthusiasm for ecumenism and certain rather unrealistic hopes and it looks like my hopes might be being fulfilled.

James

That's a good point, and an interesting way looking at it.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,757


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #112 on: July 13, 2007, 02:09:49 PM »

I've been pleased by most of the Orthodox responses I've read online - much mutual respect and understanding because the statement largely mirrors Orthodoxy's own teaching about itself and doesn't fall into mushy relativism/indifferentism (something many Orthodox wrongly equate with ecumenism). It doesn't say anything new and merely restates the main difference with Orthodoxy: the meaning and power of the papacy. Honesty. Which is always a good thing.
Logged

Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #113 on: July 13, 2007, 04:02:21 PM »

I'm quite surprized that a little humorous diddy has not reached here yet, re; Rome's adjusted opening greeting, "To our defective brothers and sisters (or brethern) in Christ" instead of To our separated etc...

relax and have a cool brew... Cool

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
ma2000
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: ROMANIAN
Posts: 287


Saint Anthony The Great


« Reply #114 on: July 13, 2007, 05:24:56 PM »

Sigh. . .do people not even read anymore? Somebody needs to cancel the Patriarch's subscription to the New York Times.

http://www.gandul.info/actual/patriarhul-teoctist-spera-biserica-catolica-revina-asupra-declar.html?3927;853539

The Patriarch admitted he didn't read the original document and hopes the document will bring some other ways of "dialog". Or somethig like that Smiley

„Credem că documentul original – pentru că acum ştim din ce s-a publicat în presă – când va fi expus şi comentat de congregaţia respectivă, poate va aduce alte posibilităţi, alte căi de comunicare, pentru ca să nu se zdrobească atât de brutal o activitate (dialog – n.r.) de atâtea decenii”,
Logged

Asemănându-te obiceiurilor râvnitorului Ilie şi urmând Botezătorului pe drepte cărări, Părinte Antonie, te-ai făcut locuitor pustiului şi ai întărit lumea cu rugăciunile tale. Pentru aceasta, roagă-te lui Hristos Dumnezeu, să mântuiască sufletele noastre.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #115 on: July 13, 2007, 11:15:10 PM »

In terms of prominence, I think it's rather hard to dispute the idea that the See of Alexandria (which btw, was established by St Mark, not St Andrew) lead the way in that regard. Alexandria was, well before Christianity was even introduced to Egypt, the intellectual centre of the world. The Alexandrian Museum (“Shrine of the Muses”) was a reputably academically prestigious institution for intellectual elite. Alexandria’s intellectual atmosphere was also promoted by the Great Library which accompanied the Museum. Once Christianity was introduced into Alexandria, the Church continued the city's legacy through the Didascalia. In his Life of Athanasius, the Apostolic, Kamel Saleh Nakhla quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as saying, ‘The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.’

Thanks Peter and EA for your thoughtful responses...EA I kinda thought youd think that...well I'm not denying the reputability of the Alexandrine School or Hellenistic culture that was thriving there but my dad says that because of this thriving culture Alexandria became the first church out of which all other churches grew out...now this is plain fantasy. The Apostles travelled many places...and founded the 5 patriarchates. There wasnt one See which founded all other sees...this theory is close to what Rome thinks about herself. A RC friend of mine actually told me that Peter moved His See from Antioch to Rome because of Rome's prominence and because Rome was the most cultured, advanced place which was once soo full of vices...that it was a miracle it eventually turned Christian...thats even more screwed up. St. Peter founded BOTH Antioch and Roman Sees right? Perhaps at different times but he didn't "move the church from Antioch to Rome" (to use my friends wording.

Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #116 on: July 13, 2007, 11:19:41 PM »

Forgot to add...my point really is: why the heck does it matter? It might've mattered a loong time ago socially etc...but why today? Can't we just all agree that all Patriarchates (including Rome) are equal and forget about numbering or ranking them...its just like a stupid race to see whos better. Of course the Pope would drop down dead before admitting to being equal to the Eastern Patriarchates. On almost every website of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, RC, they all try to talk of how much esteem and honour and how much greater their church is in compared to anyone else....that doesn't really seem like an (Apostolic) Christian attitude.
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #117 on: July 13, 2007, 11:30:06 PM »

Dear Timos,

I had never heard of the theory your father promotes before you mentioned it, nor do I agree with it. I agree with Peter's assessment that the Church of Antioch was indeed the first major Christian Church to be established. That is, I believe, the Scriptural testimony after all.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #118 on: July 14, 2007, 12:01:37 AM »

And we certainly don't disagree with the age of the See of Antioch. But we do insist that St. Peter completed his apostolic witness in Rome, as God willed it, and was there crucified. And there his tomb rests, under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. St. Paul rests in Rome as well. But, then, that's why we are Catholics and you are Orthodox.

It's no slight to Antioch, of course, which remains one of the pentarchy, though it has FIVE patriarchs and isn't even located in Antioch.  Smiley


 
« Last Edit: July 14, 2007, 12:02:50 AM by lubeltri » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2007, 12:27:44 AM »

And we certainly don't disagree with the age of the See of Antioch. But we do insist that St. Peter completed his apostolic witness in Rome, as God willed it, and was there crucified. And there his tomb rests, under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. St. Paul rests in Rome as well. But, then, that's why we are Catholics and you are Orthodox.

It's no slight to Antioch, of course, which remains one of the pentarchy, though it has FIVE patriarchs and isn't even located in Antioch.  Smiley

My response to this argument was always, so what? I really never got it and it really seems like stretching to argue primacy from something like this, especially in light of the real world, where superiority is determined by political influence and strong armies. Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land. Rome's position comes because of the reverence due to the City, it comes because of Lucius Junius Brutus, Scipio Africanus, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, etc., etc. not because of St. Peter or St. Paul or any other St. Such and Such. It seems to me that Rome merely diminishes herself by distancing herself from her Imperial past, the glory that Rome once was and of which the Church is a continuation.
 Disparaging remarks against the Christian Faith, specifically:
"Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land."
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #120 on: July 14, 2007, 12:42:55 AM »

My response to this argument was always, so what? I really never got it and it really seems like stretching to argue primacy from something like this, especially in light of the real world, where superiority is determined by political influence and strong armies. Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land. Rome's position comes because of the reverence due to the City, it comes because of Lucius Junius Brutus, Scipio Africanus, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, etc., etc. not because of St. Peter or St. Paul or any other St. Such and Such. It seems to me that Rome merely diminishes herself by distancing herself from her Imperial past, the glory that Rome once was and of which the Church is a continuation.

Of course there are many more reasons why our Church considers the See of Rome as preeminent. And they have filled book after book for centuries. And Eastern Orthodox refutations have filled books for centuries. I am too lazy to rehash that stuff all over on an Internet forum, so forgive me for not mentioning them.

BTW, I wouldn't say Rome has always distanced herself from that imperial past. The papal tiara and floating throne were vestiges of that. So is the Swiss Guard. The cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, St. John Lateran, was a Roman basilica given to the Pope by no less than Constantine the Great. Pontifex Maximus, an ancient imperial Roman title, remains one of the Pope's titles. But, of course, as I mention above, Rome has also justified her place using other theological and historical reasons.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #121 on: July 14, 2007, 01:14:21 AM »

Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land.
Somehow, Lubeltri, I don't think GiC was talking merely about Rome and her place in the Church.  The above statement, taken at face value and in the light of his many other similar postings on this site, appears to identify the whole of Christianity as nothing more than the cult of the Roman/Byzantine Empire.  How many times has GiC said that when Byzantium fell the Church fell with her?  How many times has GiC said that the Empire and the Church share the same glory?  In GiC's mind, the Church fell into darkness in 1452 and has never recovered, for to him the Church IS the Byzantine Empire.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: July 14, 2007, 01:17:20 AM »

The cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, St. John Lateran, was a Roman basilica given to the Pope by no less than Constantine the Great.
You're not talking about the Donation of Constantine, are you?  I believe that document was proven fraudulent years ago, but  I could be wrong.
Logged
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,816



« Reply #123 on: July 14, 2007, 01:24:06 AM »

No I believe he is correct, Constantine built St John as the  Cathedra for the patriarch/Bishop of Rome.  The  Cathedra in Rome for the patriarch of Constantinople was St Peters.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #124 on: July 14, 2007, 01:28:08 AM »

No I believe he is correct, Constantine built St John as the  Cathedra for the patriarch/Bishop of Rome.  The  Cathedra in Rome for the patriarch of Constantinople was St Peters.

Thomas
Okay.  I wasn't quite sure about this.  Thanks for the info.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #125 on: July 14, 2007, 12:02:27 PM »

 Disparaging remarks against the Christian Faith, specifically:
"Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land."

WOW...warned for failure to support official propaganda. This is a degree of censorship taken to a whole new level on OC.net. I attacked no one personally (though somebody obviously took it personally), I didn't use any forbidden words, and I replied with a post entirely relevant to one I was responding to. Furthermore, I responded in line with an objective analysis of history, and am by no means the first to suggest that Christianity's growth and expansion was dependent on Imperial support, or even the first to suggest that without such support it is quite likely that Christianity would have suffered the fate of, say, the worship of Deus Sol Invictus. Furthermore, how can one say that the Church is NOT an imperial cult? We have Icons of Saints, who were only Saints because of their service to the Empire, in our Churches, our vestments were the dress of the Late Roman Aristocracy, we pray daily in our services for the victory of the Empire against the Barbarians, though the Barbarians have won long ago and the Empire is no more, our theology has been developed by Emperors who have summoned councils that have been expected to do their bidding...in one example where they did not, at the early sessions of Nicea II when the iconoclasts were strong, Empress Irene simply disbanded the council and resummoned it inviting only the bishops who intended to vote in her favour. Consider Chalcedon, it represented a change in Imperial policy from Ephesus II, they only reason we're not Eutychians today is because of a change in Emperors and a change in Imperial Policy. Bishoprics were long given to influential members of Roman Aristocracy, consider Balsamon, perhaps regarded as the greatest of all canonists in the history of the Church, he was Patriarch of Antioch, a political appointment, though he never actually visited the city throughout his whole life. The use of incense in the Church has been argued to be modeled after it's use in the veneration of the Emperor, they very doors to the altar are today called 'royal doors', not because of some divine royalty, but because by them the Emperor entered into the altar, being the only layman allowed to enter and commune there. There are countless examples of bishops being installed and deposed on account of the Imperial Authority, many heresies are heresies because they were opposed by the Empire, Church unity was a political goal and Church doctrine was a political means...this should hardly be controversial, I don't believe I had a single professor in seminary who would have argued otherwise. Up until Constantine we were a growing but relatively weak and splintered group, with St. Constantine came the Oecumenical Synods, came unity in the Church, and came the development of Christian dogma in ernest. What we believe, how we worship, who we are was defined from the time of the Emperor St. Constantine to the time of the Empress St. Theodora...we were defined during the golden age of the Empire, and were defined in relationship to the Empire. How is the Christian Faith not the greatest and most holy of cults the Empire has known? How is our cult not defined by the Empire?

And the funniest thing is that I was warned for making 'disparaging remarks' when I was actually making POSITIVE remarks Cheesy
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #126 on: July 14, 2007, 12:06:55 PM »

Something that just crossed my mind, that I didn't think about until reading through my response: I really hope that there's at least some substance to this complaint (strange though it may be) and not simply a knee jerk reaction based on the popular use of the word cult. If this is, heaven forbid, the case someone REALLY needs to invest in a dictionary. Just a thought, since I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could really take offence with what I said (disagree, perhaps, but not take offence).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #127 on: July 14, 2007, 12:35:05 PM »

^^ Dam son, you should spend some more time at the pool or get out more often... Grin  Maybe you were warned because throwing out heavy handed words such as 'christianity is an imperial cult' on a christian forum without extensive factual information to support such a controversial claim obviously is going to piss most people off.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #128 on: July 14, 2007, 01:05:25 PM »

^^ Dam son, you should spend some more time at the pool or get out more often... Grin  Maybe you were warned because throwing out heavy handed words such as 'christianity is an imperial cult' on a christian forum without extensive factual information to support such a controversial claim obviously is going to piss most people off.

Oh, this is actually quite fun...it feeds my ego Wink And I didn't offer too much supporting information because this the issue has already been discussed many times.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,141


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #129 on: July 15, 2007, 01:18:41 PM »

Quote
Consider Chalcedon, it represented a change in Imperial policy from Ephesus II, they only reason we're not Eutychians today is because of a change in Emperors and a change in Imperial Policy.

I'm sorry, but that assumption simply is not true.  Forgive me for saying this here, but by this you are assuming that we are Eutychians.  I think you should have the common respect that as much as Constantinople 553 "clarified" Chalcedon, so did our Ephesus 475 clarify Ephesus II (I'm surprised you haven't called it a "Robber's Council").

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2007, 02:07:36 PM »

I'm sorry, but that assumption simply is not true.  Forgive me for saying this here, but by this you are assuming that we are Eutychians.  I think you should have the common respect that as much as Constantinople 553 "clarified" Chalcedon, so did our Ephesus 475 clarify Ephesus II (I'm surprised you haven't called it a "Robber's Council").

God bless.

I'm not really making that assumption, and I believe that you are missing my point. My point is really that the difference between Nestorian, Eutychian, and Chalcedonian Christianity are not substantial enough cause division and schism; and it was most certainly in the best interest of the Empire to maintain unity. That was the point of Chalcedon, the Emperor and Senate simply wanted union, they looked for a compromise between Eutychianism and Nestorianism, a middle road everyone could follow (though I'm sure the preference would have been for these issues to just go away). Of course, there were other cultural factors that made certain Egyptian and Syrian bishops not want to get along with each other, much less the Empire, thus the political manoeuvring wasn't entirely successful. Later the Empire tried again with Monothelitism giving a clarafication of theology to hopefully heal the schism between the two sides in the schism over Chalcedon (by this time the Nestorians were almost entirely beyond the bounds of the Empire and thus of little significance to Imperial politics), but Coptic nationalism and rebellion against the Empire succeeded again and the theological system was scrapped when it started causing more problems than it was fixing. My point was simply that political considerations (on both sides) drove doctrinal development.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #131 on: July 16, 2007, 12:07:11 AM »

You know I had a strict "no alcohol" rule until I joined this forum and started reading GiC's posts. If I didn't have to work the next six days straight......aw heck.....where's the bottle??
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,726


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #132 on: July 16, 2007, 12:33:45 AM »

I'm not really making that assumption, and I believe that you are missing my point. My point is really that the difference between Nestorian, Eutychian, and Chalcedonian Christianity are not substantial enough cause division and schism; and it was most certainly in the best interest of the Empire to maintain unity. That was the point of Chalcedon, the Emperor and Senate simply wanted union, they looked for a compromise between Eutychianism and Nestorianism, a middle road everyone could follow (though I'm sure the preference would have been for these issues to just go away). Of course, there were other cultural factors that made certain Egyptian and Syrian bishops not want to get along with each other, much less the Empire, thus the political manoeuvring wasn't entirely successful. Later the Empire tried again with Monothelitism giving a clarafication of theology to hopefully heal the schism between the two sides in the schism over Chalcedon (by this time the Nestorians were almost entirely beyond the bounds of the Empire and thus of little significance to Imperial politics), but Coptic nationalism and rebellion against the Empire succeeded again and the theological system was scrapped when it started causing more problems than it was fixing. My point was simply that political considerations (on both sides) drove doctrinal development.

I'm confused.  Are you, or are you not, calling St. Theodora, who accepted Ephesus II and rejected Chalcedon, a Eutychian?    Grin   (I'm so glad the EO's love her too.)

With regard to your point that politics on both sides drove doctrinal development, am I the only one here who thinks this may be a good topic for the private discussion board?  Things have been too quiet there.  Perhaps someone would like to carry this discussion over there so we can go into it more thoroughly.
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,141


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #133 on: July 16, 2007, 03:03:48 AM »

The thing is GiC that we also condemn Eutyches.  That is why it does not make any sense you would call us Eutychians.  Perhaps, if it wasn't for the emperor, you can say you would be "non-Chalcedonians" or "Miaphysites" or "Cyrillians" or even "Dioscorian/Severian," but not Eutychian.  To us, that is an insult.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #134 on: July 16, 2007, 11:38:49 PM »

Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church.

James (and everyone),

To try to elucidate my own feelings on ecumenism and ecumenists, I would not say really that I have a problem with ecumenism in principle. (And note that I'm not saying I'm 100% for it, just that I don't have a problem with it.) But I often have a problem with it in practice because of the selective application of it by many "ecumenists".

A simple example is the Catholic ecumenist Fr. Robert Taft.

While discussing the possibility of a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate, an interviewer asked Fr. Taft "So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?", to which Fr. Taft replied "No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow." (The entire interview is available here.)

This makes you wonder whether Fr. Taft is "ecumenical" only towards those who are as liberal as he is.

(This makes me think of something C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity: "Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from the borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.")
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,213



« Reply #135 on: August 01, 2007, 07:52:44 AM »

Is it a new doctrine or has the Vicar of Christ, Benedict of Rome, just stated what has been believed in the Latin churches for more than 16 centuries ? The outrage expressed by people concerning the Vicar of Christ view on Orthodoxy is unfounded. If the Vicar of Christ woke up in the morning and decided to reconfirm the Latin faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, would his statement be received in the same manner ?

The timing may be bad, specially for the Non-Chalcedonian church leaders and hierarchs who have increased their ecumenical efforts significantly just to be hit with this statement by the Vicar of Christ. It made them look terrible in front of the people who follow up with this ecumenical business, and the few who are not impressed by these ecumenical efforts found in the Vicar's statement some room to breath.

May the Supreme Pontiff live forever and may his golden tongue never cease to illuminate us with such statements. Bahebak ya kebeer.

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #136 on: August 01, 2007, 03:02:55 PM »

I really think that there is no way to unity unless we either throw out the Papacy (won't happen) or the Eastern Orthodox will have to accept the Papacy (won't happen). So guess what, I don't think it will happen on this side of heaven.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,213



« Reply #137 on: August 01, 2007, 05:58:24 PM »

Each side, whether Latin Chalcedonians or Eastern Chalcedonian, or Non-Chalcedonian, believes the following, as expressed by the majority of laymen and hierarchs:

+ Their churches are within the scope of salvation
+ The other churches are apostolic churches
+ The other churches are not outside the scope of salvation (The Vicar's comments do not exclude Orthodox from salvation, the Vicar just say that they are a so-so church not having the fullness of faith, as if the faith is a cheese cake)

So, what is the need for the unity ? If salvation is not affected by this status of schism now, why should we bother about unity ?

Are We saved ? Of course (according to the ecumenist). .
Is unity with the Latin or Eastern Chalcedonian necessary for MY salvation ? No (according to the ecumenist).
Are they saved, eventhough they are in schism with US ? Yes (according to the ecumenist).

So why do we need a unity ?
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #138 on: August 01, 2007, 11:21:22 PM »

I really think that there is no way to unity unless we either throw out the Papacy (won't happen) or the Eastern Orthodox will have to accept the Papacy (won't happen). So guess what, I don't think it will happen on this side of heaven.
Actually, we're not asking you to throw out the Papacy, for the Papacy did serve a valuable role within the Church at one time.  All we're asking is that you throw out how the Papacy has grown to define itself over the past 1000+ years.
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #139 on: August 01, 2007, 11:32:54 PM »

We all have defects and all are sinners...simple & no further comment by me is required.

Time for that nightcap... Wink

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #140 on: August 02, 2007, 10:11:31 AM »

Actually, we're not asking you to throw out the Papacy, for the Papacy did serve a valuable role within the Church at one time.  All we're asking is that you throw out how the Papacy has grown to define itself over the past 1000+ years.

We would do that if we did not believe that some of the greatest exponents of the papal primacy were first-millennium popes like St. Gregory the Great and St. Leo the Great. Hence the snag.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,441


« Reply #141 on: August 02, 2007, 11:11:20 AM »

We would do that if we did not believe that some of the greatest exponents of the papal primacy were first-millennium popes like St. Gregory the Great and St. Leo the Great. Hence the snag.

Of course, we would just say that you misunderstand what Sts. Gregory and Leo believed about the office of the Bishop of Rome. Wink
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #142 on: August 02, 2007, 03:02:07 PM »

Of course, we would just say that you misunderstand what Sts. Gregory and Leo believed about the office of the Bishop of Rome. Wink

Indeed, and we'd go back and forth like this for century on century. How fun!  Wink
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,757


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #143 on: August 03, 2007, 01:44:26 PM »

Actually, we're not asking you to throw out the Papacy, for the Papacy did serve a valuable role within the Church at one time.  All we're asking is that you throw out how the Papacy has grown to define itself over the past 1000+ years.

Thank you. I was going to write something like that - 'throw out the papacy' is not AFAIK the Orthodox position! How could it be when Pope saints are listed in the Orthodox calendar as Popes?!

What you wrote AFAIK is the Orthodox position.
Logged

Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #144 on: September 10, 2008, 10:20:22 AM »

In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled, "The Jewish People and their sacred scriptures in the Christian Bible."
This book was written by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

In this book that represents the Vaticans (the Papacy) views about Jews and Judaism, you will discover that it recognizes Judaism as an equally valid path to salvation and rejects the idea that salvation is only through Jesus Christ.

While the Roman Catholic Church is pretending to seek unity with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it is obvious that comments like those made in the article reveal the true nature of the Vatican and the Pope.

Who cares what the Roman Catholics tell themselves? Its self-deception and they serve the purpose of rabbinical Judaism and of course the antichrist.

Pope Benedict XVI's book which I mentioned above, is but one example of the Vatican's real views which are against TRUE CHRISTIANITY (ORTHODOXY).

To see what I'm talking about, look up the book I mentioned and refer to
SECTION II A 5
SECTION II A 7

Also look up Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's other book "God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald." Ignatius Press 2002. p..209

Where he says,

“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promise as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts […] There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ….”


The Roman Catholic Church is very different from Orthodoxy. Very different.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #145 on: September 10, 2008, 10:51:09 AM »

In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled, "The Jewish People and their sacred scriptures in the Christian Bible."
This book was written by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

In this book that represents the Vaticans (the Papacy) views about Jews and Judaism, you will discover that it recognizes Judaism as an equally valid path to salvation and rejects the idea that salvation is only through Jesus Christ.

While the Roman Catholic Church is pretending to seek unity with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it is obvious that comments like those made in the article reveal the true nature of the Vatican and the Pope.

Who cares what the Roman Catholics tell themselves? Its self-deception and they serve the purpose of rabbinical Judaism and of course the antichrist.

Pope Benedict XVI's book which I mentioned above, is but one example of the Vatican's real views which are against TRUE CHRISTIANITY (ORTHODOXY).

To see what I'm talking about, look up the book I mentioned and refer to
SECTION II A 5
SECTION II A 7

Also look up Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's other book "God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald." Ignatius Press 2002. p..209

Where he says,

“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promise as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts […] There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ….”


The Roman Catholic Church is very different from Orthodoxy. Very different.

Right.  Roll Eyes

So Orthodoxy is all about presuming evil motives of the Jewish people? Is Christ mentioned explicitly at all in the Old Testament? If it was so CLEAR and FRANK, why the different schools of thought in Judaism at the time of Christ?

In a few minutes I will post that selection of Cardinal Ratzinger's in context. Methinks you ripped that quote off a sedevacantist or Jack Chick-type site.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #146 on: September 10, 2008, 11:18:12 AM »

In the selection, Cardinal Ratzinger responds (orally---the book is a transcribed interview) to the following question. The fragments quoted by Zarabas above are bolded.


The patriarch Jacob had more or less described the time when this Redeemer would come, as in fact it was at the birth of Christ. Many had fallen away from the faith; Pharisees lived a life full of pride and lovelessness, as it says; the rest felt like a flock of sheep without a shepherd. The longing for the Master had grown equally great, both among Jews and among Gentiles. “Drop down the righteous, O heavens, from above!” pleads the prophet Isaiah, “and you, clouds, rain him down!” Yet nonetheless: Might it not be that these prophecies were fabricated in response to Jesus, and in fact only in retrospect?

The first sentence of your question refers to the so-called benediction of Jacob (Gen 49), which consists of a collection of promises, often quite mysterious, for the twelve sons of Jacob. In the blessing of Judah it says, “The rule shall not depart from Judah, nor the scepter from his feet, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, to whom the obedience of all peoples is due” (49:10). That was then interpreted as a promise concerning the kingdom of David (David belonged to the tribe of Judah), and after this kingdom’s disappearance---in the time of Jesus, that is---as the promise of a new son of David, the Messiah, who would also command the obedience of all the peoples of the world, the non-Jews. It is obvious that Christians would see this promise as being fulfilled in Jesus the Son of David. But this text (scholars still disagree about its period of origin) does not go so far as to describe the time of Jesus, and its words point mysteriously to the future, and its meaning only seems clear in the light of Christ.

Now let’s take the prophet Isaiah. The original text in fact reads “Drop down righteousness, O heavens.” Only after righteousness had come in the guise of a particular person did the Christians read this text with a personalized reference. Thus in this relationship of agreement between Old and New Testaments we can see how the word of Scripture offers a progressive way. The words go to meet him; they seek him out where he is still in obscurity.

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts---yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.

There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him---that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about. But this is not all. A great part of the purely historical and critical exegesis, likewise, does not read the Old Testament in this sense of pointing the way forward; it regards the Christian interpretation of it as being inconsistent with the original meaning, or at any rate as going far beyond it.

One would have to add this: The Old Testament is not an oracle; it is a path. We still have the freedom to reject it. I would say that the very fact that this freedom is open to us is a guarantee that the texts will stand on their own. It is quite clear that historically the Old Testament precedes Christ; the faith and the Scriptures of the Jews make that as clear as day. The Church Fathers saw it as the historical mission of the Jews that, by saying Yes to the Old Testament and No to Jesus, they give a universal guarantee of the age and authenticity of their sacred books. This, so the Fathers thought, was why they remained Jews and did not become Christians. The texts stand on their own, but they gain a new significance and unity of view when we read them with Christ.


God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald. Ignatius Press, 2002, pp. 207-210.
Logged
Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #147 on: September 11, 2008, 08:54:50 AM »

Greetings in Christ to you lubetri

For some strange reason you opted to inciminate the Orthodox with your "question"

"So Orthodoxy is all about presuming evil motives of the Jewish people?"

No, the Orthodox Church does not presume the Jews are evil. That was your assumption and ignorance since even the Roman Catholic Church claims that the teachings of the Holy Fathers are valid for our spiritual benefit, and they have also taught us that from the Tribe of Dan the Antichrist will emerge from amongst the Jews (but not the "Jews").

Your responses have demonstrated a straying away from the OLD TESTAMENT that the early Church used (the New Testament was not complete or official in that period) which was used to learn about the Messiah Jesus Christ.

Your respones also demonstrate the careless acceptance of what the Vatican NOW teaches.

I couldn't help but notice how you failed to answer why Pope Benedict XVI promotes the belief that salvation is not only through Christ.

So while you sit there and make implicit suggestions against the Orthodox Church as "anti-Semitic" to avoid the reality of what the Vatican now teaches, you only help demonstrate why the ORTHODOX CHURCH IS NOT "DEFECTIVE" as stated by your heretical Papacy that opts to teach alternatives to salvation found in rabbinical Judaism.

You dont have to quote lengthy passages and explanations from the Vatican since I've looked at many Roman Catholic books describing what you believe. The point I made was actually assisted by your response which asserts that the OLD TESTAMENT has been devalued by the Vatican who has distanced its relationship to Jesus Christ and the New Testament.

I think you should re-examine the "theology" of the Vatican and then compare that to what the Holy Church Fathers taught in the first 1000 years of the Church's history.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #148 on: September 11, 2008, 09:12:59 AM »

 Roll Eyes

Your accusations are false and remain unproven by you, but since you obviously have an axe to grind and wish only to bash Catholics over the head with false accusations, I will waste no more time with you.

I truly hope you spend more time in an actual parish practicing a positive Orthodox faith rather than consume yourself with a Church of which you are not even part.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #149 on: September 11, 2008, 12:03:58 PM »

Greetings in Christ to you lubetri

For some strange reason you opted to inciminate the Orthodox with your "question"

"So Orthodoxy is all about presuming evil motives of the Jewish people?"

No, the Orthodox Church does not presume the Jews are evil. That was your assumption and ignorance since even the Roman Catholic Church claims that the teachings of the Holy Fathers are valid for our spiritual benefit, and they have also taught us that from the Tribe of Dan the Antichrist will emerge from amongst the Jews (but not the "Jews").

Your responses have demonstrated a straying away from the OLD TESTAMENT that the early Church used (the New Testament was not complete or official in that period) which was used to learn about the Messiah Jesus Christ.

Your respones also demonstrate the careless acceptance of what the Vatican NOW teaches.

I couldn't help but notice how you failed to answer why Pope Benedict XVI promotes the belief that salvation is not only through Christ.

So while you sit there and make implicit suggestions against the Orthodox Church as "anti-Semitic" to avoid the reality of what the Vatican now teaches, you only help demonstrate why the ORTHODOX CHURCH IS NOT "DEFECTIVE" as stated by your heretical Papacy that opts to teach alternatives to salvation found in rabbinical Judaism.

You dont have to quote lengthy passages and explanations from the Vatican since I've looked at many Roman Catholic books describing what you believe. The point I made was actually assisted by your response which asserts that the OLD TESTAMENT has been devalued by the Vatican who has distanced its relationship to Jesus Christ and the New Testament.

I think you should re-examine the "theology" of the Vatican and then compare that to what the Holy Church Fathers taught in the first 1000 years of the Church's history.

You made an assertion based on an apparently selective reading of one of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's books.  lubeltri refuted your argument by quoting a much larger excerpt of the passage you quoted in order to place your quote in context.  So far I have seen you do nothing to prove your point except to accuse lubeltri of being a careless slave to post-Vatican-II Roman teaching and to continue to preach without proof the thesis that lubeltri so cogently refuted.  Your rant against lubeltri falls into the logical fallacy of the ad hominem, and your continued argument without proof presents an inflated view of your own authority.

Regarding these RC books you claim to have read, can you quote them for us?  Maybe then we'll see that you really know what you're talking about.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #150 on: September 11, 2008, 12:25:52 PM »

Roll Eyes

Your accusations are false and remain unproven by you, but since you obviously have an axe to grind and wish only to bash Catholics over the head with false accusations, I will waste no more time with you.

I truly hope you spend more time in an actual parish practicing a positive Orthodox faith rather than consume yourself with a Church of which you are not even part.

Grace and Peace,

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts---yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. ~ Pope Benedict XVI

Our Lord Jesus Christ taught the spiritual exegesis to the Apostles on the way to Emmaus. Pope Benedict XVI, with all due respect and honor to him and his position, seems to expect the texts, in and of themselves, to offer this spiritual exegesis so necessary that Our Lord and Saviour made sure to pass it to His Apostles. The grave concern Zarabas might be expressing, with difficulty, is that Pope Benedict XVI may appear to be over looking the necessity of this and making excuses for the text's subtly and the Jews rejection of the graces necessary to see and hear the truth.

This kind of scholastic excuse seems to be one not becoming of a Patriarch of the Ancient Church of the Living God and so confuses the Orthodox who still draw their faith from the God-Bearing Fathers and not in scholastic speculations as it appears Pope Benedict XVI is doing in his argument.

To obscure the truth is a grave injustice to unbelievers as it arms them all the more in their rejection. As much as Pope Benedict XVI might have desired to do so in charity for those Jews who find the truth of Jesus Christ a stumbling-block I see this as ultimately a very unwise act and some might argue 'evil' as the subject (God's Truth) is being obscured even if such is motivated out of charity the means (obscuring the truth) is still not a 'good'.

I am not attempting to pass judgment your Patriarch but only to offer, as kindly as I am able, a defense for the reaction of some on this forum toward the Pope actions. If I offend, please accept my deeply felt apology. I know being Catholic is a great challenge and being loyal to Rome is also a great challenge but in doing either does not mean we must be ignorant nor blind the the Faith believed "everywhere, always, and by all".

Peace and God Bless.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #151 on: September 11, 2008, 01:13:50 PM »

I think you misinterpret Cardinal Ratzinger's exegesis. He was speculating on one defense against the charge that parts of the Old Testament may have been fabricated by followers of Jesus to "point" to him. He points out that they are clearly ancient partly because they do not so obviously and literally and exclusively point to Jesus of Nazareth. They CAN be read in a different way. How else to explain the condemnation of the clear Messiah Jesus of Nazareth and the Sanhedrin's handing him over for crucifixion? How else to explain many  Jews' failure to see it, past and present? Are they all just dishonest and of ill will? Hardly.

If the Old Testament scriptures were so overtly pointing to Jesus of Nazareth, with no other reasonable interpretation, they would be seen as Christian propaganda. Read in the light of faith in Jesus, yes, they are clear. But they are not starting-point proof-texts for Jesus.

Charges of "scholasticism" do not apply here.

BTW, this exegesis was by a theologian named Joseph Ratzinger, not the Holy Father.

And Zaraba's stance has little justification---he ripped the quotes out of context to "prove" that the Catholic Church considers the Jews exempt from the call to Christ. His trolling merits no more of my time than it has already wasted.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #152 on: September 11, 2008, 01:19:46 PM »

Ignatius and Zaraba, here is something a bit more official, if you have any doubts:

22.  With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.


Dominus Iesus
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 01:20:32 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #153 on: September 11, 2008, 02:21:06 PM »

Peter...

You said

"You made an assertion based on an apparently selective reading of one of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's books.  lubeltri refuted your argument by quoting a much larger excerpt of the passage you quoted in order to place your quote in context.  So far I have seen you do nothing to prove your point except to accuse lubeltri of being a careless slave to post-Vatican-II Roman teaching and to continue to preach without proof the thesis that lubeltri so cogently refuted.  Your rant against lubeltri falls into the logical fallacy of the ad hominem, and your continued argument without proof presents an inflated view of your own authority.

Regarding these RC books you claim to have read, can you quote them for us?  Maybe then we'll see that you really know what you're talking about."

Obviously I did read those texts and obviously I'm not going to quote the entire books just to get to the point of the matter.

I intentionally used ---> [...] brackets to show that I made a transition in the selections I wanted to put forward. In writing, this is what is done to shorten relevant passages that are being quoted. There was nothing wrong on my part for doing that. I even quoted from which page and section the information could be compared.

I also made sure to tell people that they should read these books and see for themselves.

I did not misrepresent the data, but only provided those relevant passages for my considerations put forward to the issue of what is "Defective" and it is not the Orthodox Church.

As for Lubeltri, he made sure to imply "anti-Semitism" to the Orthodox Church just because I mentioned how the Vatican under Cardinal (and now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) promotes that salvation is not through Christ alone.

So Peter, what is your point? That I misrepresente and twisted what the Vatican says? Read carefully and you will see that this is not a case of semantics or misreadings.

Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #154 on: September 11, 2008, 02:23:33 PM »

I think you misinterpret Cardinal Ratzinger's exegesis. He was speculating on one defense against the charge that parts of the Old Testament may have been fabricated by followers of Jesus to "point" to him. He points out that they are clearly ancient partly because they do not so obviously and literally and exclusively point to Jesus of Nazareth. They CAN be read in a different way. How else to explain the condemnation of the clear Messiah Jesus of Nazareth and the Sanhedrin's handing him over for crucifixion? How else to explain many  Jews' failure to see it, past and present? Are they all just dishonest and of ill will? Hardly.

Grace and Peace,

This seems to me to be a very fair defense of the Pontiff's words and I no reason to refute them but out of context you might agree they can be interpreted as concerning to Orthodox Christians drawing deeply from the font of the God-Bearing Father's who did not dwell in the mind and speculate.

Quote
If the Old Testament scriptures were so overtly pointing to Jesus of Nazareth, with no other reasonable interpretation, they would be seen as Christian propaganda. Read in the light of faith in Jesus, yes, they are clear. But they are not starting-point proof-texts for Jesus.

It should be clear this is the case from the efforts of St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles that it was necessary to draw from a particular spiritual exegesis. Why doesn't the Pontiff point this out?

Quote
Charges of "scholasticism" do not apply here.

I did not use 'scholastic' in a primarily negative context I only wanted to point out that these kind of speculation is that of a scholar and not a Theologian (Orthodox Meaning of the term). When the Sacred Testimony is illuminated with the spiritual light of the Theologians it no longer exists as merely a historical document to be speculated about through intellectual argumentation. Forensic Biblical Dissection can not reveal the Spiritual Truth hidden within as such a method looks only at it as a historical document written in time. For those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, know the spiritual truths within. This is most profoundly illuminated in the Divine Liturgy and the prayers of the Church. The West has moved away from these truths in the activity of endless speculations I fear.

There is no need to be upset or overly irritated. If you are convicted that you are right, have patience with us and forgive. Correct with grace and kindness. Be charitable in the way only one who is rich in the Spirit can be and in time you will reap a good harvest.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #155 on: September 11, 2008, 02:25:12 PM »

Roll Eyes

Your accusations are false and remain unproven by you, but since you obviously have an axe to grind and wish only to bash Catholics over the head with false accusations, I will waste no more time with you.

I truly hope you spend more time in an actual parish practicing a positive Orthodox faith rather than consume yourself with a Church of which you are not even part.


Actually, I wasnt "Catholic bashing" since what is Catholic is Orthodox. I was however criticizing the Vatican's world view and beliefs presented in those text I quoted from.

However, you did respond to me with the implicit statement that Orthodoxy is "anti-Semitic". You really need to stop defending heresy and pretending it is done in love of Christ.

I stand absolutely correct that the Orthodox Church is not "Deffective" as stated by your ... Pope. However, the Vatican is extremely Deffective for the reasons I have presented plus much more.

Unnecessary ad hominem removed.  Your opinions are welcome, but keep your uncharitable language out of your posts.  If this happens again in my section or elsewhere on this board, your status will be changed to warned.

Thank you.

-- Friul
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 05:50:07 PM by Friul » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #156 on: September 11, 2008, 02:47:31 PM »

Quote
I think you misinterpret Cardinal Ratzinger's exegesis. He was speculating on one defense against the charge that parts of the Old Testament may have been fabricated by followers of Jesus to "point" to him. He points out that they are clearly ancient partly because they do not so obviously and literally and exclusively point to Jesus of Nazareth. They CAN be read in a different way. How else to explain the condemnation of the clear Messiah Jesus of Nazareth and the Sanhedrin's handing him over for crucifixion? How else to explain many  Jews' failure to see it, past and present? Are they all just dishonest and of ill will? Hardly.

If the Old Testament scriptures were so overtly pointing to Jesus of Nazareth, with no other reasonable interpretation, they would be seen as Christian propaganda. Read in the light of faith in Jesus, yes, they are clear. But they are not starting-point proof-texts for Jesus.
Dear brother, I don't think Zarabas is saying wrong things. On the contrary, the position of Benedict XVI and John Paul II contradicts explicitly what the Church Fathers stated for 1000 years. Am I accusing the Jews of the sin of voluntarily denying the *explicit* messianic interpretation of the Scriptures? No, I'm not. I'm accusing those Jews who, after the rise of Jesus from the dead, violently altered the text of the Scriptures: those men denied any value to the older editions (the aramaic and the Septuagint which were evidently quoted by the Apostles were not the Masoretic Text!)! I even have a Jewish friend, a wonderful girl, and I couldn't even think to say she's evil... the Bible she got is not the inspired Bible that we can trace in the Septuagint, where all the Messianic prophecies were explicit and could not be misunderstood.
Yeah, some Orthodox prayers condemn the Jews: in truth they condemn those who crucified our Lord and naver repented, and those Jews who altered the Holy Bible... Obviously I include those Jewish scholars who voluntarily deny all value to the Septuagint and claim the superiority of the Masoretic Text!
Are modern Jews guilty of this? No, their just in the ignorance of those who have been told since their birth terrible things about how the Jews are the only ones having the right Bible...

May God grent them light and bring them to His Beloved Son!
In Christ,    Alex




Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #157 on: September 11, 2008, 03:30:04 PM »

Greetings in Christ to you Alexander.

I would like for you to point out which prayers are "anti-Semitic" and perhaps we can discuss what they really mean. You should know that charges of "anti-Semitism" have been applied to the Orthodox by the Anti Defamation League of Binai Brith in 2007 June. They are demanding revision in the Liturgy of Orthodoxy without taking the time to consider the massive revisions required of the Talmud and rabbinical teachings against Christianity and Christ. For this reason I ask you again to provide the examples that are claimed to be "anti-Semitic" for the sake of discussion.

Also I would like to remind EVERYONE that rabbinical Judaism is the religion that deviated from its biblical history since 90 A.D.

The Jews through Gamaliel II include the Birkat Ha Minim benediction that condemns all Christians.

If Orthodoxy makes reference to "Jews" it is not "Anti-Semitism" that is being expressed, but a recognition of events of the past and of course to come (e.g. the teachings of the Holy Church Fathers who wrote that Antichrist will be born from the tribe of Dan. Even this does not mean "JEWS" but from amongst them if we consider Jacob's prophecies about the twelve tribes, and other passages from Jeremiah etc.).

Outwardly, any mention of Jews in a negative way may appear "anti-Semitic" but in truth, rabbinical authorities are hell bent on disposing of the relevant truths about "Jews" and the Antichist (e.g. the Temple of Jerusalem which the Antichrist will sit in). Today the Temple Institute is continuing its efforts to establish a Third Temple. While this is interesting it is worth while speculation in terms of what the Holy Church Fathers wrote long ago about the Antichrist.

"Anti-Semitism" is frequently used against the Orthodox Church but it is false. The Orthodox Church is not "Anti-Semitic" but it does recognize that ANY denial of Jesus Christ is of Antichrist.

Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #158 on: September 11, 2008, 03:41:37 PM »

Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust.

Quote
The 275 Jews of the island of Zakynthos, however, survived the Holocaust. When the island's mayor, Carrer, was presented with the German order to hand over a list of Jews, Bishop Chrysostomos returned to the Germans with a list of two names; his and the mayor's. The island's population hid every member of the Jewish community. When the island was almost levelled by the great earthquake of 1953, the first relief came from the state of Israel, with a message that read "The Jews of Zakynthos have never forgotten their Mayor or their beloved Bishop and what they did for us."
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 03:42:37 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #159 on: September 11, 2008, 04:46:39 PM »

Obviously I did read those texts and obviously I'm not going to quote the entire books just to get to the point of the matter.

I intentionally used ---> [...] brackets to show that I made a transition in the selections I wanted to put forward. In writing, this is what is done to shorten relevant passages that are being quoted. There was nothing wrong on my part for doing that. I even quoted from which page and section the information could be compared.
Actually, there IS something wrong with this approach, which I think lubeltri made quite evident.  The [...] made it appear as if you were concealing something from us in order to make your point.  Lubeltri exposed this text you hid from us and showed that the larger passage from which you drew your excerpt said something quite different, and in many ways opposite, from what you argued.

Quote
I also made sure to tell people that they should read these books and see for themselves.

I did not misrepresent the data, but only provided those relevant passages for my considerations put forward to the issue of what is "Defective" and it is not the Orthodox Church.
As I showed above, you actually DID appear to misrepresent the data in order to advance your agenda.  Did you know that the defense of your tactics you just provided in the above quote is the same defense that underlies most attempts to proof text?

Quote

As for Lubeltri, he made sure to imply "anti-Semitism" to the Orthodox Church just because I mentioned how the Vatican under Cardinal (and now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) promotes that salvation is not through Christ alone.

So Peter, what is your point? That I misrepresente and twisted what the Vatican says? Read carefully and you will see that this is not a case of semantics or misreadings.
Yes, that is my point.  IMO, lubeltri made a good defense of Cardinal Ratzinger's theological opinions, which defense had the unintended consequence of revealing how you misrepresented the Cardinal.  You, however, have yet to provide a good defense of your thesis that Cardinal Ratzinger ever preached that salvation comes not through Christ alone and that the Vatican is therefore defective in this specific regard.


DISCLAIMER:  In no way am I trying to actually defend any Roman Catholic doctrines or theological opinions that contradict the apostolic faith of the Orthodox Church.  I just want to point out to you, Zarabas, how weak is the case you have presented thus far on this thread and what you need to do to be more convincing.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 04:56:33 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #160 on: September 11, 2008, 04:57:51 PM »

Let's get off the anti-Semitism red herring. My question was purely rhetorical. I have not accused Orthodoxy of being anti-Semitic. Just another ad hominem.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #161 on: September 11, 2008, 05:00:08 PM »

Obviously I did read those texts and obviously I'm not going to quote the entire books just to get to the point of the matter.

I intentionally used ---> [...] brackets to show that I made a transition in the selections I wanted to put forward. In writing, this is what is done to shorten relevant passages that are being quoted. There was nothing wrong on my part for doing that. I even quoted from which page and section the information could be compared.
Actually, there IS something wrong with this approach, which I think lubeltri made quite evident.  The [...] made it appear as if you were concealing something from us in order to make your point.  Lubeltri exposed this text you hid from us and showed that the larger passage from which you drew your excerpt said something quite different, and in many ways opposite, from what you argued.

Quote
I also made sure to tell people that they should read these books and see for themselves.

I did not misrepresent the data, but only provided those relevant passages for my considerations put forward to the issue of what is "Defective" and it is not the Orthodox Church.
As I showed above, you actually DID appear to misrepresent the data in order to advance your agenda.  Did you know that the defense of your tactics you just provided in the above quote is the same defense that underlies most attempts to proof text?

Quote

As for Lubeltri, he made sure to imply "anti-Semitism" to the Orthodox Church just because I mentioned how the Vatican under Cardinal (and now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) promotes that salvation is not through Christ alone.

So Peter, what is your point? That I misrepresente and twisted what the Vatican says? Read carefully and you will see that this is not a case of semantics or misreadings.
Yes, that is my point.  IMO, lubeltri made a good defense of Cardinal Ratzinger's theological opinions, which defense had the unintended consequence of revealing how you misrepresented the Cardinal.  You, however, have yet to provide a good defense of your thesis that Cardinal Ratzinger ever preached that salvation comes not through Christ alone and that the Vatican is therefore defective in this specific regard.


DISCLAIMER:  In no way am I trying to actually defend any Roman Catholic doctrines or theological opinions that contradict the apostolic faith of the Orthodox Church.  I just want to point out to you, Zarabas, how weak is the case you have presented thus far on this thread and what you need to do to be more convincing.

I doubt anything you'd say will convince him. He has already offered his opinion that the pope is "satanical." He starts with that assumption, and then everything else follows.
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #162 on: September 11, 2008, 06:55:11 PM »

Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust

Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,669


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #163 on: September 12, 2008, 04:11:20 AM »

Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust

Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust

Excellent point.  (How did I miss this?)  Demetrios, within what group of people are the Greeks the only ones to harbor Jews during the Holocaust?  If you're talking about just the entire continent of Europe, then your comment shows the grossest misunderstanding of history I've ever seen. Shocked  I'll let the links LBK posted support my assessment of the sheer ignorance of your reply.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 04:14:32 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #164 on: September 12, 2008, 05:33:43 AM »



Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust

Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust

Excellent point.  (How did I miss this?)  Demetrios, within what group of people are the Greeks the only ones to harbor Jews during the Holocaust?  If you're talking about just the entire continent of Europe, then your comment shows the grossest misunderstanding of history I've ever seen. Shocked  I'll let the links LBK posted support my assessment of the sheer ignorance of your reply.

And let's not forget the courageous Danes! http://isurvived.org/Denmark-Holocaust.html
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #165 on: September 12, 2008, 08:25:44 AM »

Let's get off the anti-Semitism red herring. My question was purely rhetorical. I have not accused Orthodoxy of being anti-Semitic. Just another ad hominem.

Lubeltri, see how you twist and manipulate what is being stated?

You first responded with a "question" intended to identify the Orthodox Church as "anti-Semitic" where you said

"So Orthodoxy is all about presuming evil motives of the Jewish people?"

What did that have to do with how the Vatican's world view has now strayed from the important teaching that salvation is only through Christ?

To be precise, your foolish claim occurred because I pointed out 100% correctly that the Vatican embraces rabbinical Judaism as an alternate route of salvation to God, and your "Pope" did this by using the Old Testament to justify this heretical view.

"Anti-Semitism" is at the heart of the matter, because in those books that your "Pope" wrote, their very purpose was a response to rabbinical Jewish authorities as a conformity to their desires and anti-Christian teachings within their own beliefs.

It is no surprise that you would first respond by saying "So Orthodoxy is all about presuming evil motives of the Jewish people?" in order to imply that the issue does rest on "Anti-Semitism" in which your "Pope" has bowed down towards.

Just because you said I took his words out of context does not make it so. The VERY CONTEXT OF THOSE TEACHINGS PUT FORWARD BY YOUR "POPE" ARE ROOTED IN THE CONTEXT OF RESPONDING TO RABBINICAL AUTHORITIES THAT CHARGE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS INHERENTLY ANTI-SEMITIC!

You may have mislead some people here who are trying their best to be polite towards you, but clearly you fail to see the obvious in what your own "Pope" says and teaches and now you embrace as well. You cant say I am wrong or have not proven my case. I didnt do anything but point out what the Vatican teaches publicly and you yourself confirmed it in your attittude expressed through your responses.

And YES the "Pope" is SATANICAL because anyone in his position who has the audacity to teach that there are OTHER paths of salvation other than Christ is ANTICHRIST! Or does the Vatican have yet another justification or label for those who deny Christ?

There is no area of "grey" when it comes to accepting Jesus Christ or rejecting Him.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 08:29:03 AM by Zarabas » Logged
Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #166 on: September 12, 2008, 08:48:09 AM »

Obviously I did read those texts and obviously I'm not going to quote the entire books just to get to the point of the matter.

I intentionally used ---> [...] brackets to show that I made a transition in the selections I wanted to put forward. In writing, this is what is done to shorten relevant passages that are being quoted. There was nothing wrong on my part for doing that. I even quoted from which page and section the information could be compared.
Actually, there IS something wrong with this approach, which I think lubeltri made quite evident.  The [...] made it appear as if you were concealing something from us in order to make your point.  Lubeltri exposed this text you hid from us and showed that the larger passage from which you drew your excerpt said something quite different, and in many ways opposite, from what you argued.

Quote
I also made sure to tell people that they should read these books and see for themselves.

I did not misrepresent the data, but only provided those relevant passages for my considerations put forward to the issue of what is "Defective" and it is not the Orthodox Church.
As I showed above, you actually DID appear to misrepresent the data in order to advance your agenda.  Did you know that the defense of your tactics you just provided in the above quote is the same defense that underlies most attempts to proof text?

Quote

As for Lubeltri, he made sure to imply "anti-Semitism" to the Orthodox Church just because I mentioned how the Vatican under Cardinal (and now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) promotes that salvation is not through Christ alone.

So Peter, what is your point? That I misrepresente and twisted what the Vatican says? Read carefully and you will see that this is not a case of semantics or misreadings.
Yes, that is my point.  IMO, lubeltri made a good defense of Cardinal Ratzinger's theological opinions, which defense had the unintended consequence of revealing how you misrepresented the Cardinal.  You, however, have yet to provide a good defense of your thesis that Cardinal Ratzinger ever preached that salvation comes not through Christ alone and that the Vatican is therefore defective in this specific regard.


DISCLAIMER:  In no way am I trying to actually defend any Roman Catholic doctrines or theological opinions that contradict the apostolic faith of the Orthodox Church.  I just want to point out to you, Zarabas, how weak is the case you have presented thus far on this thread and what you need to do to be more convincing.

Peter, where did you get that impression that the ---> [...] was intended to conceal something? That is nonsense since if I truly did want to conceal something I would have merged the sentences together as if one continuous chain. Again, you didnt read where I encouraged people to read these books and see for themselves. How could I conceal something if people would go and read those sources? This is unfair and unjust for you to say.

What I posted was a very brief post for the purpose of pointing out a Defect in the Vatican's world view so that responses could be stimulated for the purpose of addressing how the VATICAN REGARDS ORTHODOXY AS "DEFFECTIVE". I am certainly not going to write a proper thesis or book for that matter (which no one will read of course) when clearly casual discussion and commentary suffices on internet forums such as this one.

Lubeltri is mistaken about the "CONTEXT" and NO I did not take anything out of CONTEXT since the purpose of those books put forward by the Vatican were intended to alleviate (as a response to the charges of "Anti-Semitism" in Christianity) rabbinical Judaism of their so-called "fears". The very Context of those books is to distort the teachings of Christianity (which clearly they are meant for) and only because organizations like the Anti Defamation League of Binai Brith and other Zionist and Rabbinical organizations have charged Christianity with being inherently "Anti-Semitic".

So did I take anything out of context? I dont believe I have since the purpose of such texts was to demonstrate tolerance and conformity to the whims of rabbinical authorities. On this matter, you must decide for yourself since you may have not known this prior to this entire discussion. Lubeltri failed to mention the context of the books themselves and their purpose.

As I have said before, read those books and see for yourself. Pay attention to the introduction or prefaces. More importantly learn why they were written in the first place.

If you doubt me (and I dont expect anyone to trust a stranger) then you should equally doubt Lubeltri as well and then see for yourself. Wipe out what he or I have told you and go read those books and judge for yourself.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #167 on: September 12, 2008, 08:49:37 AM »

Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust

Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust

Excellent point.  (How did I miss this?)  Demetrios, within what group of people are the Greeks the only ones to harbor Jews during the Holocaust?  If you're talking about just the entire continent of Europe, then your comment shows the grossest misunderstanding of history I've ever seen. Shocked  I'll let the links LBK posted support my assessment of the sheer ignorance of your reply.
Take it easy pal, your exploiting a typo. What I was trying to prove is that Orthodox Greeks aren't antisemitic. For the most part the Christian west gave them up in droves. Despite The individuals that are listed on that list. Most of those countries listed caved very quickly to German pressure.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #168 on: September 12, 2008, 09:19:24 AM »

Very well said Zarabas.
Lets also not forget that the Greeks were the only people to help and harbor the Jews during the Holocaust

Nonsense. Have you not heard of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty? Of Oskar Schindler? Not to mention tens of thousands of others, of various nationalities, who are recognised as "righteous Gentiles" by the Jewish people for their sterling efforts in helping and harbouring Jews during the horror of the Holocaust.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/vwall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust

Excellent point.  (How did I miss this?)  Demetrios, within what group of people are the Greeks the only ones to harbor Jews during the Holocaust?  If you're talking about just the entire continent of Europe, then your comment shows the grossest misunderstanding of history I've ever seen. Shocked  I'll let the links LBK posted support my assessment of the sheer ignorance of your reply.
Take it easy pal, your exploiting a typo. What I was trying to prove is that Orthodox Greeks aren't antisemitic. For the most part the Christian west gave them up in droves. Despite The individuals that are listed on that list. Most of those countries listed caved very quickly to German pressure.

Greetings in Christ to you Demetrios,

I find it strange that I understood you, but those who feel it necessary to soften the blows against the Papacy totally misunderstood you.

In any case, I agree with you and it is strange how people forget that while only a handful of Roman Catholics helped the Jews, the VATICAN systematically supported Hitler's genocide of the Jewish people. They even helped many SS Officers escape to Latin America. Lets not forget how they encouraged the Croatian Nazi supporters who systematically persecuted Serbians because they were Orthodox.

While a handful of RCs did help others, the VATICAN endorsed and supported many outrages crimes against humanity. Which way does the scale tip I wonder?

Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #169 on: September 12, 2008, 09:44:12 AM »

Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #170 on: September 12, 2008, 12:25:39 PM »

This thread died off in early August and for good reason.  Since the latest barrage of posts have distanced themselves from the Pope's comments about the Orthodox Church and are now focused on the Roman Catholic Church, Judaism, and the Holocaust, I am locking this thread since it ran its natural course long ago.

-- Friul
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Tags: Taft 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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 0.453 seconds with 198 queries.