VATICAN: the new "U" word?

[Papist]

1054 can be debated and discussed elsewhere.  Let's try and steer this back on topic.

-- Nebelpfade

I here you loud and clear. I was writing a response to a previous post while you posted this warning.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

1054 can be debated and discussed elsewhere.  Let's try and steer this back on topic.

-- Nebelpfade

I here you loud and clear. I was writing a response to a previous post while you posted this warning.

No problem.

[ialmisry]

Hahaha!  I rest my case for all you Orthodox Catholics that seem to side with these Byzantine Catholics.  Must be a shock to find out that the very Church you thought was the center of your faith and Patriarchate was never Greek Orthodox but Byzantine Catholic!

Orthodoc

Yup but that's only because your status changed once the Patriarch of Constantinopel regetably "excommunicated" the Pope. I understand why he did and I understand his frustration, but it did change things.

Perhaps you should reread that historical event once again to find out just what the EP was reacting to when he 'excommunicated the pope'.  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbert?

Orthodoc

Yes I have and I believe his actionrs are regretable as well. You should not assume that I am not aware of this matter simply because you don't like Catholics.

Reply:  Then I don't understand your response.  The only  thing it changed waas that the pope separated itself from the other four Patriarchates which remained part of that 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church' mentioned in the Creed.  When you have five equals pieces of pie and on of those peices separates itself from the remaing four, who separated itself - the one that stood alone or the four that remained together until this day?

But then again, we've also been over this countless times.

Orthodoc

First, the infamous Cardinal did not have the authority to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople because the Pope he represented had already passed away.

I'll go one further: if the pope he represented was still living, he did not have the authority to excommunicate the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the latter's insistence on holding fast to the definitions of the Holy Fathers.  Especially as the pope in the Vatican had been, in accordance with the canons, struck from the diptychs when he bowed to the Frankish emperor and inserted the filioque in the Creed at Rome.

The issue of the demise of the tiara in the Vatican is made much of now: was it then?  I don't know of any canon that terminated Humbert's commission, especially as he was sent specifically by the Vatican to show Constantnople whose boss.   Is there a doubt that Leo IX wouldn't have approved of Humbert's bull?

Second, the body of Christ is not identified with the number of Patriarchs.

Nor with being in communion with any particular one of them.

It is idenfied with the Church established by Jesus Christ.

Yes, the Orthodox Church.

If I were to follow the teachings of Iraneaus, then the Catholic Church (the Church in communion with Rome)

Yet again demonstrating the point of this thread, that ye do protest too much.

it would not matter who had the most partriarchs Patriarchs.

just who was in communion with the Orthodox ones, including those who have gone on, like St. Clement, etc.

Heck, such number games are silly.

Hold that thought.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

And before I get the standard EO response here,

You post the trite Vatican proof text, on an Orthodox forum, and you state you don't want the standard EO (and OO too, btw) response.

You note that he says Peter AND Paul.  Is the Church a two headed monster?

Note that he says that in her the Faithful have maintained the Apostolic Tradition, not that "she has maintained the Apostolic Tradition everywhere."  The translation by the Ante-Nicene Fathers  has the best explanation I've seen, based on a Cardinal:

Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html?highlight=rome,focus,rays#highlight

This would accord with Tacitus' assessment (from the pagan's perspective) that Christianity had come to Rome "where everything horrible or shameful or vile gathers and becomes fashionable."

the passage does not say because she was still "orthodox" but rather, because of her superior origin.

He also calls it the most ancient Church, which it was not: Jerusalem and Antioch amongst others preceded it.  Not to mention Ephesus, whence he came.  So (as I pointed out to you on CAF), it is obvious that he could only be talking about the West if he was speaking of superior origin, especially as SS Peter and Paul founded Antioch in the East, and did so earlier, where "the disciples were first called Christians."  Not to mention, no one can dispute Jerusalem's superior origin.

On CAF you stated that this papal problem sounded pretty universal.  As I pointed out St. Iranaeus joined in the Church's universal condemnation of Pope Victor.

[Irish Hermit]

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

"because of its superior origin"

This is another example of a faulty translation in the interests of polemics to support the papal position.  Why, oh why, do the polemicists of the Church of Rome indulge in these tricks?  It's good for home comsumption of course, but it just makes Rome look tricky and less than honest in the eyes of people who know better.

Here is the translation from the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

You'll notice that another point which you emphasise is also a deliberately misleading translation -  in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition

Look at the contrast with the Catholic Encyclopedia and its meaning : inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

I cannot find the Latin translation at the moment but if I recall, it is even less of a support for Roman claims.

[Papa Gregorio]

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

“Then comes the crucial statement:

For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its preeminent authority (potentior principalitas), that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful persons] who exist everywhere.

Irenaeus continues by saying that even if there is dispute over a rela¬tively trivial matter one should have recourse "to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question."13 There are a number of problems surrounding the original meaning of the passage quoted above, occasioned in large part by the fact that we know only the Latin translation and not the Greek original of the text. We must always reckon with the possibility that the Latin text as we have it is corrupt. The principal problems are:

1. What is meant by "this church"? Could it refer to any apostolic church that was normative for other churches, with the Roman church cited only as an example? In that case, the original phrase would have to have been something equivalent to "such a church."

2. But if, as seems more probable in light of the surrounding text, Irenaeus was thinking of the Roman church, what does it mean that all others (or perhaps the other apostolic churches) "should agree [or be in accord] with this church [in matters of faith]"? Does this mean that the Roman church represents the au¬thoritative norm of faith for all other churches? Or did Irenaeus mean to say "I have simply traced the list of Roman bishops as an example. It is, however, understood from the outset that every apostolic church offers the same teaching"? Then "should agree" would not be understood as a norm, but as an a priori necessity: it is sufficient to offer a test case on a single point.

3. This is connected to the question regarding the reference of the last clause, "inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful persons] who exist everywhere." Does this mean the Roman church, or every apostolic church?

4. Finally, what is the meaning of "those who exist every¬where"? It is possible that this means that Christians from all over the empire come together in the church at Rome, and they exercise a corrective function in maintaining orthodoxy! But that would introduce a foreign element that does not fit within the train of Irenaeus's thought, because he sees the guarantee of truth here in purely vertical terms, as a connection to the apostles, and not horizontally in the agreement (or mutual correction) of all the churches.

There is no convincing solution that takes care of all the difficulties. However we interpret the passage, we probably cannot deny that it implies that the Roman paradosis had a certain qualified authoritative character, for

1. Even if the text is probably speaking of an a priori agree¬ment, it is not illustrated by just any example, but by something very specific, the potentior principalitas of Rome: That which is the universal tradition of all the churches can be more clearly and re¬liably demonstrated by looking to that of Rome.

2. Also noteworthy is the multiplication of laudatory terms applied to the Roman church ("the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul"), indicating that it is more than mere example.

3. We note further that Irenaeus apparently knows only the list of Roman bishops, or presumes it is the only one known to his readers. It appears that the list was familiar not only in Rome but also in the churches in Gaul, even though they had been founded from the East and not from Rome.

4. The Jewish Christian Hegesippus also attests, in this same period, that apparently as far as the apostolic tradition was con¬cerned the Roman example could not be arbitrarily replaced by that of Corinth or Ephesus. His interest was the same as that of Irenaeus: preparing lists of bishops to counter the Gnostics. He wanted to say, "See, we stand in the unbroken line of continuity from the apostles!" And even though he came from the East he showed a special interest in the Roman list of bishops, which he researched in the archives at Rome” (Schatz, K 1996, Papal Primacy: from its origins to the present, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp.9-10). (NB: Schatz is a German Jesuit church historian).

“Both doctrinal unity and apostolic continuity were contrasted with the teachings of the Gnostics….For when neither Scripture nor tradition could convince the gainsayers, Irenaeus insisted that it lay within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and to [demonstrate] the succession of these men to our times.” Chief among these in authority and prestige was the church at Rome, in which the apostolic tradition shared by all the churches everywhere had been preserved.” (Pelikan, J 1971, The Christian Tradition: A history of the development of doctrine, vol. 1, ‘the emergence of the Catholic tradition (100-600)’, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 117-18)  [/b]


“If convenire here means ‘agree with’ and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall into line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere. This interpretation, or some variant of it, has been accepted by many, but it is awkward to refer in qua to hanc…ecclesiam, and anachronistic to attribute such thinking to Irenaeus. Hence it seems more plausible to take in qua with omnem…ecclesiam, and to understand Irenaeus as suggesting that the Roman church supplies an ideal illustration because, ‘in view of its pre-eminent authority’ based on its foundation by both Peter and Paul, its antiquity, and so on, every church – or perhaps the whole church – in which the apostolic tradition has been preserved must as a matter of course agree with it. There is therefore no allusion to the later Petrine claims of the Roman see.” (Kelly JND 1978, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed, Harper Collins, San Francisco, p. 193). [/b]

[Papist]

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

"because of its superior origin"

This is another example of a faulty translation in the interests of polemics to support the papal position.  Why, oh why, do the polemicists of the Church of Rome indulge in these tricks?  It's good for home comsumption of course, but it just makes Rome look tricky and less than honest in the eyes of people who know better.

Here is the translation from the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

You'll notice that another point which you emphasise is also a deliberately misleading translation -  in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition

Look at the contrast with the Catholic Encyclopedia and its meaning : inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

I cannot find the Latin translation at the moment but if I recall, it is even less of a support for Roman claims.

I will have to find evidene to corroborate your translation Fr. Ambrose, as I have seen you twist stuff in the past to support your positions. However, fine, let's go with it. "Because of here preeminant authority. Either way I am going to trust in St. Iranaues' words more than that of modern Eastern Orthodoxy.

[Papist]

Hahaha!  I rest my case for all you Orthodox Catholics that seem to side with these Byzantine Catholics.  Must be a shock to find out that the very Church you thought was the center of your faith and Patriarchate was never Greek Orthodox but Byzantine Catholic!

Orthodoc

Yup but that's only because your status changed once the Patriarch of Constantinopel regetably "excommunicated" the Pope. I understand why he did and I understand his frustration, but it did change things.

Perhaps you should reread that historical event once again to find out just what the EP was reacting to when he 'excommunicated the pope'.  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbert?

Orthodoc

Yes I have and I believe his actionrs are regretable as well. You should not assume that I am not aware of this matter simply because you don't like Catholics.

Reply:  Then I don't understand your response.  The only  thing it changed waas that the pope separated itself from the other four Patriarchates which remained part of that 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church' mentioned in the Creed.  When you have five equals pieces of pie and on of those peices separates itself from the remaing four, who separated itself - the one that stood alone or the four that remained together until this day?

But then again, we've also been over this countless times.

Orthodoc

First, the infamous Cardinal did not have the authority to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople because the Pope he represented had already passed away.

I'll go one further: if the pope he represented was still living, he did not have the authority to excommunicate the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the latter's insistence on holding fast to the definitions of the Holy Fathers.  Especially as the pope in the Vatican had been, in accordance with the canons, struck from the diptychs when he bowed to the Frankish emperor and inserted the filioque in the Creed at Rome.

The issue of the demise of the tiara in the Vatican is made much of now: was it then?  I don't know of any canon that terminated Humbert's commission, especially as he was sent specifically by the Vatican to show Constantnople whose boss.   Is there a doubt that Leo IX wouldn't have approved of Humbert's bull?

Second, the body of Christ is not identified with the number of Patriarchs.

Nor with being in communion with any particular one of them.

It is idenfied with the Church established by Jesus Christ.

Yes, the Orthodox Church.

If I were to follow the teachings of Iraneaus, then the Catholic Church (the Church in communion with Rome)

Yet again demonstrating the point of this thread, that ye do protest too much.

it would not matter who had the most partriarchs Patriarchs.

just who was in communion with the Orthodox ones, including those who have gone on, like St. Clement, etc.

Heck, such number games are silly.

Hold that thought.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

And before I get the standard EO response here,

You post the trite Vatican proof text, on an Orthodox forum, and you state you don't want the standard EO (and OO too, btw) response.

You note that he says Peter AND Paul.  Is the Church a two headed monster?

Note that he says that in her the Faithful have maintained the Apostolic Tradition, not that "she has maintained the Apostolic Tradition everywhere."  The translation by the Ante-Nicene Fathers  has the best explanation I've seen, based on a Cardinal:

Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html?highlight=rome,focus,rays#highlight

This would accord with Tacitus' assessment (from the pagan's perspective) that Christianity had come to Rome "where everything horrible or shameful or vile gathers and becomes fashionable."

the passage does not say because she was still "orthodox" but rather, because of her superior origin.

He also calls it the most ancient Church, which it was not: Jerusalem and Antioch amongst others preceded it.  Not to mention Ephesus, whence he came.  So (as I pointed out to you on CAF), it is obvious that he could only be talking about the West if he was speaking of superior origin, especially as SS Peter and Paul founded Antioch in the East, and did so earlier, where "the disciples were first called Christians."  Not to mention, no one can dispute Jerusalem's superior origin.

On CAF you stated that this papal problem sounded pretty universal.  As I pointed out St. Iranaeus joined in the Church's universal condemnation of Pope Victor.

Yawn. Week and unconvincing standard EO arguements. I thought at least you would do better than this.

[Irish Hermit]

I have seen you twist stuff in the past to support your positions.

We were together on CAF and you know that time and again the Orthodox were able to rebuff the patristic quotes given in support of the papal claims by demonstrating that the quotes were falsified, by being truncated, by having phrases and sentences removed, or simply by mistranslation.  One of the worst offenders in this regard are the quotes in the articles offered on the papacy by Catholic Answers.

The falsification of patristic quotes does nothing to advance Roman Catholic claims.  It shows that people are ready to use bad polemics and it calls into question the "scholarship" supporting the papacy claims.

[Irish Hermit]

Dear Papist,

Do you remember this message of mine?

---------------

There is so much that is wrong with some of the quotes on that website  http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
 that it is difficult to know where to begin to correct it. I've addressed some of the misuse of some of the quotes in earlier posts.

One of the worst examples is the truncated and mangled version of the quote attributed to Saint Gregory of Rome writing to the Pope of Alexandria Eulogius. This quote has been so distorted that it is honestly very difficult not to suspect the author guilty of the intention to be deceptive. (Of course he may have simply taken the quote from another unscrupulous article, in good faith.)

Here is the mangled version on the Catholic Answers website, cunningly designed to make it appear to be supportive of modern papal claims:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).



Here is what Pope Gregory actually wrote. Compare it with the version on that website.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.... I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair.... holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19).... though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside ... "
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop




Do you see that phrases which have been cunningly ommited in the Catholic article - the sections where the Pope says that Rome and the other two Petrine sees of Antioch and Alexandria are equal.


For example, this has been cut out:
"...with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one."

And this has been cut out:
"Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside..."

The distortion of this quote on www.catholic.com is very bad scholarship and does the site no credit.

[ialmisry]

Dear Papist,

Do you remember this message of mine?

---------------

There is so much that is wrong with some of the quotes on that website  http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
 that it is difficult to know where to begin to correct it. I've addressed some of the misuse of some of the quotes in earlier posts.

One of the worst examples is the truncated and mangled version of the quote attributed to Saint Gregory of Rome writing to the Pope of Alexandria Eulogius. This quote has been so distorted that it is honestly very difficult not to suspect the author guilty of the intention to be deceptive. (Of course he may have simply taken the quote from another unscrupulous article, in good faith.)

Here is the mangled version on the Catholic Answers website, cunningly designed to make it appear to be supportive of modern papal claims:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).



Here is what Pope Gregory actually wrote. Compare it with the version on that website.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.... I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair.... holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19).... though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside ... "
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop




Do you see that phrases which have been cunningly ommited in the Catholic article - the sections where the Pope says that Rome and the other two Petrine sees of Antioch and Alexandria are equal.


For example, this has been cut out:
"...with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one."

And this has been cut out:
"Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside..."

The distortion of this quote on www.catholic.com is very bad scholarship and does the site no credit.

Ah, yes.  The memories.

[ialmisry]

Hahaha!  I rest my case for all you Orthodox Catholics that seem to side with these Byzantine Catholics.  Must be a shock to find out that the very Church you thought was the center of your faith and Patriarchate was never Greek Orthodox but Byzantine Catholic!

Orthodoc

Yup but that's only because your status changed once the Patriarch of Constantinopel regetably "excommunicated" the Pope. I understand why he did and I understand his frustration, but it did change things.

Perhaps you should reread that historical event once again to find out just what the EP was reacting to when he 'excommunicated the pope'.  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbert?

Orthodoc

Yes I have and I believe his actionrs are regretable as well. You should not assume that I am not aware of this matter simply because you don't like Catholics.

Reply:  Then I don't understand your response.  The only  thing it changed waas that the pope separated itself from the other four Patriarchates which remained part of that 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church' mentioned in the Creed.  When you have five equals pieces of pie and on of those peices separates itself from the remaing four, who separated itself - the one that stood alone or the four that remained together until this day?

But then again, we've also been over this countless times.

Orthodoc

First, the infamous Cardinal did not have the authority to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople because the Pope he represented had already passed away.

I'll go one further: if the pope he represented was still living, he did not have the authority to excommunicate the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the latter's insistence on holding fast to the definitions of the Holy Fathers.  Especially as the pope in the Vatican had been, in accordance with the canons, struck from the diptychs when he bowed to the Frankish emperor and inserted the filioque in the Creed at Rome.

The issue of the demise of the tiara in the Vatican is made much of now: was it then?  I don't know of any canon that terminated Humbert's commission, especially as he was sent specifically by the Vatican to show Constantnople whose boss.   Is there a doubt that Leo IX wouldn't have approved of Humbert's bull?

Second, the body of Christ is not identified with the number of Patriarchs.

Nor with being in communion with any particular one of them.

It is idenfied with the Church established by Jesus Christ.

Yes, the Orthodox Church.

If I were to follow the teachings of Iraneaus, then the Catholic Church (the Church in communion with Rome)

Yet again demonstrating the point of this thread, that ye do protest too much.

it would not matter who had the most partriarchs Patriarchs.

just who was in communion with the Orthodox ones, including those who have gone on, like St. Clement, etc.

Heck, such number games are silly.

Hold that thought.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

And before I get the standard EO response here,

You post the trite Vatican proof text, on an Orthodox forum, and you state you don't want the standard EO (and OO too, btw) response.

You note that he says Peter AND Paul.  Is the Church a two headed monster?

Note that he says that in her the Faithful have maintained the Apostolic Tradition, not that "she has maintained the Apostolic Tradition everywhere."  The translation by the Ante-Nicene Fathers  has the best explanation I've seen, based on a Cardinal:

Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html?highlight=rome,focus,rays#highlight

This would accord with Tacitus' assessment (from the pagan's perspective) that Christianity had come to Rome "where everything horrible or shameful or vile gathers and becomes fashionable."

the passage does not say because she was still "orthodox" but rather, because of her superior origin.

He also calls it the most ancient Church, which it was not: Jerusalem and Antioch amongst others preceded it.  Not to mention Ephesus, whence he came.  So (as I pointed out to you on CAF), it is obvious that he could only be talking about the West if he was speaking of superior origin, especially as SS Peter and Paul founded Antioch in the East, and did so earlier, where "the disciples were first called Christians."  Not to mention, no one can dispute Jerusalem's superior origin.

On CAF you stated that this papal problem sounded pretty universal.  As I pointed out St. Iranaeus joined in the Church's universal condemnation of Pope Victor.

Yawn. Week and unconvincing standard EO arguements.

The Cardinal who supplied the image of Rome being a prism of others' rays, not the sun dispensing them, wasn't EO.  We don't have cardinals.

Of course, there's the Protestant:

After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix. And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote. Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html

You put much weight on such a weak link.  By weak, I mean your understanding of the Latin translator's understanding of St. Irenaeus, not Iranaeus.

I thought at least you would do better than this.

We are quite well aware that no explanation would satisfy you, no more than no matter how many times it is shown that the Fathers condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic, that you all will refuse to admit that he was a heretic, plain and simple.



Fixed quote tags   -PtA

[ialmisry]

I have seen you twist stuff in the past to support your positions.

We were together on CAF and you know that time and again the Orthodox were able to rebuff the patristic quotes given in support of the papal claims by demonstrating that the quotes were falsified, by being truncated, by having phrases and sentences removed, or simply by mistranslation.  One of the worst offenders in this regard are the quotes in the articles offered on the papacy by Catholic Answers.

The falsification of patristic quotes does nothing to advance Roman Catholic claims.  It shows that people are ready to use bad polemics and it calls into question the "scholarship" supporting the papacy claims.

The Latin translation of Iranaeus:
Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditi

Their is the conjecture that the underlying Greek term was archaiotes, which is connected to the idea of being tied to a source. E.g.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PjmA_joIEmAC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=potentior+principalitas+auctoritas&source=bl&ots=J49vfIGla_&sig=ge21ovzJ2OTd-0BGrRY4TrDPOjw&hl=en&ei=MrytSav0AcTAnQeElfi1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Hence the confusion between the translation "superior origin" or "superior authority," just underlining the problem, as I stated above about the faulty Latin translation on which we must try to figure out what St. Iranaeus said.  And of course, the problem with the Vatican interpretation is that a) St. Iranaeus explicitely couples the origin with St. Paul, not just St. Peter, b) Rome didn't have a superior origin to Antioch nor Jerusalem in this.  And Iranaeus explicitely speaks of taking recourse to the most ancient Churches.  In the West this was Rome, but in the East it was not.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Thread Split:  Discussion about autonomy can be found here -->  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20134.msg299518.html

This thread is continuing to drift off topic.  Remember this thread is about the use of the word Vatican.

Thank you.

-- Nebelpfade

[ialmisry]

From the "Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches."

Canon 48

In this Code the term "Apostolic See" or "Holy See" applies not

only to the Roman Pontiff but also, unless it is otherwise prescribed by the law or the nature of the matter indicates otherwise, dicasteries and other institutes of the Roman curia.

Replace "Apostolic/Holy See" with "Vatican," and go throught the rest of canons I cite in the linked post.  See how well that fits its meaning.

[ishaq]

Yes, the Chaldeans can still be Nestorian.  The Maronites seem to have gotten over their Monothelism, though.

Yes, the Chaldean Catholic Church is a fully Nestorian Church in union with Rome.
They honour as saints, Nestorios, Theodoros of Mopsuestia, and Diodoros of Tarsus.
They regard Ephesus and Cyril misunderstood Nestorios, the way the OO claim
Chalcedon and Leo misunderstood Dioscoros.

No, Maronites are still Monothelites as they honour as saints Cyrus of the Caucasus,
Dioscoros of Alexandria, and Severus of Antioch.  You must remember why the Sixth
Synod ex-communicated Dioscoros posthumously because he is honoured as a
saint and considered a Greek doctor in the Maronite Catholic Church until today.
Maronites only accept 5 ecumenical councils, while the Chaldean Catholic Church
accepts two ecumenical councils.  Yet both are in union with Rome.

Can the EO and OO unite?  If yes, they need to accept terminology differences,
which I doubt they can.

[Papist]

Yes, the Chaldeans can still be Nestorian.  The Maronites seem to have gotten over their Monothelism, though.

Yes, the Chaldean Catholic Church is a fully Nestorian Church in union with Rome.
They honour as saints, Nestorios, Theodoros of Mopsuestia, and Diodoros of Tarsus.
They regard Ephesus and Cyril misunderstood Nestorios, the way the OO claim
Chalcedon and Leo misunderstood Dioscoros.

No, Maronites are still Monothelites as they honour as saints Cyrus of the Caucasus,
Dioscoros of Alexandria, and Severus of Antioch.  You must remember why the Sixth
Synod ex-communicated Dioscoros posthumously because he is honoured as a
saint and considered a Greek doctor in the Maronite Catholic Church until today.
Maronites only accept 5 ecumenical councils, while the Chaldean Catholic Church
accepts two ecumenical councils.  Yet both are in union with Rome.

Can the EO and OO unite?  If yes, they need to accept terminology differences,
which I doubt they can.

Do you have a source on this idea that the Chaldean Catholic Church still venerates the heretic Nestorius?

[ialmisry]

Yes, the Chaldeans can still be Nestorian.  The Maronites seem to have gotten over their Monothelism, though.

Yes, the Chaldean Catholic Church is a fully Nestorian Church in union with Rome.
They honour as saints, Nestorios, Theodoros of Mopsuestia, and Diodoros of Tarsus.
They regard Ephesus and Cyril misunderstood Nestorios, the way the OO claim
Chalcedon and Leo misunderstood Dioscoros.

Christ is Risen!

Not exactly the same.  Nestorios' views were condemened, including refusing to use the title Theotokos, which the Chaldeans still do not use in a manner consistent with the Vatican's (and Orthodoxy's) theology.

Btw, a lot of the EO, like myself, think that Chalcedon and Leo misunderstood Dioscoros.  What we can surmize, that is: Dioscoros' views weren't on trial at Chalcedon, except his extending the opportunity to Eutyches, who was Monophysite and latter, and still, condemned by Dioscoros and the OO's as such.

No, Maronites are still Monothelites as they honour as saints Cyrus of the Caucasus,

Pope Cyril of Alexandria, persecutor of the OO and one of the inventors of Monothelism?  On what date do the Maronites honor him?

Dioscoros of Alexandria, and Severus of Antioch. 

Why would Monotheletes honor "Monophysite" saints?

You must remember why the Sixth
Synod ex-communicated Dioscoros posthumously because he is honoured as a
saint and considered a Greek doctor in the Maronite Catholic Church until today.

The Monothelite Maronites did not consider Dioscoros anythig but a heretic: Monothelites were on our side of Chalcedon, not the OOs'.

Maronites only accept 5 ecumenical councils, while the Chaldean Catholic Church
accepts two ecumenical councils.  Yet both are in union with Rome.

Can you site something authoritative?

Can the EO and OO unite?  If yes, they need to accept terminology differences,
which I doubt they can.

They already have: look at the links.

[ishaq]

Yes, the Chaldeans can still be Nestorian.  The Maronites seem to have gotten over their Monothelism, though.

Yes, the Chaldean Catholic Church is a fully Nestorian Church in union with Rome.
They honour as saints, Nestorios, Theodoros of Mopsuestia, and Diodoros of Tarsus.
They regard Ephesus and Cyril misunderstood Nestorios, the way the OO claim
Chalcedon and Leo misunderstood Dioscoros.

No, Maronites are still Monothelites as they honour as saints Cyrus of the Caucasus,
Dioscoros of Alexandria, and Severus of Antioch.  You must remember why the Sixth
Synod ex-communicated Dioscoros posthumously because he is honoured as a
saint and considered a Greek doctor in the Maronite Catholic Church until today.
Maronites only accept 5 ecumenical councils, while the Chaldean Catholic Church
accepts two ecumenical councils.  Yet both are in union with Rome.

Can the EO and OO unite?  If yes, they need to accept terminology differences,
which I doubt they can.

Do you have a source on this idea that the Chaldean Catholic Church still venerates the heretic Nestorius?

Have you heard of Mar Ashur Bawai Soro?  He is a Chaldean Catholic Bishop who has spoken in favour of unity between Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church on grounds that "both of us, Chaldeans and Assyrians share the same faith and venerate the same saints.  Of Mar Nestorios, he was misunderstood and from his own writings, we must conclude he and Mar Cyril were reconciled, especially as Mar Nestorios eventually confessed the Chalcedonian Creed and renounced 'Nestorianism' as heretical".  Google up his web site and there you will see his statement.

[ChristusDominus]

CONTEXT NOTE  The following split off this parent thread: St. Gregory Palamas and Stigmata?  -PtA


Don't mean to derail the thread, but as I go along reading the reading I can't help noticing how some "Orthodox" insist on applying their own terminology whenever they mention the Roman Catholic Church. One individual insists on using the term "Vatican" instead, and now another has joined the bandwagon. calling our Eastern Rite Catholic Church "Eastern Vaticanism". What is the use in avoiding the U-Word when you replace it with another that is just as disparaging? My oh my..is this going to snowball? And I wonder if this goes against forum rules or guidelines? I do know I am on an Orthodox forum but there is no need for this, at least not in my book. Nothing excuses willful disrespect. But in the end it is up to the individual; If you knowingly use terms that unsettle your guests and feel that you are in the right, then it becomes obvious that this has long ceased being a matter of conscience.

[Alveus Lacuna]

What is the use in avoiding the U-Word when you replace it with another that is just as disparaging? My oh my..is this going to snowball? And I wonder if this goes against forum rules or guidelines? I do know I am on an Orthodox forum but there is no need for this, at least not in my book. Nothing excuses willful disrespect. But in the end it is up to the individual; If you knowingly use terms that unsettle your guests and feel that you are in the right, then it becomes obvious that this has long ceased being a matter of conscience.

I agree that having access to the U-word would make all of this much easier.  Some of us attempt to avoid referring to the Latin church as Catholic because we feel that she does not have rights to the title, as the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church.  If one eliminates "Catholic" from all references to the Latin church and its eastern tributaries, it makes any reference to the institution very difficult.  I don't mean any disrespect.  I'm only trying to refer to those churches without using the term Catholic. 

If the moderators and administrators want to suggest some appropriate alternatives that are considered standard protocol, I'd more than welcome it.

[HandmaidenofGod]

What is the use in avoiding the U-Word when you replace it with another that is just as disparaging? My oh my..is this going to snowball? And I wonder if this goes against forum rules or guidelines? I do know I am on an Orthodox forum but there is no need for this, at least not in my book. Nothing excuses willful disrespect. But in the end it is up to the individual; If you knowingly use terms that unsettle your guests and feel that you are in the right, then it becomes obvious that this has long ceased being a matter of conscience.

I agree that having access to the U-word would make all of this much easier.  Some of us attempt to avoid referring to the Latin church as Catholic because we feel that she does not have rights to the title, as the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church.  If one eliminates "Catholic" from all references to the Latin church and its eastern tributaries, it makes any reference to the institution very difficult.  I don't mean any disrespect. I'm only trying to refer to those churches without using the term Catholic.  

If the moderators and administrators want to suggest some appropriate alternatives that are considered standard protocol, I'd more than welcome it.

The Ecumenical Patriarch is comfortable using the title "Roman Catholic Church," why aren't you? I mean, seriously, do you think you're endearing any of our Catholic friends on this board to the Orthodox faith by insulting their Church?

Oh and in case you had issue with the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Serbian Patriarch has an article on their website about the Ecumenical Patriarch defending dialogue with the Catholic Church. (In other words, he agrees with the EP.)

His All-Holiness writes,

"Beloved children in the Lord, Orthodoxy has no need of either fanaticism or bigotry to protect itself. Whoever believes that Orthodoxy has the truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue," the Patriarch stated. "Orthodoxy cannot proceed with intolerance and extremism."

So frankly, I think your refusal to use the word "Catholic" in regards to the Roman Catholic Church is not only rude, but unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian.

[Alveus Lacuna]

The Ecumenical Patriarch is comfortable using the title "Roman Catholic Church," why aren't you? I mean, seriously, do you think you're endearing any of our Catholic friends on this board to the Orthodox faith by insulting their Church?

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion. Look, the Latin church is either Catholic or it isn't.  Do you recognize the legitimacy of their Catholicism?

Oh and in case you had issue with the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Serbian Patriarch has an article on their website about the Ecumenical Patriarch defending dialogue with the Catholic Church. (In other words, he agrees with the EP.)

Who's "he"?  The Serbian Patriarchate's webmaster?  It's a pretty big leap to say that printing an encyclical equals supporting the statements therein.  The Serbian Church has officially withdrawn from the World Council of Churches, so I don't see how that's a big show of support for ecumenism.

So frankly, I think your refusal to use the word "Catholic" in regards to the Roman Catholic Church is not only rude, but unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian.

You think it's rude, I think it's theologically accurate.  It's unbecoming for Orthodox Catholics to award the title of the "Catholic Church" to heretics.  I do this in everyday conversation for people who don't understand the finer nuances, but on this forum most people get it.  I might go back to calling them Catholic for convenience's sake, but never out of artificial "politeness."  I respect a great many things about the Latins and their liturgical and theological heritage, so I mean no disrespect.  The Latins don't have to refer to us as "Orthodox" either, and often they don't (i.e. Greeks, Byzantines, Russians, Easterns, et cetera).

[HandmaidenofGod]

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion.

You care to back that statement up with a source?

Look, the Latin church is either Catholic or it isn't.  Do you recognize the legitimacy of their Catholicism?

Do you recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch as a Heirarch of the Orthodox Church, or do you disregard his authority for your own personal opinion on the matter?

It doesn't matter what I may or may not think. It matters what my Bishops direct me to do. I take my instructions from them.

Who's "he"?  The Serbian Patriarchate's webmaster?  It's a pretty big leap to say that printing an encyclical equals supporting the statements therein.

So are you inferring that the Serbian Patriarch would have items on his website he disagreed with? That seems rather odd. Furthermore, he supports and agrees with the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Do you?

You think it's rude, I think it's theologically accurate.  It's unbecoming for Orthodox Catholics to award the title of the "Catholic Church" to heretics.  I do this in everyday conversation for people who don't understand the finer nuances, but on this forum most people get it.  I might go back to calling them Catholic for convenience's sake, but never out of artificial "politeness."  I respect a great many things about the Latins and their liturgical and theological heritage, so I mean no disrespect.  The Latins don't have to refer to us as "Orthodox" either, and often they don't (i.e. Greeks, Byzantines, Russians, Easterns, et cetera).

I've never seen anyone on this forum who is of the Catholic faith refer to the Orthodox Church as rudely as you infer they do. I have never met a Catholic who referred to the Orthodox Church as rudely as you infer they do, and I've been Orthodox my entire life and a large percentage of my family is Catholic. (I also have members of my family that are Protestant and Jewish. We're an eclectic bunch!)

I am not saying that there are not Catholics who have been rude towards Orthodoxy, however an eye for an eye simply leaves the world blind.

You're not making any friends or winning any points by refusing to call the Church of Rome "The Roman Catholic Church." All you're doing is being obtuse.

[ialmisry]

The Ecumenical Patriarch is comfortable using the title "Roman Catholic Church," why aren't you? I mean, seriously, do you think you're endearing any of our Catholic friends on this board to the Orthodox faith by insulting their Church?

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion. Look, the Latin church is either Catholic or it isn't.  Do you recognize the legitimacy of their Catholicism?

Oh and in case you had issue with the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Serbian Patriarch has an article on their website about the Ecumenical Patriarch defending dialogue with the Catholic Church. (In other words, he agrees with the EP.)

Who's "he"?  The Serbian Patriarchate's webmaster?  It's a pretty big leap to say that printing an encyclical equals supporting the statements therein.  The Serbian Church has officially withdrawn from the World Council of Churches, so I don't see how that's a big show of support for ecumenism.

It helps that in Serbian, as in many Orthodox languages Catholic in the sense of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (i.e. the Orthodox) is one word, and catholic in the sense of the Vatican is another, in this case саборна and Римокатоличка respectively.

So frankly, I think your refusal to use the word "Catholic" in regards to the Roman Catholic Church is not only rude, but unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian.

You think it's rude, I think it's theologically accurate.  It's unbecoming for Orthodox Catholics to award the title of the "Catholic Church" to heretics.  I do this in everyday conversation for people who don't understand the finer nuances, but on this forum most people get it.  I might go back to calling them Catholic for convenience's sake, but never out of artificial "politeness."  I respect a great many things about the Latins and their liturgical and theological heritage, so I mean no disrespect.  The Latins don't have to refer to us as "Orthodox" either, and often they don't (i.e. Greeks, Byzantines, Russians, Easterns, et cetera).

You left out "schismatics."

The last straw came arguing with someone who insisted that St. Ignatius' use of the word proved that the Vatican was the original Church.  The fact that this Patriarch of Antioch was writing to a Church in the Patriarchate of Constantinople now with no reference to Rome was lost on him.  Ever since, I don't concede.

[Irish Hermit]

Is the word "Vatican" going to be banned from the Forum?

I like it.   Mons Vaticanus - the Hill of Sorcerers

In the old days when it was on the outskirts of Rome, it was the area where sorcerers and soothsayers and sellers of potions set up their stalls and plied their business.

[ialmisry]

Look, the Latin church is either Catholic or it isn't.  Do you recognize the legitimacy of their Catholicism?

Do you recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch as a Heirarch of the Orthodox Church, or do you disregard his authority for your own personal opinion on the matter?

It doesn't matter what I may or may not think. It matters what my Bishops direct me to do. I take my instructions from them.

His All Holiness is confused on a few things besides global warming.  He calls the Vatican "sister church" while refusing to recognize his sister Church, the Orthodox Church in America.  He refers to the Phanar as the Mother Church of Orthodoxy, but us in Alexandria and Antioch (not to mention Jerusalem) can only laugh at that.  He insists that he will defend his "religious" title, Ecumenical Patriarch, whereas it is in origin a secular title (but should be defended, none the less).  He states that the "foreign" Estonian born, bred, baptized, ordained and consecrated (and speaking) Kornelius must leave Estonia, in favor of the "Estonian" primate, the Cypriot Greek Stephanos of the Congo (!).....

Who's "he"?  The Serbian Patriarchate's webmaster?  It's a pretty big leap to say that printing an encyclical equals supporting the statements therein.

So are you inferring that the Serbian Patriarch would have items on his website he disagreed with? That seems rather odd. Furthermore, he supports and agrees with the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch.[/quote]

In what? It's not a blank check. He's not a supreme pontiff.

Do you?

In what?

You think it's rude, I think it's theologically accurate.  It's unbecoming for Orthodox Catholics to award the title of the "Catholic Church" to heretics.  I do this in everyday conversation for people who don't understand the finer nuances, but on this forum most people get it.  I might go back to calling them Catholic for convenience's sake, but never out of artificial "politeness."  I respect a great many things about the Latins and their liturgical and theological heritage, so I mean no disrespect.  The Latins don't have to refer to us as "Orthodox" either, and often they don't (i.e. Greeks, Byzantines, Russians, Easterns, et cetera).

I've never seen anyone on this forum who is of the Catholic faith refer to the Orthodox Church as rudely as you infer they do. I have never met a Catholic who referred to the Orthodox Church as rudely as you infer they do, and I've been Orthodox my entire life and a large percentage of my family is Catholic. (I also have members of my family that are Protestant and Jewish. We're an eclectic bunch!)

Then you have lived a blessed life.  Slava Bohy.

I am not saying that there are not Catholics who have been rude towards Orthodoxy, however an eye for an eye simply leaves the world blind.

It's not about an eye for an eye. It's about having eyes that see.

You're not making any friends or winning any points by refusing to call the Church of Rome "The Roman Catholic Church." All you're doing is being obtuse.

Au contraire, it gets the meaning across loud and clear: no, we do not need nor crave the Vatican's "validation."

[ialmisry]

Is the word "Vatican" going to be banned from the Forum?

I like it.   Mons Vaticanus - the Hill of Sorcerers

In the old days when it was on the outskirts of Rome, it was the area where sorcerers and soothsayers and sellers of potions set up their stalls and plied their business.

OH, dear Father, your Irish is showing.

[Irish Hermit]

Is the word "Vatican" going to be banned from the Forum?

I like it.   Mons Vaticanus - the Hill of Sorcerers

In the old days when it was on the outskirts of Rome, it was the area where sorcerers and soothsayers and sellers of potions set up their stalls and plied their business.

OH, dear Father, your Irish is showing.

Not surprising.    The Romans used the word "Vates" for the shamans or druids of the Celts whose work was to foretell the future by reading entrails and by human sacrifice.  The same grisly business was taking place back in Rome on the Mons Vaticanus.

[Iconodule]

Can you elaborate?

I have always been taught that 'schism' is a lack of charity... Once the break has been understood as a heresy is the division formalized and anathemas given.

Perhaps they don't completely understand Latin Theology or feel that it is inferior to their own but still fail to believe it to be grounds for a division out of charity toward their Western Brothers?

Charity is not the same thing as relativism.

[HandmaidenofGod]

Look, the Latin church is either Catholic or it isn't.  Do you recognize the legitimacy of their Catholicism?

Do you recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch as a Heirarch of the Orthodox Church, or do you disregard his authority for your own personal opinion on the matter?

It doesn't matter what I may or may not think. It matters what my Bishops direct me to do. I take my instructions from them.

His All Holiness is confused on a few things besides global warming.  He calls the Vatican "sister church" while refusing to recognize his sister Church, the Orthodox Church in America.  He refers to the Phanar as the Mother Church of Orthodoxy, but us in Alexandria and Antioch (not to mention Jerusalem) can only laugh at that.  He insists that he will defend his "religious" title, Ecumenical Patriarch, whereas it is in origin a secular title (but should be defended, none the less).  He states that the "foreign" Estonian born, bred, baptized, ordained and consecrated (and speaking) Kornelius must leave Estonia, in favor of the "Estonian" primate, the Cypriot Greek Stephanos of the Congo (!).....

Who's "he"?  The Serbian Patriarchate's webmaster?  It's a pretty big leap to say that printing an encyclical equals supporting the statements therein.

So are you inferring that the Serbian Patriarch would have items on his website he disagreed with? That seems rather odd. Furthermore, he supports and agrees with the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

In what? It's not a blank check. He's not a supreme pontiff.

Do you?

In what?

You think it's rude, I think it's theologically accurate.  It's unbecoming for Orthodox Catholics to award the title of the "Catholic Church" to heretics.  I do this in everyday conversation for people who don't understand the finer nuances, but on this forum most people get it.  I might go back to calling them Catholic for convenience's sake, but never out of artificial "politeness."  I respect a great many things about the Latins and their liturgical and theological heritage, so I mean no disrespect.  The Latins don't have to refer to us as "Orthodox" either, and often they don't (i.e. Greeks, Byzantines, Russians, Easterns, et cetera).

I've never seen anyone on this forum who is of the Catholic faith refer to the Orthodox Church as rudely as you infer they do. I have never met a Catholic who referred to the Orthodox Church as rudely as you infer they do, and I've been Orthodox my entire life and a large percentage of my family is Catholic. (I also have members of my family that are Protestant and Jewish. We're an eclectic bunch!)

Then you have lived a blessed life.  Slava Bohy.

I am not saying that there are not Catholics who have been rude towards Orthodoxy, however an eye for an eye simply leaves the world blind.

It's not about an eye for an eye. It's about having eyes that see.

You're not making any friends or winning any points by refusing to call the Church of Rome "The Roman Catholic Church." All you're doing is being obtuse.

Au contraire, it gets the meaning across loud and clear: no, we do not need nor crave the Vatican's "validation."
[/quote]

It's not about "validation." It's about a) realizing calling the Church of Rome by it's official name does not make Orthodoxy any less "Catholic" and b) just not being rude.

I don't feel my faith threatened by referring to them as the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, or their faithful members "Catholics." I mean, if you're going to refuse to refer to the Church of Rome as the Catholic Church, will you also refuse to use the names "Presbyterian Church" "Pentecostal Church" and "Baptist Church" since they have incorrect dogma in reference to the names of their respective faith groups?

We can go 'round and round with this, but as the length of this thread shows, it's not going to solve anything. I don't see the point in being rude to our Catholic guests (or anyone, for that matter) but obviously some will disagree with me, and I'm okay with that.

Mods, would someone mind fixing the quote tags for me? I'm not sure how they got messed up. Thanks! ~M

[Mickey]

I don't feel my faith threatened by referring to them as the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, or their faithful members "Catholics." I mean, if you're going to refuse to refer to the Church of Rome as the Catholic Church, will you also refuse to use the names "Presbyterian Church" "Pentecostal Church" and "Baptist Church" since they have incorrect dogma in reference to the names of their respective faith groups?

I generally refer to the Latins as “Roman Catholic Church” or “Latin Catholic Church” or “Byzantine Catholic Church”  etc.  Not only was I in communion with these Churches for most of my life, but we were one Church many years ago.  Having said that, I believe that the RCC has greatly distanced Herself from the apostolic faith after 1000 years of schism and innovations.  I have met Orthodox Christians who will not refer to Rome as being “a church” let alone “catholic”.  And I must say that I understand this line of thinking.  On the other hand, I will absolutely not refer to the protestant sects as “church” because I do not believe they are legitimate churches in any way, shape or form.  I will call them: the baptists, the presbyterians, the methodists, etc.

My two cents.

[Michał]

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion.

You care to back that statement up with a source?

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/
http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=EditorialsOpinion.one&content_id=18280&CFID=23007755&CFTOKEN=29751934&tp_preview=true

[HandmaidenofGod]

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion.

You care to back that statement up with a source?

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/
http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=EditorialsOpinion.one&content_id=18280&CFID=23007755&CFTOKEN=29751934&tp_preview=true

These blogs go against what is on the GOA Website:

Generally stated, fornication, adultery, abortion, homosexuality and any form of abusive sexual behavior are considered immoral and inappropriate forms of behavior in and of themselves, and also because they attack the institution of marriage and the family. Two representative statements, one on abortion and another on homosexuality, from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America follow. They are from the Twenty-Third Clergy-Laity Congress held in Philadelphia in 1976. The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die. Decisions of the Supreme Court and State legislatures by which abortion, with or without restrictions, is allowed should be viewed by practicing Christians as an affront to their beliefs in the sanctity of life...The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

source

I would also argue that the quotes cited from the Ecumenical Patriarch seem a bit vague in their context.

[John Larocque]

The director of the American Orthodox Institute - on a Catholic site - was noting that the EP praised Greek American "pro-choice" politicians without upbraiding their views. I'm kind of amused that Catholic.com is being used as a vehicle for a criticism of "eastern Papalism." ... Anyway, I was able to find out what he was talking about - the granting of the title "Archon of the Ecumenical Patriarhate" to Senator Paul Sarbanes, someone with a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/23/green-patriarch-bartholomew-embraces-leftist-environmental-agenda/

[ialmisry]

You're not making any friends or winning any points by refusing to call the Church of Rome "The Roman Catholic Church." All you're doing is being obtuse.

Au contraire, it gets the meaning across loud and clear: no, we do not need nor crave the Vatican's "validation."

It's not about "validation." It's about a) realizing calling the Church of Rome by it's official name does not make Orthodoxy any less "Catholic" and b) just not being rude.

The official name of the Vatican's church is "the Catholic Church."  The official name of its government is "the Holy See," which has its own sovereign territory, which is officially the "State of the Vatican City."  Note: the Vatican City State does not have sovereign status, which confers legal personhood on "the Holy See" to interact with other states, but the reverse: ambassadors are sent "to the Holy See," not "the State of the Vatican City" (which, having been there and having seen at least two or three of its "Apostolic Nunciatures" (note, not embassies) I gather that "the Holy See" has more territory in its missions abroad than in Rome, and has no room in its sovereign territory). In this it differs directly opposite from Mount Athos' status. The EP, wisely, is trying at present to get this status of international personhood, without sovereign status for its territory.  "The Holy See"'s official website is *gasp* http://www.vatican.va/
where you can get the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
and its compendium even in Russian and Romanian, as if there was a pressing need, as I've discussed before:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?

but not Polish nor Tagalog.  Nor for that matter Ukrainian nor Arabic, the languages of the largest "sui juris" churches in submission to the Vatican.

Now, when I say every day "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," I do not have the Vatican in mind. No confusion, because in Arabic when I say this I say "jaami'ah," not "kaathuuliikiyyah," which in Arabic refers only to the Vatican).  I have had many long discussions with the Vatican's communicants who insist that our Creed admits our need for the pope of Rome (btw, I don't say "pope of the Vatican," which would be more correct, simply because no Orthodox Pope of Rome has been enthroned at the present).  No mention of our resistence to their disfigurement of filioque. So no, Catholic is out, and I take it, from dealing at length from experience, what is really sticking in the Ultramontanist craw is the refusal to even pay lip service to the Ultramontanist claims disguised as universality, i.e. Catholic.  At times, they are honest about this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12113.0.html

The same, btw, for "Orthodox in communion with Rome," because they are not, Eastern Catholic, as that would be us, Greek Catholic, as very few are Greek and none Catholic in the true sense of the word: being the appendage to the Vatican at best let alone the Vatican's fifth column, doesn't cut it.  Since they created the term "Byzantine," they can keep it.

I don't feel my faith threatened by referring to them as the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, or their faithful members "Catholics." I mean, if you're going to refuse to refer to the Church of Rome as the Catholic Church, will you also refuse to use the names "Presbyterian Church" "Pentecostal Church" and "Baptist Church" since they have incorrect dogma in reference to the names of their respective faith groups?

Although I confess my/our belief "in one Baptism" and confess to a presbyter, I don't recall ever having a false claim being promoted on the basis of the name Baptist, Presybterian nor Pentecostal. I have pointed out to Romanian Baptists (baptişti) that their name isn't based on the word for baptism (botez), Romanian Pentecostals (penticostali) that their name isn't based on the word Pentecost (Rusalii), betraying their late and foreign origin.  Since the Romanians are fully Roman, and Constantinople is New Rome, and the Ruum and Romaioi Romans without submission to the Vatican, and as the Patriarchs correctly pointed out "Roman Catholic" depends on Rome embracing the Catholic Faith

When he was Orthodox. We still would "follow" him, if he followed the Fathers. Let him confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself
.....
Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne"...As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."..For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way... But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

Roman is also out (I love "Byzantine" texts where you get lines about "the Latins attacked the Romans.").  I'm not threatened, I just see no reason to act as enabler for delusions.

We can go 'round and round with this, but as the length of this thread shows, it's not going to solve anything. I don't see the point in being rude to our Catholic guests (or anyone, for that matter) but obviously some will disagree with me, and I'm okay with that.

As this thread started out, I find it odd that refering to the Vatican by terms the Vatican itself uses is "rude." It would be like me taking offense at being called Antiochian.

Btw, I won't even consider this until the Vatican let's the two Patriarch's in submission to it in Alexandria take the proper title of the See:"Pope," like the two Orthodox claimants.

[ialmisry]

The director of the American Orthodox Institute - on a Catholic site - was noting that the EP praised Greek American "pro-choice" politicians without upbraiding their views. I'm kind of amused that Catholic.com is being used as a vehicle for a criticism of "eastern Papalism." ... Anyway, I was able to find out what he was talking about - the granting of the title "Archon of the Ecumenical Patriarhate" to Senator Paul Sarbanes, someone with a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/23/green-patriarch-bartholomew-embraces-leftist-environmental-agenda/

We discuss this a lot on the American Orthodox Institute's website as well:
http://www.aoiusa.org/

We wouldn't mind his paling around with B XVI if the pope of Rome's moral backbone would help stiffen the Phanar's.

[PeterTheAleut]

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion.

You care to back that statement up with a source?

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/
http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=EditorialsOpinion.one&content_id=18280&CFID=23007755&CFTOKEN=29751934&tp_preview=true

These blogs go against what is on the GOA Website:

Generally stated, fornication, adultery, abortion, homosexuality and any form of abusive sexual behavior are considered immoral and inappropriate forms of behavior in and of themselves, and also because they attack the institution of marriage and the family. Two representative statements, one on abortion and another on homosexuality, from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America follow. They are from the Twenty-Third Clergy-Laity Congress held in Philadelphia in 1976. The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die. Decisions of the Supreme Court and State legislatures by which abortion, with or without restrictions, is allowed should be viewed by practicing Christians as an affront to their beliefs in the sanctity of life...The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

source

I would also argue that the quotes cited from the Ecumenical Patriarch seem a bit vague in their context.

Yes, they do.  To say that the cited quotes show His All Holiness to be comfortable with abortion I think is a spin on his words that doesn't really do them justice.  Besides, the quotes speak not so much on abortion per se as on the politics of abortion and how much the Church should participate in such.  But then, I can see how those who advocate the pro-life political platform can see those who disagree with them as "comfortable with abortion" even if they're not.  It's just rhetoric.

[genesisone]

The official name of the Vatican's church is "the Catholic Church."  The official name of its government is "the Holy See," which has its own sovereign territory, which is officially the "State of the Vatican City."  Note: the Vatican City State does not have sovereign status, which confers legal personhood on "the Holy See" to interact with other states, but the reverse: ambassadors are sent "to the Holy See," not "the State of the Vatican City" (which, having been there and having seen at least two or three of its "Apostolic Nunciatures" (note, not embassies) I gather that "the Holy See" has more territory in its missions abroad than in Rome, and has no room in its sovereign territory). In this it differs directly opposite from Mount Athos' status. The EP, wisely, is trying at present to get this status of international personhood, without sovereign status for its territory.  

I understand the reasoning behind the use of Papal Nuncio and Nunciature. (As for similar reasons Commonwealth nations exchange High Commissioners rather than ambassadors.) Ambassadors are technically the personal representatives of one sovereign (monarch) or head of state (e.g. president) to another. However, having ambassadors accredited to the Holy See is not unique; ambassadors are not accredited to the United Kingdom, but to the Court of St. James's. To most of us, all of the precise terminology seems like so much gobbledygook, but to those in the business it matters a lot.

I don't know what you are referring to in the phrase "the Vatican City State does not have sovereign status" as its own website http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/ says "Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognized under international law." Perhaps you can clarify. I think your basic point is right, but I know how picky some us, including myself of course, can be at times.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're getting at is that there is a distinction between the sovereign territory of the Vatican City and its governing authority (the Holy See), just as there is between the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom and its governing authority (the Court of St. James's). This would explain the difference in terminology between the names for the chief diplomatic representatives, as the nature of the two sovereign rulers (the Queen and the Pope) are different but equal for diplomatic purposes.

I think I'd better quit. I'm starting to get to the point where I don't understand what I'm trying to say anymore  .

[ialmisry]

I don't feel my faith threatened by referring to them as the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, or their faithful members "Catholics." I mean, if you're going to refuse to refer to the Church of Rome as the Catholic Church, will you also refuse to use the names "Presbyterian Church" "Pentecostal Church" and "Baptist Church" since they have incorrect dogma in reference to the names of their respective faith groups?

Although I confess my/our belief "in one Baptism" and confess to a presbyter, I don't recall ever having a false claim being promoted on the basis of the name Baptist, Presybterian nor Pentecostal. I have pointed out to Romanian Baptists (baptişti) that their name isn't based on the word for baptism (botez), Romanian Pentecostals (penticostali) that their name isn't based on the word Pentecost (Rusalii), betraying their late and foreign origin.  

I forgot to add I might be inclined to use Anabaptist for Baptist, Anabaptist being more correct, but not worth it.

[Irish Hermit]

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion.

You care to back that statement up with a source?

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/
http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=EditorialsOpinion.one&content_id=18280&CFID=23007755&CFTOKEN=29751934&tp_preview=true

"Orthodox Patriarchs 'Wink' at Abortion"
(written by a priest under the Ecumenical Throne)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040407123705/http://www.oclife.org/vnine.pdf


Here are his words:

"Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul
enters the body at conception and, generally
speaking, respects human life and the continuation
of the pregnancy," Bartholomew said, the church
also "respects the liberty and freedom of all human
persons and all Christian couples. . . .We are not
allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian
couples," he also said. "We cannot generalize.
There are many reasons for a couple to go toward
abortion."

I understand that Fr Dr Edward Pehanich (ACROD, founder of Orthodox
Christians For Life) who reported all this in an article in oclife.org
<http://www.oclife.org/vnine.pdf > has sought clarification or retraction
from His Divine All-Holiness.  There has been no response.

As for those who doubt that the Patriarch was honestly reported, why would
Fr Edward Pehanich who holds a prominent position in ACROD highlight these
remarks in the Orthodox Christians for Life magazine if they were
unreliable, thereby antagonising his supreme spiritual authority in the
Phanar. I'd say he's a brave and honest priest.

If you'd like to contact Fr Edward and ask for up to date information his
contact details are:

Very Rev. Dr. Edward Pehanich
10062 Firethorn Dr.
N. Huntingdon, PA 15642
Phone: (724) 863-3741
---

And Fr Anthony Nelson, a prominent ROCA priest in the Right to Life
Movement, has written:

We at Oklahoma Orthodox Christians for Life also wrote both to the
Patriarchate and the GOA requesting comments/clarification of the comments
at the time. Our requests went unanswered.

Protopriest Anthony Nelson
St. Benedict Russian Orthodox Church
Oklahoma City, OK USA 405-672-1441
Source:
https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0701D&L=ORTHODOX&D=0&m=998\
15&P=6149

____________________________
If the Patriarch were wrongly reported it seems to me that he has a strong moral responsibility to correct the statement and publicly support the moral teaching of the Church.  Why has he not done so?

[Irish Hermit]

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion.

You care to back that statement up with a source?

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/
http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=EditorialsOpinion.one&content_id=18280&CFID=23007755&CFTOKEN=29751934&tp_preview=true

Bishop Tikhon (FitzGerald), retired bishop of San Francisco expresses in his own inimitable way his opinion of the Patriarch's pro-choice stance...  This is a classic "tikhonism."

"I have long been in the ranks of those who view with
distaste the care with which the current Patriarch
(even when only a Metropolitan) has avoided
discomfiting anyone anywhere on the topic of abortion"

Source ::
https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0909D&L=ORTHODOX&P=R2730

[PeterTheAleut]

His All-Holiness is also comfortable with abortion.

You care to back that statement up with a source?

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/
http://www.orthodoxnews.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=EditorialsOpinion.one&content_id=18280&CFID=23007755&CFTOKEN=29751934&tp_preview=true

"Orthodox Patriarchs 'Wink' at Abortion"
(written by a priest under the Ecumenical Throne)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040407123705/http://www.oclife.org/vnine.pdf


Here are his words:

"Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul
enters the body at conception and, generally
speaking, respects human life and the continuation
of the pregnancy," Bartholomew said, the church
also "respects the liberty and freedom of all human
persons and all Christian couples. . . .We are not
allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian
couples," he also said. "We cannot generalize.
There are many reasons for a couple to go toward
abortion."

I understand that Fr Dr Edward Pehanich (ACROD, founder of Orthodox
Christians For Life) who reported all this in an article in oclife.org
<http://www.oclife.org/vnine.pdf > has sought clarification or retraction
from His Divine All-Holiness.  There has been no response.

As for those who doubt that the Patriarch was honestly reported, why would
Fr Edward Pehanich who holds a prominent position in ACROD highlight these
remarks in the Orthodox Christians for Life magazine if they were
unreliable, thereby antagonising his supreme spiritual authority in the
Phanar. I'd say he's a brave and honest priest.

If you'd like to contact Fr Edward and ask for up to date information his
contact details are:

Very Rev. Dr. Edward Pehanich
10062 Firethorn Dr.
N. Huntingdon, PA 15642
Phone: (724) 863-3741
---

And Fr Anthony Nelson, a prominent ROCA priest in the Right to Life
Movement, has written:

We at Oklahoma Orthodox Christians for Life also wrote both to the
Patriarchate and the GOA requesting comments/clarification of the comments
at the time. Our requests went unanswered.

Protopriest Anthony Nelson
St. Benedict Russian Orthodox Church
Oklahoma City, OK USA 405-672-1441
Source:
https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0701D&L=ORTHODOX&D=0&m=998\
15&P=6149

____________________________
If the Patriarch were wrongly reported it seems to me that he has a strong moral responsibility to correct the statement and publicly support the moral teaching of the Church.  Why has he not done so?

I'm not suggesting His All Holiness was wrongly reported.  I'm suggesting that you, Isa, et al., are misinterpreting him.  We've been through this many times before in different ways on the Politics board, so I won't rehash that here.

Besides, I don't see how this fits the topic of discussion on this thread.

[Iconodule]

I'm not suggesting His All Holiness was wrongly reported.  I'm suggesting that you, Isa, et al., are misinterpreting him.  

How do you interpret him?

[PeterTheAleut]

I'm not suggesting His All Holiness was wrongly reported.  I'm suggesting that you, Isa, et al., are misinterpreting him.  

How do you interpret him?

What does it matter?  It's off topic.

[Irish Hermit]

[I'm not suggesting His All Holiness was wrongly reported.  I'm suggesting that you, Isa, et al., are misinterpreting him.

In what way have I misrepreesnted His Most Divine All-Holiness?

 We've been through this many times before in different ways on the Politics board, so I won't rehash that here.

I have never, until now, participated in a discussion on this on the Forum.  I have been far too ashamed to speak of it where Catholics are present.  But Alveus raised the topic and HandmaidenofGod asked for substantiation.

Besides, I don't see how this fits the topic of discussion on this thread.

You are right.  We need a separate thread for the topic.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: VATICAN: the new "U" word?