Author Topic: Ecumenism (opinion on news)  (Read 101971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #225 on: January 21, 2010, 10:29:09 AM »
Quote
we can see in orthodoxy areal mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses,

So you don't like historical realities of how Christianity actually worked in practice (for better or worse), but instead you prefer utopian theories of how you'd like it to work. I understand

Quote
¿Is that correct that a single city cand be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence os diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

Yes. And it is not anything like, say, the times when multiple men all claimed to be Pope of Rome. It is not anything like it, because at least in the Orthodox case the bishops are in communion with each other, despite the mess having to do with who has rightful jurisdiction.

St Thomas More, spoke of Utopia as a city of equality, of armony, of prosperity, ¿Isn´t that the ideal that christianity porsues preachin Christ? ¿What do you understand by the establisment of the kingdom in earth as it is in heaven?, Catholicim is working to establish the kingdom of heaven despite ethnicity, orthodoxy is completly different.

You remembered the historical disputes of popes, which happened something like 400 years ago, but we are talking that such scandal happens today in orthodoxy, so, far from justification, you have given me the reason. And worst of all, is that no matter how many times have the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, called to order, all the other patriarch justify their actions by their independency of criteria, Oh yes, but they are in communion.

Catholicism in USA has Hispanic and Anglo speaking people, though they asist to the same church and the priest in charge is the same, and the bishop is the same for both, ¿don't you think that historicaly, Mexicans and greengos have more reason to be appart one from the other? and yet, we are together in the same parish as catholics.

Orthodoxy in diaspora is not a United Church, no matter how can you try to justificate it.´

Orthodoxy in Toronto.

« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 10:43:14 AM by Alonso_castillo »
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #226 on: January 21, 2010, 10:55:45 AM »
Quote
we can see in orthodoxy areal mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses,

So you don't like historical realities of how Christianity actually worked in practice (for better or worse), but instead you prefer utopian theories of how you'd like it to work. I understand

Quote
¿Is that correct that a single city cand be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence os diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

Yes. And it is not anything like, say, the times when multiple men all claimed to be Pope of Rome. It is not anything like it, because at least in the Orthodox case the bishops are in communion with each other, despite the mess having to do with who has rightful jurisdiction.

St Thomas More, spoke of Utopia as a city of equality, of armony, of prosperity, ¿Isn´t that the ideal that christianity porsues preachin Christ? ¿What do you understand by the establisment of the kingdom in earth as it is in heaven?, Catholicim is working to establish the kingdom of heaven despite ethnicity, orthodoxy is completly different.

Yes, even the Greeks can evangelize peoples without Hellenizing them.  Latin America seems to prove Rome can't.

Quote
You remembered the historical disputes of popes, which happened something like 400 years ago,

If the papacy was such a great fount of unity, it shouldn't have happened at all.

And don't post things you will regret later: given the real fissures in the flock among conservatives and liberals nothing is going to prevent any one of the many claimants running around claiming to be the pope of Rome to restart a Great Western Schism.


Quote
but we are talking that such scandal happens today in orthodoxy, so, far from justification, you have given me the reason.

The NT talks about scandals in the days of the Apostles (and the Gospels in the days of Christ: John 6:66). So your point?


Quote
Catholicism in USA has Hispanic and Anglo speaking people, though they asist to the same church and the priest in charge is the same, and the bishop is the same for both, ¿don't you think that historicaly, Mexicans and greengos have more reason to be appart one from the other? and yet, we are together in the same parish as catholics.
Have you been to the USA, they are not as together as you portray.  Kate Michaelman, the founder of the Abortion rights NARAL points out that she left your church when she saw Mexican workers being segregated into the back of the church.

Btw, your acute priest shortage also helps to have "the priest in charge is the same."

Quote
Orthodoxy in diaspora is not a United Church, no matter how can you try to justificate it.´

Orthodoxy in Toronto.


So we have several Churches in Toronto.  May we have several Churches in every city from Alaska to Tierre del Fuego!

Speaking of a united Church, you do know the story of the Father of American Orthodoxy, Archb. Ireland, no?

The Vatican has several overlapping jurisdictions in America.  I think we have 5 here in Chicago.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #227 on: January 21, 2010, 11:03:33 AM »
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".


There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.


We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.


Your Vatican has 3 (used to be four) Patriarchs all claiming to be the Patriarch of Antioch.  And none of them claim their orders from Paulinus, whom Jerome and Rome recognized as Patriarch of Antioch during the Meletian schism.

Common Apostalate?  Ever heard of Call to Action?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_Action

The Orthodox Church is diversified, like the Early Church, not dismembered. "The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided"
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #228 on: January 21, 2010, 11:07:17 AM »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ag_vn

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #229 on: January 21, 2010, 11:11:26 AM »
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.

Offline Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #230 on: January 21, 2010, 02:01:26 PM »
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.

The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate,  But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together, don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline John Larocque

  • Catholic
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 529
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #231 on: January 21, 2010, 02:11:53 PM »


That looks like St. George's Antiochian in Richmond Hill on the far right. Haven't been there but I'm told about 25% of the service is conducted in Arabic. The Russian church is ROCOR, Holy Trinity, near U of T. (Most of the Russian parishes and missions here are OCA) St. George, another downtown parish near Ryerson university, used to be a Jewish synagogue but was bought out by the Greeks a long time ago. I'm not familiar with the Rumanian presence here. You should probably toss in the singular Carpatho-Ruthenian parish (mostly English/converts, I'm told), a couple of Ukrainian ones and a handful of Bulgarian and Serbian ones. The canonical issues in mainland Ukraine, for some reason, keep them from being listed on Orthodox parish pages, but all of them are aligned to Byzantium here.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 02:15:22 PM by John Larocque »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #232 on: January 21, 2010, 02:12:55 PM »
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.

The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate, 
That's good to know because we keep on being told (mardukm etc.) by those in submission to the Vatican that the "Eastern Catholics" are free and sui juris with their own rights, right to have their patriarchs etc.  Nice to know (or rather have confirmed) the fine print.


Quote
But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together,
And yet the 8 Orthodox Patriarchs do...

Quote
don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.

Your mind is clouded with how it is among the Gentiles, and not how it is among the followers of Christ, though admittedly our own hiearchs forget that too. Mark 9:35.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #233 on: January 21, 2010, 02:38:20 PM »

We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.

Let's see Catholicism in Sydney and its many many ethnic groups dismembered by many ethnic bishops who all have control overr the same patch of ground....

1. Maronite Catholic Church
2. Melkite Catholic Church
3. Greek Catholic Church
4. Ukranian Catholic Church
5. Armenian Catholic Church
6. Chaldean Catholic Church
7. Coptic Catholic Church
8. Ethiopian Catholic Church
9. Malabarese Catholic Church
10. Malankarese Catholic Church
11. Russian Catholic Church
12. Syrian Catholic Church

Sydney has 12 overlapping dioceses and/or bishops all based on one's racial origin.

And of course there is the 13th Church and bishop, the Roman Catholic.

« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 02:50:12 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #234 on: January 21, 2010, 02:47:07 PM »
don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome",


Don't come here saying such nonsense.   Give us the proof from the church canons that Moscow ever was the Third Rome.   The idea comes from a monk writing in the 15th century after the fall of Byzantium at the time when Russia alone remained a strong Orthodox State.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #235 on: January 21, 2010, 04:13:49 PM »

Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Please have a look at this message.  

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.


Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints


Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.

I wager $10 to a hundred that LBK is right now penning a message  ;D to say that our liturgical deposit gives equal honour to Peter and Paul as founders of the Church of Rome.  I would think that we can trust the liturgical deposit and our tradition on this point.  But I find the viewpoint of the Copts fascinating all the same.

Father, you truly are clairvoyant!  ;D :laugh:

From the Vigil for Apostles Peter and Paul on the matter of Peter, Paul and Rome:

With what spiritual songs should we praise Peter and Paul? The sharp mouths of the dread sword of the Spirit that slaughter godlessness; the radiant ornaments of Rome; the delights of the whole inhabited world; the reasoning tablets, written by God, of the New Testament, which in Zion Christ proclaimed, who has great mercy.

A joyous feast has shone out today on the ends of the earth, the all-honoured memorial of the wisest Apostles and their princes, Peter and Paul; and so Rome dances and rejoices. Let us also, brethren, celebrate in songs and psalms this all-revered day, as we cry out to them: Hail, Peter, Apostle and true friend of your teacher, Christ our God. Hail, Paul, well-loved, herald of the faith and teacher of the inhabited world. Holy pair, chosen by God, as you have boldness, implore Christ our God that our souls may be saved.

What dungeon did not hold you prisoner? What Church did not have you as an orator? Damascus extols you, O Paul, for it knew you blinded by the Light; and Rome, which received your blood, boasts in you; but Tarsus, your birthplace, rejoices yet more with love and honour. O Peter, rock of the Faith, and Paul, boast of the whole world, coming together from Rome, make us steadfast.


As for their recognition as equals, IIRC there should be a post of mine where the equality of Peter and Paul is made clear through the Vigil text.

EDIT: Here it is: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14723.msg230684.html#msg230684

For one thing, this text doesn't really appear to say a whole lot about Peter in relation to Rome. The idea that Peter was a martyr of Rome but not the founder of it would appear consistent with it.

And I'm sure you can understand that as someone inclined to OOy I don't find the liturgical deposit of the EOC absolutely authoritative.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 04:16:39 PM by deusveritasest »

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #236 on: January 21, 2010, 04:18:05 PM »
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?


I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:



The empty tumb kept by muslims?
I got to stay a week in the one Church for a week.  The keepers were all Christian, though the polic officer was Druze.  What are you talking about?

He might be talking about the family who holds the keys. I think they are Muslim. But that certainly wouldn't qualify such a simplistic statement as it being "kept by Muslims".

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #237 on: January 21, 2010, 04:21:03 PM »
Quote
Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.

It's usually those who oppose Christianity, or sola scripturists, who use the "If it was really important the Bible would have said something about this..." argument. Interesting to hear it coming from an Orthodox Christian. :)

I think it's a rather different sentiment. It seems like the Protestants, on the premise of sola scriptura, would say that if something was important enough as an aspect of our faith that God would have ensured that it be conveyed to us in the Bible. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #238 on: January 21, 2010, 04:23:38 PM »
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".


There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.


We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.



Canonical deviations of ecclesiastical norms are much more permissible than dogmatical perversions.

Besides that, you Romanists also have jurisdictional overlaps in certain regions.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 04:26:13 PM by deusveritasest »

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #239 on: January 21, 2010, 04:29:06 PM »
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.

The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate,  But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together, don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.

Now you're justifying jurisdictional overlap which you were just railing against. Great. This debate is pretty much dead.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #240 on: January 21, 2010, 04:47:06 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #241 on: January 21, 2010, 04:50:59 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 04:51:26 PM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #242 on: January 21, 2010, 04:58:22 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 05:01:36 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #243 on: January 21, 2010, 05:05:03 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #244 on: January 21, 2010, 05:07:45 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?

*nods*  ;D

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #245 on: January 21, 2010, 07:28:57 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #246 on: January 21, 2010, 07:33:38 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #247 on: January 21, 2010, 07:45:38 PM »

No heresies here. Start again.

This is the sort of conversation that is bound to happen if we simply going around calling things heresies without having legitimate discussions as to why and how (no, I'm not singling you out as guilty in this).

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #248 on: January 21, 2010, 08:00:28 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #249 on: January 21, 2010, 08:02:49 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #250 on: January 21, 2010, 08:10:54 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Sorry, I didn't buy tickets for the Titanic.

We call our priests popes, we have the original Pope in Alexandria.  But the usurper of the title has limited to himself: bishops were banned from having the title by Rome in the first millennium, and today, although the Vatican has two patriarchs in submission at Alexandria, neither is allowed (as is usual with "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches," so as to lure the Orthodox) to have the title of their see "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."  When we speak of one Father, it ours in heaven. When you speak of your one father, it's the guy in the Vatican.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #251 on: January 21, 2010, 08:15:12 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Sorry, I didn't buy tickets for the Titanic.

We call our priests popes, we have the original Pope in Alexandria.  But the usurper of the title has limited to himself: bishops were banned from having the title by Rome in the first millennium, and today, although the Vatican has two patriarchs in submission at Alexandria, neither is allowed (as is usual with "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches," so as to lure the Orthodox) to have the title of their see "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."  When we speak of one Father, it ours in heaven. When you speak of your one father, it's the guy in the Vatican.
Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 08:16:08 PM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #252 on: January 21, 2010, 08:47:24 PM »

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #253 on: January 21, 2010, 08:50:44 PM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Sorry, I didn't buy tickets for the Titanic.

We call our priests popes, we have the original Pope in Alexandria.  But the usurper of the title has limited to himself: bishops were banned from having the title by Rome in the first millennium, and today, although the Vatican has two patriarchs in submission at Alexandria, neither is allowed (as is usual with "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches," so as to lure the Orthodox) to have the title of their see "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."  When we speak of one Father, it ours in heaven. When you speak of your one father, it's the guy in the Vatican.
Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.
I went to a Latin school, spent lots of tlime in Latin churches with my friends.  When I heard "the Holy Father" (Father always capitalized), the reference was always to the pope in Rome.  Is this not so? Neither the Copts nor us Arabs or the Greeks, when we refer to our Pope as Father, there is no hint of exclusivity to that title (which is what Christ is speaking against), which the Vatican has legislated for itself.  Or can anyone else be called "Pope" or "the Holy Father" in the Vatican scheme of things.

Now when you say "Our Father who art in heaven," you are refering to God the Father. Of that there is no doubt.  If my comments are construed to say otherwise, I apologize.  But the fact remains, when the phrase in Orthodoxy "the Holy Father" is used, we don't know who is being refered to, as it has no exclusive claims.  When your church uses the phrase, everyone is made to know who is being refered to.  Under Christ's words, that's a problem, for we have only One Father, in Heaven.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #254 on: January 22, 2010, 11:12:55 AM »
. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.


It's curious that the Acts of the Apostles actually stop mentioning Peter very early on.  He just drops out of existence.  Luke shows no interest in his acts or his apostolate.  You would think that if he were the Number One Apostle and had this special mission from the Lord to transfer the centre of Christianity from Palestine to Italy and create the papal system of Church governance that his efforts would have been given some book space?
Its interesting that Mary's assumption into heaven is never mentioned in the Scriptures. You would think that if the Mother of God was taken up, body and soul, into heaven that this would have been given some space in the Bible.

The knowledge that the Mother of God was taken up into heaven body and soul was unknown to the Church of the first 400 years.

I don't see how that can be equated with the absence of the papacy from the Acts of the Apostles?  Or are you saying that the Church was likewise ignorant of the papacy for 400 years?

-oOo-

Here is the history of how several hundred years after her death the Church learnt of her Assumption

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25351.msg399380.html#msg399380
I am not saying that at all. I think that Acts has more to say in favor of the Papacy than the entire bible has to say about the assumption.
The one's a heresy and the other is not a dogma. No proper understanding of the Bible supports the one and is not necessary for the other.
No heresies here. Start again.
"Call no one Father."
Gotcha. Man you guys are in trouble for calling your priests Father. Oh no! we are in the same boat. I know that idea of being in the same boat with a catholic makes you woozy, but please, if you are going to puke, please do so over the side of the boat. This two millenia long trip is getting even longer and we don't need vomit in the boat making things worse.
Sorry, I didn't buy tickets for the Titanic.

We call our priests popes, we have the original Pope in Alexandria.  But the usurper of the title has limited to himself: bishops were banned from having the title by Rome in the first millennium, and today, although the Vatican has two patriarchs in submission at Alexandria, neither is allowed (as is usual with "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches," so as to lure the Orthodox) to have the title of their see "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria."  When we speak of one Father, it ours in heaven. When you speak of your one father, it's the guy in the Vatican.
Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.
I went to a Latin school, spent lots of tlime in Latin churches with my friends.  When I heard "the Holy Father" (Father always capitalized), the reference was always to the pope in Rome.  Is this not so? Neither the Copts nor us Arabs or the Greeks, when we refer to our Pope as Father, there is no hint of exclusivity to that title (which is what Christ is speaking against), which the Vatican has legislated for itself.  Or can anyone else be called "Pope" or "the Holy Father" in the Vatican scheme of things.

Now when you say "Our Father who art in heaven," you are refering to God the Father. Of that there is no doubt.  If my comments are construed to say otherwise, I apologize.  But the fact remains, when the phrase in Orthodoxy "the Holy Father" is used, we don't know who is being refered to, as it has no exclusive claims.  When your church uses the phrase, everyone is made to know who is being refered to.  Under Christ's words, that's a problem, for we have only One Father, in Heaven.


Then stop calling your priests Father, stop calling your Patriarchs Patriarchs, and stop calling your Popes Popes, otherwise you are a hypocrite. The only exclusivity that we have for the "Holy Father" is that he is the Pope and not just any old bishop. BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,815
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #255 on: January 22, 2010, 11:20:38 AM »
BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".

I happen to still have the interview with Pat. Bartholomew from 60 Minutes saved on my DVR. Here is the first part of the interview:

Interviewer: "My first question is this: How should I refer to you? Your All Holiness? As Patriarch? As Ecumenical Patriarch? What is the proper way to address you?"

Pat. Bartholomew: "Bartholomew"

[Both Laugh]

Pat. Bartholomew: "The official title is Your All Holiness. But for me, Bartholomew is enough".

Out of respect, not out of insistence on the part of the Orthodox, the interviewer used the official title. Also, I'm not expert on Catholicism, but I've heard some titles that the Pope has used that go far beyond "Holy Father".  :angel:
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 11:23:57 AM by Asteriktos »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #256 on: January 22, 2010, 11:47:23 AM »
Then stop calling your priests Father, stop calling your Patriarchs Patriarchs, and stop calling your Popes Popes, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
No, only if we applied it exclusively.


Quote
The only exclusivity that we have for the "Holy Father" is that he is the Pope and not just any old bishop.

That's the point: a bishop is a bishop is a bishop.

Quote
BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".
His Divine Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodoros and others have the same.  Divine, btw, in the Greek Θειοτάτη means "God-protected."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,277
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #257 on: January 22, 2010, 12:31:19 PM »
Then stop calling your priests Father, stop calling your Patriarchs Patriarchs, and stop calling your Popes Popes, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
No, only if we applied it exclusively.

Quote
The only exclusivity that we have for the "Holy Father" is that he is the Pope and not just any old bishop.
That's the point: a bishop is a bishop is a bishop.

Quote
BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".
His Divine Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodoros and others have the same.  Divine, btw, in the Greek Θειοτάτη means "God-protected."

Right.  From our POV, the various bishops do not have different charisms based on their title or position, only administrative responsibilities, which is a fundamental difference in POV between Orthodox ecclesiology (which sees the episcopacy as an ontological whole) and RC ecclesiology (which has special charisms present only in the Roman Bishop).  As my Metropolitan told us once, while he was an observer at Vatican II, he remembers the fanfare with the entrance of the Pope to the room, with the repetition of tu es Petrus.  And he said to himself, from the Orthodox mindset, "Wait - we (the faithful & esp. the hierarchs) are all Peter" (and Paul, Andrew, John, Philip, etc. as he later adds).
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #258 on: January 22, 2010, 12:34:27 PM »
Then stop calling your priests Father, stop calling your Patriarchs Patriarchs, and stop calling your Popes Popes, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
No, only if we applied it exclusively.


Quote
The only exclusivity that we have for the "Holy Father" is that he is the Pope and not just any old bishop.

That's the point: a bishop is a bishop is a bishop.

Quote
BTW, what about the exclusivity of calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "Your divine all Holiness." This sounds much worse than calling the Pope the "Holy Father".
His Divine Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodoros and others have the same.  Divine, btw, in the Greek Θειοτάτη means "God-protected."
Well, stop calling the Patriarch of Constantinople "All Holy". Is he the Theotokos. And, no the Pope is not exclusively Father, since all of our priests and Bishops are Fathers who derive their paternity from God.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,694
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #259 on: January 22, 2010, 12:39:26 PM »

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?

I cannot speak for Papist but I do hear 'Our Holy Father' used to refer to our Patriarch in Rome. That said I have met my Bishop several times and even had the opportunity to have him hear my confession. He is greeted with Your Excellency followed by a kissing of the ring.
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #260 on: January 22, 2010, 01:53:08 PM »

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,277
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #261 on: January 22, 2010, 02:54:32 PM »

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.

I don't know if that's exactly true: I think the biggest hang-up is with the exclusivity conveyed by the inclusion of "the" before "Holy Father."  That, and from the Eastern POV God is Holy and also Beyond Holy, so thinking of human beings when "All Holy" is heard doesn't actually "demote" God for the Orthodox.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #262 on: January 22, 2010, 03:32:56 PM »

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.

I don't know if that's exactly true: I think the biggest hang-up is with the exclusivity conveyed by the inclusion of "the" before "Holy Father."  That, and from the Eastern POV God is Holy and also Beyond Holy, so thinking of human beings when "All Holy" is heard doesn't actually "demote" God for the Orthodox.
For Catholics its not a zero sum game. Just because we call the Pope "The Holy Father" Doesn't mean that there is not an infinitely more Holy Father than him. Its never a zero sum game for us.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #263 on: January 22, 2010, 03:39:26 PM »

Wow. I had seen you as one the most informed posters here for a long time. A person to whom I could take my questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me tell you, that by this last post you just lost tons of my respect. How could you possibly think that when we speak of our one Father we mean the Pope and not God? I am so disgusted by your post right now that I am gonna have to step away from the computer so that I don't get really uncharitable with you. In fact, I may just have to keep myself from responding to any of your posts. I think an apology is in order.

Papist, answer this: when someone of your church refers to "the Holy Father", who do you first think of?
Do you think of God or the Patriarch of Constantinople when you hear "His All Holiness". If you think of the Patriarch of Constantinople then your charges are hypocritical.

I don't know if that's exactly true: I think the biggest hang-up is with the exclusivity conveyed by the inclusion of "the" before "Holy Father."  That, and from the Eastern POV God is Holy and also Beyond Holy, so thinking of human beings when "All Holy" is heard doesn't actually "demote" God for the Orthodox.
For Catholics its not a zero sum game. Just because we call the Pope "The Holy Father" Doesn't mean that there is not an infinitely more Holy Father than him. Its never a zero sum game for us.
Let's put it this way:what do YOU think Our Lord was referring to when He said "Call no man Father?"
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Get_Behind_Me_Satan

  • 2Cor. 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 160
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #264 on: January 22, 2010, 04:28:36 PM »
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.
“The testimonies of the western teachers I neither recognize or accept. I surmise that they are corrupted.
There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

St Mark Of Ephesus, Doctor of the church. (True Church)

Down with ecumenism!

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,664
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #265 on: January 22, 2010, 04:32:35 PM »
^ DON'T FEED THE TROLL, pls

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

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,694
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #266 on: January 22, 2010, 04:39:50 PM »
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,277
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #267 on: January 22, 2010, 05:01:13 PM »
Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

The real shame is that (a) you're using what appears to be blatant trolling as an indication that Orthodox and RC cultures can't mix, and (b) you don't follow good advice, namely:

^ DON'T FEED THE TROLL

Oh, well - I don't know why you bother discussing topics when you've pre-determined that nothing can be gained.  And I don't know how "is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus" and "we can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West" are actually on point when discussing the rant that you were responding to, when the former is a charge you haven't proven, and the latter only follows the former by the slimmest, weakest thread.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 05:01:39 PM by Fr. George »
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Get_Behind_Me_Satan

  • 2Cor. 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 160
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #268 on: January 22, 2010, 05:08:27 PM »
Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Roman Catholicism is certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's exactly what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, bible believing people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.

Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.
A Serbian Heiromonk Knows what He is Talking about on YouTube.
Look at it everyone.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.

Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

Why is a Roman Catholic person on a ORTHODOX Christian forum?
Don't you know that your church is heretical?
Don't you know that your church was founded on a lie?
Don't you know that Christian ORTHODOXY handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only true faith?
Don't you know that you fell away in 1054 and from then on became heretics?

We orthodox do not have anything to do with heretics.

Who are you to even speak on this forum?!

Get out of here!

Brood of Vipers!
“The testimonies of the western teachers I neither recognize or accept. I surmise that they are corrupted.
There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

St Mark Of Ephesus, Doctor of the church. (True Church)

Down with ecumenism!

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,694
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #269 on: January 22, 2010, 05:23:23 PM »
Don't be surprised folks, this individual is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus on and the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.

This is why I see no reason to pursue unity between our Communions. We can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West.

What I want is true ascesis practices with zeal... and I don't see that in our shared culture. It's a shame really.

The real shame is that (a) you're using what appears to be blatant trolling as an indication that Orthodox and RC cultures can't mix, and (b) you don't follow good advice, namely:

^ DON'T FEED THE TROLL

Oh, well - I don't know why you bother discussing topics when you've pre-determined that nothing can be gained.  And I don't know how "is the product of extreme polemic Orthodox individuals from the time of Bishop Phiotus" and "we can't have Saints that teach this kind of vitriol and expect rational dialogue between the East and West" are actually on point when discussing the rant that you were responding to, when the former is a charge you haven't proven, and the latter only follows the former by the slimmest, weakest thread.

I am 'here' to learn and dialogue with Orthodox and Catholics about those things that might aid me in being a better servant of God. I honestly don't seek to represent Catholicism nor attempt to further Ecumenism.

The fact that Orthodox has a more or less 'bottom/up' ecclesiastic authority in the sense of that 'voice of the people is the voice of God' would never allow such union. I've explained why a few times here in different threads. As long as there continues to be a culture which feels threatened and seeks to devalue the west as 'other', 'schismatic', 'herectical', and that continues to be taught at the ground level I don't see what purpose dialogue at the top levels real serves? I think the Roman Church and her Heirarches gravely misunderstood how the East view them. I think that goes all the way back to the Massacre of the Latins and even during the Crusades.

All that said I recognize the development of the Papacy, I think I share this with our Bishops and our Popes. There needs to be a return in the West to a vastly more Conciliar Church (i.e. Vatican II) but we all have seen what that kind of unbridled conciliatory can do in the modern west. Ugh.

That said I used to people saying that I'm not saved, going to hell, lost grace because of my works etc etc... I'm Catholic in the American Bible Belt  ;D
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”