OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 01:52:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church  (Read 38514 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #360 on: August 06, 2010, 11:13:44 AM »

I'm sorry, elijahmaria, but are you really blaming the victim?  You might as well say that the woman who was wearing suggestive clothing was asking be violated and gang raped.

There were certainly viable political and martial reasons why Constantinople was attacked, but the looting that followed and subsequent denial to return artifacts and relics are no better than Mel Gibson's recent rant to the mother of his youngest child about her suggestive clothing and what is going to happen to her.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #361 on: August 06, 2010, 11:39:50 AM »

I'm sorry, elijahmaria, but are you really blaming the victim?  You might as well say that the woman who was wearing suggestive clothing was asking be violated and gang raped.

There were certainly viable political and martial reasons why Constantinople was attacked, but the looting that followed and subsequent denial to return artifacts and relics are no better than Mel Gibson's recent rant to the mother of his youngest child about her suggestive clothing and what is going to happen to her.

You are right.  The western armies went well beyond the lines of just warfare.  But the idea that they barbarously attacked for no good reason seems to have far more currency in some circles, than does the telling of the whole story.

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Character witnesses are indeed useful and necessary to both the prosecution and the defense.  Otherwise there is no guilt or innocence...just partisanship.  People don't work that way in this fallen world.

The history of Byzantium is not the history of a poor defenseless holy land beset upon by all and sundry...especially the evil west.

Black Hat-White Hat history in this dialogue of Catholic and Orthodox just won't hold water in the real world, and one simply does not see things being presented that way among educated men and women of both sides...You just don't see it because it would be wrong to do that and would not speak well of the intelligence of either party or both parties.

M.
Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #362 on: August 06, 2010, 12:06:06 PM »

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?
Mary

Mary, Mary, Mary!  Surely you jest!  It's amazing to what lengths some Roman Catholics will go to justify the misdeeds of their church!  It was greed that prompted the sack.  If not, how about giving us your version?  I'd love to hear it.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #363 on: August 06, 2010, 12:10:38 PM »

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?
Mary

Mary, Mary, Mary!  Surely you jest!  It's amazing to what lengths some Roman Catholics will go to justify the misdeeds of their church!  It was greed that prompted the sack.  If not, how about giving us your version?  I'd love to hear it.

Orthodoc

That I'll leave to the members and a good library. 

And no.  I never jest about such serious matters.

Mary
Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #364 on: August 06, 2010, 01:52:03 PM »

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purification of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo legation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?
Mary

Mary, Mary, Mary!  Surely you jest!  It's amazing to what lengths some Roman Catholics will go to justify the misdeeds of their church!  It was greed that prompted the sack.  If not, how about giving us your version?  I'd love to hear it.

Orthodoc

That I'll leave to the members and a good library. 

And no.  I never jest about such serious matters.

Mary

And will you also leave to the members and a good library how the Greek Orthodox Icon now known in the west as 'Our Lady Of perpetual Help'  miraculously (according to the husband and wife team on EWTN) appeared in Rome after it was STOLEN from a Greek Orthodox Church on one of the Greek islands?  This Icon had nothing to do with  the sack of Constantinople. 

And, has the RCC degenerated to such a degree that it no longer is aware that the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal' is one of the ten given gto us by God?  Or has the RCC changed the definition of what theft is to justify this as well as the deeds done against Orthodoxy in the fourth crusade?  Does it have to be reminded by we Orthodox that it is wrong to steal and restitution is not necessary?  Just empty meaningless apologies.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #365 on: August 06, 2010, 01:56:57 PM »



And, has the RCC degenerated to such a degree that it no longer is aware that the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal' is one of the ten given gto us by God?  Or has the RCC changed the definition of what theft is to justify this as well as the deeds done against Orthodoxy in the fourth crusade?  Does it have to be reminded by we Orthodox that it is wrong to steal and restitution is not necessary?  Just empty meaningless apologies.

Orthodoc

Indeed.  There are times when I too am very sorry that any of our Popes have offered apologies to the Orthodox world, where there is, of course, no acceptable satisfaction...only the claim of spotless innocence.

Well...have at it and enjoy yourself while you are able.

Mary
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #366 on: August 06, 2010, 06:41:18 PM »

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purification of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo legation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?
Mary

Mary, Mary, Mary!  Surely you jest!  It's amazing to what lengths some Roman Catholics will go to justify the misdeeds of their church!  It was greed that prompted the sack.  If not, how about giving us your version?  I'd love to hear it.

Orthodoc

That I'll leave to the members and a good library. 

And no.  I never jest about such serious matters.

Mary

And will you also leave to the members and a good library how the Greek Orthodox Icon now known in the west as 'Our Lady Of perpetual Help'  miraculously (according to the husband and wife team on EWTN) appeared in Rome after it was STOLEN from a Greek Orthodox Church on one of the Greek islands?  This Icon had nothing to do with  the sack of Constantinople. 

And, has the RCC degenerated to such a degree that it no longer is aware that the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal' is one of the ten given gto us by God?  Or has the RCC changed the definition of what theft is to justify this as well as the deeds done against Orthodoxy in the fourth crusade?  Does it have to be reminded by we Orthodox that it is wrong to steal and restitution is not necessary?  Just empty meaningless apologies.

Orthodoc
I agree that restitution is necessary. I have brought this up on other forums, such as CAF, and from time to time, but not always, I get a message from the moderator, that I have received a warning for violating the policy of the forum against having an agenda.
One of the responses mentioned something about a problem determining who has the title to the property at the present time.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #367 on: August 06, 2010, 06:54:17 PM »


 Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?

No. No one is exempt. And isn't there a book by Dante implying that there may be some Popes in hell?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #368 on: August 06, 2010, 07:08:30 PM »

I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #369 on: August 06, 2010, 07:35:25 PM »

I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
One thing which may be worthwhile to keep in mind on this is that according to the RCC teaching, there is imperfect union between the RCC and EO (and OO) Churches.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #370 on: August 06, 2010, 07:41:44 PM »

I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
One thing which may be worthwhile to keep in mind on this is that according to the RCC teaching, there is imperfect union between the RCC and EO (and OO) Churches.

How is that significant?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #371 on: August 06, 2010, 08:34:40 PM »

I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
One thing which may be worthwhile to keep in mind on this is that according to the RCC teaching, there is imperfect union between the RCC and EO (and OO) Churches.

How is that significant?
Because the OP concerns the RC view of EO.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #372 on: August 06, 2010, 08:49:33 PM »

I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
One thing which may be worthwhile to keep in mind on this is that according to the RCC teaching, there is imperfect union between the RCC and EO (and OO) Churches.

How is that significant?
Because the OP concerns the RC view of EO.

So then it's not significant to the discussion about RC ecclesiology resembling Branch Theory?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #373 on: August 06, 2010, 10:11:50 PM »


Black Hat-White Hat history in this dialogue of Catholic and Orthodox just won't hold water in the real world, and one simply does not see things being presented that way among educated men and women of both sides...You just don't see it because it would be wrong to do that and would not speak well of the intelligence of either party or both parties.

Then call us uneducated, call us unintelligent and do not speak well of us.

I can imagine no history book which does not speak of the rape of Constantinople with great horror.  Nothing can justify it.

Our nuns were raped and killed.  Our clergy were killed.  The populace was killed.  It is said that the Bosphorus was red with the amount of blood.   Our churches were despoiled and violated.  The great palaces were looted.

The looting of Constantinople continued for SIXTY years!     It was a city such as the world had never seen before in its grandeur and riches.  It took the Italians sixty years to manage to loot everything they wanted.

Can you imagine if the Russians came into Rome today, raped and killed your nuns and priests and populace, and stayed there to loot for sixty years.... of course, only with the intention of rescuing the splendid things of Rome from a future attack by Muslims in 2260.

Read the history.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 10:21:07 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #374 on: August 06, 2010, 10:18:07 PM »


Indeed.  There are times when I too am very sorry that any of our Popes have offered apologies to the Orthodox world...


The apologies are another great Roman Catholic work of deception foisted on the world.  If you go back and do the research at the time the apologies were made, you will see that the Orthodox were not taken in by them.

The pseudo-apologies of Pope John Paul II, carefully crafted by Cardinal Ratzinger.

See message 48 and others in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27715.msg437886.html#msg437886
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #375 on: August 06, 2010, 11:57:54 PM »


Black Hat-White Hat history in this dialogue of Catholic and Orthodox just won't hold water in the real world, and one simply does not see things being presented that way among educated men and women of both sides...You just don't see it because it would be wrong to do that and would not speak well of the intelligence of either party or both parties.

Then call us uneducated, call us unintelligent and do not speak well of us.

I can imagine no history book which does not speak of the rape of Constantinople with great horror.  Nothing can justify it.

Our nuns were raped and killed.  Our clergy were killed.  The populace was killed.  It is said that the Bosphorus was red with the amount of blood.   Our churches were despoiled and violated.  The great palaces were looted.

The looting of Constantinople continued for SIXTY years!     It was a city such as the world had never seen before in its grandeur and riches.  It took the Italians sixty years to manage to loot everything they wanted.

Can you imagine if the Russians came into Rome today, raped and killed your nuns and priests and populace, and stayed there to loot for sixty years.... of course, only with the intention of rescuing the splendid things of Rome from a future attack by Muslims in 2260.

Read the history.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
Yes. It was horrific and totally wrong. Are there suggestions as to what the average Roman Catholic today could do to somehow make amends for the sins of the Fourth Crusade? And as well, for the sins of the Ustase in WWII?
BTW, from an Eastern Christian standpoint, is it considered that the massacre of the Latins in 1182 was justified, at least to some small extent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 11:58:54 PM by stanley123 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #376 on: August 07, 2010, 12:16:51 AM »

So then it's not significant to the discussion about RC ecclesiology resembling Branch Theory?
Maybe you are right on that point.
Anyway, with reference as to how the RCC views the EO, there is a citation from the CCC:
1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #377 on: August 07, 2010, 12:26:50 AM »

/\  /\  1182 -  riots and mayhem... Italians fighting Italians in Constantinople, Venetians against Pisans against Genoans, and then the Greeks taking up the fight.... all about big business and profits and greed.

It is not as if the Italians were unaccustomed to periodic slaughter in Constantinople.  It was always the Italian groups slaughtering other Italian groups in the city  - Italians from Pisa and Venice and Genoa slaughtering each other's colonies.  It was the Greek army which had to come in and put a halt to these slaughters.

So, no, it was not justified for the Greeks to slaughter Italians but there is no denying that such inter-Italian events were not uncommon.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 12:27:16 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #378 on: August 07, 2010, 12:33:35 AM »


Indeed.  There are times when I too am very sorry that any of our Popes have offered apologies to the Orthodox world...


The apologies are another great Roman Catholic work of deception foisted on the world.  If you go back and do the research at the time the apologies were made, you will see that the Orthodox were not taken in by them.

The pseudo-apologies of Pope John Paul II, carefully crafted by Cardinal Ratzinger.

See message 48 and others in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27715.msg437886.html#msg437886

Again I say it is a shame that any Pope has chosen to open the faithful to this kind of spit-in-the-eye!!

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #379 on: August 07, 2010, 12:34:27 AM »

/\  /\  1182 -  riots and mayhem... Italians fighting Italians in Constantinople, Venetians against Pisans against Genoans, and then the Greeks taking up the fight.... all about big business and profits and greed.

It is not as if the Italians were unaccustomed to periodic slaughter in Constantinople.  It was always the Italian groups slaughtering other Italian groups in the city  - Italians from Pisa and Venice and Genoa slaughtering each other's colonies.  It was the Greek army which had to come in and put a halt to these slaughters.

So, no, it was not justified for the Greeks to slaughter Italians but there is no denying that such inter-Italian events were not uncommon.


I think this attitude was turned around very nicely in the Balkans, don't you?

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #380 on: August 07, 2010, 12:49:44 AM »


Indeed.  There are times when I too am very sorry that any of our Popes have offered apologies to the Orthodox world...


The apologies are another great Roman Catholic work of deception foisted on the world.  If you go back and do the research at the time the apologies were made, you will see that the Orthodox were not taken in by them.

The pseudo-apologies of Pope John Paul II, carefully crafted by Cardinal Ratzinger.

See message 48 and others in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27715.msg437886.html#msg437886

Again I say it is a shame that any Pope has chosen to open the faithful to this kind of spit-in-the-eye!!

M.

Those apologies are a mockery.

The Pope never said:  "Dear Orthodox, forgive the atrocities which members of  my Church have committed against you over the centuries."

Instead he prayed to God:  "Lord forgive the Catholic boys."

No apologies but just a request for God to forgive the Catholic guilty.

Do the research and especially look for the information where Ratzinger tells John Paul NOT to issue apologies such as the first example above.  Ratzinger saw it as weakening the moral authority of the Catholic Church and he took the wording of the apologies in hand and skillfully worded them to avoid any apology but to give the appearance of an apology.   The news media saw what they were expecting -apologies; the Orthodox were not fooled.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #381 on: August 07, 2010, 01:16:48 AM »

Fr. Ambrose, methinks you are setting the bar too high. "Dear Orthodox, forgive the atrocities which members of my Church have committed against you over the centuries." If you are talking about offenses that have occurred with the living memory - say three or four generations - absolutely, apologies are fair game. Above and beyond that, real and concrete things would also include steps by the Vatican to reduce the doctrinal and liturgical dissonance between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, and symbolic gestures (return of icons and relics, for example). But at some level it becomes a redundant exercise. Nobody is alive today who is in a position to forgive, centuries after the fact, offenses committed by people who died centuries ago. One cannot apologize for them or on their behalf, nor can one forgive their offenses. Only the dead can forgive them, and God.

« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 01:19:31 AM by John Larocque » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #382 on: August 07, 2010, 07:08:07 AM »

. Nobody is alive today who is in a position to forgive, centuries after the fact, offenses committed by people who died centuries ago. One cannot apologize for them or on their behalf,

That would seem to be another facet of this trickery then- the Pope pretending he was able to apologise for the acts of those long dead men of blood and violence.

But I am not sure if you are right.  I have been the recipient of an apology from a family whose grandfather did a great wrong to my grandmother.   They offered the apology sincerely and I accepted it in the same spirit.  All of us being Irish, further details are unclear since the reconciliation was celebrated with many a toast.



Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #383 on: August 07, 2010, 10:55:03 AM »

That would seem to be another facet of this trickery then- the Pope pretending he was able to apologise for the acts of those long dead men of blood and violence.

But I am not sure if you are right.  I have been the recipient of an apology from a family whose grandfather did a great wrong to my grandmother.   They offered the apology sincerely and I accepted it in the same spirit.  All of us being Irish, further details are unclear since the reconciliation was celebrated with many a toast.

Your family story falls within what I call "living memory" - withing three or four or even five generations . I think that once some offenses pass from living memory to ancient history, any apologies or remonstrations become academic.

The call to "reverse history" is often amusing. I read on one page about a movement to reverse 800-year old changes to the English language by avoiding the use of Latin words and treating them as "foreign" elements to be cleansed from the vocabulary.

 
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #384 on: August 07, 2010, 05:28:27 PM »

If our Church still possessions items that we stole from the Orthodox during or shortly after the Schism then I definitely agree that they should be returned as an act of kindness, but it seems ridiculous to expect the modern day Pope or modern day Catholics to apologize for something we didn't do. The events and people we are talking about are long gone. That's as ridiculous to me as the idea of apologizing to the Native Americans for the Trail of Tears or apologizing to African Americans for slavery. That would be us apologizing for something we had no control of because it was before our time.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #385 on: August 07, 2010, 06:23:47 PM »

This is not so much the  RC view of the Orthodox Church, but rather, the views of the current pontiff on the Pentarchy. Fr. Z's blog today discussed why he dropped the title "Patriarch of the West".

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/dropping-patriarch-of-the-west-and-changing-titles-of-roman-basilicas-to-papal/#comments

Quote
The title “patriarch” (in the form of “Patriarch of Rome”) was first employed in 642, by Pope Theodore I. Rome never accepted the Eastern theory of the “pentarchy,” and really, never has done so (except in the fairly minor sense of the “order of precedence” of the five major sees, and that only at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215); and it has formed no part of the “self-conceit” of the See of Rome. I have always imagined that its removal by the present pope was an act of “ecumenical honesty,” no more and no less.

Quote
William is completely right. Joseph Ratzinger wrote about this topic in Rahner/Ratzinger, Episkopat und Primat, Quaestiones disputatae 11 (Herder 1961), p. 55 s (my own translation): “The principle of patriarchy is post constantinian, it has an administrative sense. [...] The roman claim [Anspruch] undertands itself from the original theological motive of the sedes apostolica. [...] To the same extent the “New Rome” made unclear the old idea of sedes apostolica in favour of the notion of patriarchy, the “Old Rome” strenghened the reference to the totally different origin and character of its own authority. This authority is in fact totally different from a primacy of honour among patriarchs, because it is situated on a different level, which is completely independent from such administrative concepts.”

Quote
So if I understand William and Reflector correctly the Pope of Rome dropped the title Patriarch of the West because in his understanding the title Patriarch is below him and not part of Latin Christianity’s understanding of the Roman see’s jurisdiction? Was dropping this a way for him to try and assert Rome’s understanding of universal primacy?

Quote
Yes, it is an assertion of universal primacy, but not necessarily in a “juridical” (Ratzinger: “administrative”) sense. Ratzinger wrote (loc. cit. 56): “It (sc. the “sedes of Peter and Paul”) is the norm (“Norm”) of all apostolic succession. Therefore all bishops are referred to Rome (“auf Rom verwiesen”), only the conection with Rome creates for them the catholicity and that fullness of apostolicity, without which they are no true bishops. Without community with Rome one cannot be within the “Catholica”. [...] On the other hand, the see of Rome does not stand in itself without reference to others (“steht nicht beziehungslos in sich selbst”). It creates catholicity for the others, but just for this reason, it needs catholicity. [...] Just as it (the see of Rome) authenticates (“verbürgt”) catholicity, the (real) catholicity authenticates it. Just as the others, in order to be catholic, need its apostolic testimony, it (the Roman see) needs the testimony of real fullness, to remain true (“um wahr zu bleiben”). [...] A pope who excommunicates the whole episcopacy does not exist and cannot exist, because a church, which would only be roman, would not be catholic. [...] The correct meaning of catholicity includes both: the universal claim of the pope, and the inner limitation of this claim, which remains bound to the substantial norm of fullness (Wesensgesetz der Fülle”) and, by that, to the ius divinum of the bishops.”
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 06:24:24 PM by John Larocque » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #386 on: August 07, 2010, 07:09:07 PM »

but it seems ridiculous to expect the modern day Pope or modern day Catholics to apologize for something we didn't do.

As much as this puts me at odds with many fellow Eastern Christians, I do agree with you to some extent. I do think that they inappropriately hold onto grudges of the ancestors who committed these crimes and inappropriately apply their grudges to the descendants who now really had nothing to do with it. On the other hand, I do think that in some cases that descendants are capable of atoning for the sins of their ancestors to some extent. So perhaps neither party is really acting entirely appropriately. But I would actually say it is more so those who hold the grudges who are.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #387 on: August 07, 2010, 07:10:51 PM »

This is not so much the  RC view of the Orthodox Church, but rather, the views of the current pontiff on the Pentarchy. Fr. Z's blog today discussed why he dropped the title "Patriarch of the West".

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/dropping-patriarch-of-the-west-and-changing-titles-of-roman-basilicas-to-papal/#comments

Quote
The title “patriarch” (in the form of “Patriarch of Rome”) was first employed in 642, by Pope Theodore I. Rome never accepted the Eastern theory of the “pentarchy,” and really, never has done so (except in the fairly minor sense of the “order of precedence” of the five major sees, and that only at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215); and it has formed no part of the “self-conceit” of the See of Rome. I have always imagined that its removal by the present pope was an act of “ecumenical honesty,” no more and no less.

Quote
William is completely right. Joseph Ratzinger wrote about this topic in Rahner/Ratzinger, Episkopat und Primat, Quaestiones disputatae 11 (Herder 1961), p. 55 s (my own translation): “The principle of patriarchy is post constantinian, it has an administrative sense. [...] The roman claim [Anspruch] undertands itself from the original theological motive of the sedes apostolica. [...] To the same extent the “New Rome” made unclear the old idea of sedes apostolica in favour of the notion of patriarchy, the “Old Rome” strenghened the reference to the totally different origin and character of its own authority. This authority is in fact totally different from a primacy of honour among patriarchs, because it is situated on a different level, which is completely independent from such administrative concepts.”

Quote
So if I understand William and Reflector correctly the Pope of Rome dropped the title Patriarch of the West because in his understanding the title Patriarch is below him and not part of Latin Christianity’s understanding of the Roman see’s jurisdiction? Was dropping this a way for him to try and assert Rome’s understanding of universal primacy?

Quote
Yes, it is an assertion of universal primacy, but not necessarily in a “juridical” (Ratzinger: “administrative”) sense. Ratzinger wrote (loc. cit. 56): “It (sc. the “sedes of Peter and Paul”) is the norm (“Norm”) of all apostolic succession. Therefore all bishops are referred to Rome (“auf Rom verwiesen”), only the conection with Rome creates for them the catholicity and that fullness of apostolicity, without which they are no true bishops. Without community with Rome one cannot be within the “Catholica”. [...] On the other hand, the see of Rome does not stand in itself without reference to others (“steht nicht beziehungslos in sich selbst”). It creates catholicity for the others, but just for this reason, it needs catholicity. [...] Just as it (the see of Rome) authenticates (“verbürgt”) catholicity, the (real) catholicity authenticates it. Just as the others, in order to be catholic, need its apostolic testimony, it (the Roman see) needs the testimony of real fullness, to remain true (“um wahr zu bleiben”). [...] A pope who excommunicates the whole episcopacy does not exist and cannot exist, because a church, which would only be roman, would not be catholic. [...] The correct meaning of catholicity includes both: the universal claim of the pope, and the inner limitation of this claim, which remains bound to the substantial norm of fullness (Wesensgesetz der Fülle”) and, by that, to the ius divinum of the bishops.”


As a side comment, I would say that the Pentarchy is equally if not more so foreign to Oriental Orthodoxy.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #388 on: August 08, 2010, 08:25:30 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

You do have this disturbing tendency, Mary, to blame the victim and excuse the criminals - in sexual matters as well as in matters involving our Church's unfortunate historical sins.

No woman deserves to be raped, and the people of Constantinople did not deserve to be be attacked.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #389 on: August 08, 2010, 08:52:34 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

This is indeed disturbing. The defining distinction in the matter of rape is whether there was consent or not; nothing else.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #390 on: August 08, 2010, 09:11:43 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

This is indeed disturbing. The defining distinction in the matter of rape is whether there was consent or not; nothing else.

Absolutely!!  I have many friends who think I am a prude.  They tell me that women should be able to walk down the street naked and expect not to be touched...not even looked at!!

True.  That can happen.  In the societies that I've experienced where women spend a good part of the day partially dressed, the penalties for rape are death and dismemberment.  There are no long court trials and the judgment and penalties are very often meted out with the same hour or two of any given day.

So yes.  There surely are places in the world where a woman may walk unclothed without any qualms.

Are you ready for that here?  Does that suit your morality?

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #391 on: August 08, 2010, 09:19:27 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #392 on: August 08, 2010, 09:33:39 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

This is indeed disturbing. The defining distinction in the matter of rape is whether there was consent or not; nothing else.

Absolutely!!  I have many friends who think I am a prude.  They tell me that women should be able to walk down the street naked and expect not to be touched...not even looked at!!

True.  That can happen.  In the societies that I've experienced where women spend a good part of the day partially dressed, the penalties for rape are death and dismemberment.  There are no long court trials and the judgment and penalties are very often meted out with the same hour or two of any given day.

So yes.  There surely are places in the world where a woman may walk unclothed without any qualms.

Are you ready for that here?  Does that suit your morality?

Mary

Obviously I would be ready for it. It would not rouse my passions in the slightest.

Does it suit my morality? It depends. If I were in a society where that was simply the norm and women did it because they had a natural liberty to do so and because it was comfortable, it would very much fit my morality. I believe that the (Post)Impressionist painter Paul Gauguin was put in a similar situation when he went to French Polynesia; many of his paintings include Polynesian women very casually depicted in half-nude attire. I don't see how this attitude would be incompatible with my morality.

If I was in a society like I am in right now, I don't really think most women who dress in a skimpy fashion do so for the same motivations. If they did it for the natural primitive motivations, I would think it quite awkward for women to dress in such an upfront, nude manner; I would be able to handle it probably, but I'm sure enough people wouldn't that it wouldn't work out. But like I said, that's not an issue of morality. If, on the other hand, women were to do it in a underhanded and provocative manner for very different motivations as is common in Western society, I will admit that that does not fit my morality. I don't want women to be dressing that way, though I certainly wouldn't attempt to force clothes on them, and I also would hope to still treat them with humane decency.

But I don't see how this is connected to the issue of rape, as it would seem you connected it in the above first quoted post. If a woman were to dress lightly in the natural primitive fashion, or even in the provocative modern Western fashion, in either case I don't see how that should in any way be viewed as a justification for raping that women. I don't see how it should at all change the ruling in a case where that woman is raped. The woman either gives consent or not. And if she does not, it is up to the other to choose whether to respect her denial or not; the crime is only in choosing not to respect her denial.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #393 on: August 08, 2010, 09:35:30 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #394 on: August 08, 2010, 09:51:54 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.

Perhaps you've never sat in on rape cases in courts where the judges use the disposition of the woman in meeting out sentences...eh?

Besides I said it has impact...and that is ALL I have said so far. 

I have left the elaborations up to you and theistgal but when you attribute it to me, when I have said nothing like what you are saying I said, then I will tell you to back off...please.

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #395 on: August 08, 2010, 10:06:52 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.

Perhaps you've never sat in on rape cases in courts where the judges use the disposition of the woman in meeting out sentences...eh?

Besides I said it has impact...and that is ALL I have said so far.  

I have left the elaborations up to you and theistgal but when you attribute it to me, when I have said nothing like what you are saying I said, then I will tell you to back off...please.

M.

No, we were referring to the second part of the sentence.

You said: "a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case."

And then you said: "And rightly so."

The most apparent meaning of that is that you think it is right for a jury to change its decision concerning whether or not a women was raped on the basis of whether she was wearing skimpy clothing or not.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 10:12:08 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #396 on: August 08, 2010, 10:09:10 PM »

Your own statements are what they are, Mary.  Others have seen the same things I have commented on.  If the moderator believes I have unfairly attacked you, I will of course apologize.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #397 on: August 08, 2010, 10:35:49 PM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.

Perhaps you've never sat in on rape cases in courts where the judges use the disposition of the woman in meeting out sentences...eh?

Besides I said it has impact...and that is ALL I have said so far. 

I have left the elaborations up to you and theistgal but when you attribute it to me, when I have said nothing like what you are saying I said, then I will tell you to back off...please.

M.

Um, no.  As deusveritasest point out, your own commentary, "And rightly so," leaves one with the impression that you agree with what judges and juries do with the information of what a woman was wearing when she was raped.

They are right quite right to question the intention behind the final sentence of your post. 

And it is plainly arrogant and conceited for you to accuse them of sin for merely asking you a question.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #398 on: August 09, 2010, 12:14:05 AM »

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.

Perhaps you've never sat in on rape cases in courts where the judges use the disposition of the woman in meeting out sentences...eh?

Besides I said it has impact...and that is ALL I have said so far. 

I have left the elaborations up to you and theistgal but when you attribute it to me, when I have said nothing like what you are saying I said, then I will tell you to back off...please.

M.

Um, no.  As deusveritasest point out, your own commentary, "And rightly so," leaves one with the impression that you agree with what judges and juries do with the information of what a woman was wearing when she was raped.

They are right quite right to question the intention behind the final sentence of your post. 

And it is plainly arrogant and conceited for you to accuse them of sin for merely asking you a question.

It is sinful to falsely attribute.  One can attribute with a ? just as easily as with a .

Are they actually sinners?  Who knows.  Above my paygrade.  But objectively false attribution is sin.

M.
Logged

theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #399 on: August 09, 2010, 12:19:45 AM »

I attributed nothing to you that was "objectively false" - I quoted your own words.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #400 on: August 09, 2010, 12:29:35 AM »

I attributed nothing to you that was "objectively false" - I quoted your own words.

You attributed meaning to my words that went far above anything that I was trying to say and then mocked me about it again on another thread.

The least you could do is back off...but you feel emboldened now so I suppose even that is too much to expect.

What would make you happy?...eh?

What words would you like me to allow you now to put in my mouth?

Mary
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 12:30:02 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #401 on: August 09, 2010, 02:11:43 AM »

No where in the USA, at least, can a judge or jury take into account what a woman was wearing as it is irrelavant. Consent is all that matters. She can be nude or even lead the man on, however, no is no and that is it. Men are not mindless animals if they decide to violate a woman, her lack of clothing is not considered a defense in an american court. Of course you may reside in a different country /culture.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #402 on: August 09, 2010, 08:26:27 AM »

No where in the USA, at least, can a judge or jury take into account what a woman was wearing as it is irrelavant. Consent is all that matters. She can be nude or even lead the man on, however, no is no and that is it. Men are not mindless animals if they decide to violate a woman, her lack of clothing is not considered a defense in an american court. Of course you may reside in a different country /culture.

LOL...I live in the good old USA and trust me, when it comes to punishment, mitigating circumstances still mean something in America.   Right or wrong, what one does or even what one is perceived to be doing, to have done....counts.

When mitigating circumstances stop counting then you can be pretty sure morality is dead here and it really is time to move.

Mary
Logged

theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #403 on: August 09, 2010, 09:39:49 AM »

Then please give us a specific, recent (i.e., within the last 20 years) of an actual court case in which an accused rapist in the U.S. was found "not guilty" by a judge or jury specifically based on what the victim was wearing at the time of the attack.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #404 on: August 09, 2010, 10:02:53 AM »

Then please give us a specific, recent (i.e., within the last 20 years) of an actual court case in which an accused rapist in the U.S. was found "not guilty" by a judge or jury specifically based on what the victim was wearing at the time of the attack.

I told you yesterday that is not what I am saying.  You are attributing things that are not said or intended.  In fact now I have been VERY specific about what I mean and you are continuing to extend what I am talking about into saying something that you want to talk about.

Ok.

So talk about it...but don't attribute it to me or try to use me to poke off on your own bunny trail. 

Here in the county where I live there are always character witnesses called in rape cases, particularly date rape.  And what those character witnesses have to say credibly has a direct bearing on SENTENCING...I have never spoken of guilt or innocence.  I have said here very distinctily AND I"LL SAY IT AGAIN...circumstances do have and I think should have an EFFECT ON CONSEQUENCES...not guilt, but I am aware of cases where they also affected guilt. 

Must be them rednecks and their durned Bibles, Guns and Beer!!

 Tongue

M.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.203 seconds with 72 queries.