Author Topic: Ecumenism (opinion on news)  (Read 100099 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Andrew21091

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,272
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #90 on: January 18, 2010, 08:48:33 PM »
I see that much people of the forum were once in time catholics. What can I say about that?, that they were bad catholics, bad enough to abandon the truth faith, many catholics have brought here quotations from many eastern father exalting the church of Rome, and yet, the former catholics are more reckless to turn back to catholicism.

Now, it is also interesting, that if an eventual union between orthodoxy and catholicism, the greatest opponents are those who went out of Catholicism. Pity to see that the converted from Catholicism to orthodoxy are not but the waste of Catholicism, those who never were real catholics, those who never loved their church, and those who were more attracted to ritualistic than to righteousness.

I was a young child when I converted and I didn’t care either way when I was that age but when I got older, I did some studying and saw clearly that Orthodoxy is the way. You also make an accusation that those who leave Rome left since they were attracted to ritual but that is a ridicules accusation. The Papacy, Papal infallibility, the filioque, Imaculate Conception, Purgatory, Mary being the Co-redemtrix and mediator of all graces, and the like are hardly small matters. They are not ritual reasons for leaving but are heresy. Should I ignore these heresies and submit to the Pope anyway?

Quote
We all know that the sin of Adam was his ego, and many here clime that pope is the product of the same ego, one has to be really idiot to conclude such a thing, one has to be blind by its own ego to see that in the papacy as an institution the ruling is ego. Don’t you see that pope is nothing but a man who was elected by his brothers? Was his egotistical desire the cause of his reaching there? Is his place something that he can heir to his sons? What sons? Papacy is a service, not more, from one who has chosen to give his life to God in the service of his brothers. He will never rest until die.

You say that the Pope is nothing but a man yet you confess him to be infallible. How can a mere man be infallible? History would lead me to believe otherwise. St. Peter was even a fallible human being. He denied Christ three times and not to mention he was reprimanded by St. Paul for not eating with the gentiles when people came from Jerusalem (Galatians 2). Not to mention, Popes have fallen into heresy before. It seems that the infallible claim contradicts itself since it is known that Pope Leo III opposed the filioque and the plaque he added in St. Peter’s has the Creed without the filioque and even wrote "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith” which shows that he recognized the Orthodox saying of the Creed was correct but he goes against other Popes in doing that so it would show that the Popes who supported the filioque were in error concerning a theological issue. Not to mention Honorius was condemned in the Sixth Ecumenical Council with the Monothelites, unless of course, Rome rejects the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which I know it does not). If a Pope was infallible, how could be anathema?

Quote
The Catholicism is the truth faith, the one of those that have understood that the submission of the ego to authority is the real way that Adam never understood. The independency of churches in east, the so called autocephalies, are not but the result of the nationalistic egocentricity of a full people, that has not reach to understand the meaning of  the words and desires of our Lord Jesus. May all be one.

You say that Rome has the true faith, though I have never seen this as so. Are you sure it was not egocentricity of Rome to have one fallible human being rule over the whole Church? I don’t know what kind of proof you have of this egocentricity.

Quote
Those who have left Catholicism are followers of their ego, their own desires of intellectual satisfaction. No humbleness in them. No desire of submission to the will of God in them. The same egocentricity that Luther tracked and that all the sects have followed. In fact, we can say that Luther was invited by orthodoxy to meet them, as the proof of the share of the same feeling of nationalistic egocentricity.

Ah, I see you can see right into my heart and soul and into every soul of Orthodox Christians since you seem to know for sure that we are only driven by our ego and intellectual satisfaction. You have us all figured out don’t you? I submit to the will of God working through the Church, not through a single man who made himself infallible and introduced heresies into the Church.

Quote
Finally, Can we say that egocentric nationalism is the way that our Lord Jesus desired by, “May all be one”? Not at all, and yet tht is the fundament of administration in orthodoxy.

Yes, I will keep my nationalism while I attend a church that is made up of Arabs, Serbs, Russians, Bulgarians, Eritreans, Armenians, Dutch, Irish, Polish, Congolese, and others. With all those people, we sure are big on nationalism (sarcasm). Whether it is the Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, Jerusalem, whatever, I can go to communion. We are one. There is One Church and I have come to believe that it is the Orthodox Church. I did not decide this because of ritual (if I was, why didn’t I just go to an Eastern Catholic church or one of the traditional Roman churches which are both present where I live?) but it was because of certain doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches that I feel it would be wrong to accept (I have already mentioned some of them).

Sorry if I was not able to touch on all parts of your post at this moment.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #91 on: January 18, 2010, 09:22:42 PM »
I find it rather humorous that Romanists on online forums often start out expressing very charitable, accommodating, and ecumenical views towards the EO/OO, yet when they find out that we happen to not hold the same sort of views they, in anger, frustration and vengeance, switch around their views to a harsh Roman supremacist perspective. This is what has happened in this very thread.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #92 on: January 18, 2010, 10:34:35 PM »
I find it rather humorous that Romanists on online forums often start out expressing very charitable, accommodating, and ecumenical views towards the EO/OO, yet when they find out that we happen to not hold the same sort of views they, in anger, frustration and vengeance, switch around their views to a harsh Roman supremacist perspective. This is what has happened in this very thread.

I'm a 'Romanist' and I don't think you caricature fits.
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 ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #93 on: January 18, 2010, 11:11:29 PM »
Quote
I see that much people of the forum were once in time catholics. What can I say about that?, that they were bad catholics, bad enough to abandon the truth faith,

In my own case, while I was baptized Catholic as an infant, I was not raised Catholic. My parents, my grand parents, and my godparents, did not make sure I remained Catholic. So I didn't abandon the Catholic faith, the Catholic faith (via her members) abandoned me to a spiritual limbo for 18 years. You all should have indoctrinated me while you had the chance ;)

I don't think 'indoctrination' is honestly the goal of true Spiritual Catechesis. I know a lot of very fine indoctrination done by Muslims and it doesn't get me excited about being one....

What I find interesting if that we had a entire generation rebel against Western Culture and 'all' it's social mores and institutions and all that most of you can say is it's the Catholic Churches fault? This rebellion started in the English Speaking West (England and America) and was most prevalent in parts of of the West that "wasn't" under the enfluence of the Catholic Church and yet you seem to blame 'it' for such rebellion. I find that odd but I understand how and why Western Culture might desire to project such blame on the Western Church.

Ultimately we are a culture born out of rebellion. Such breeds such.

I am intrigue how Orthodoxy will fair once fully brought to light in the West. I don't wish Orthodoxy to fail but I honestly question it's bravado and it's hubris toward the Western Church. We shall see.

This kind of behavior doesn't encourage me though. It seems to belay a real lack of understanding of the corrosive effects of a passive enemy, like modernity.

For everyone who claims the Catholic Church has let them down, how many ask if they let the Catholic Church down? It seems your own responsibility isn't considered. It is far more important to claim victim to an uncaring parent, priest or parish. I'm not sure if I think the church is something 'outside'... but 'inside'. We make the Church. We make it present in our own lives. I only seek to learn how to make it more present in my own life and the life of my family. I have my own issues with the failings of the Church, especially in America and Ireland but I have to see those errors in context with the Culture and the times. I look toward the Eastern Church for help. I look to the my Orthodox Parish Priest for aid in the spiritual journey. For Westerners, Catholic or Converts to Orthodoxy, we are largely rebuilding a Faith tradition. I'm simply too old to make such simplistic conclusions as some polemicists present the choice before us. Simply converting doesn't make everything better. Maybe the challenge of being Catholic in the West is just too overwhelming especially with the divisions and abuses and whatnot. I, myself, on many occasions think it might be easier but then I think to myself that is the easy way out. I don't know. It's just a thought but I think Orthodoxy needs to recognize that the Western Church and the Western expression of the Faith has a legitimate right to it's expression. Perhaps if there was a Western Orthodox Parish nearby I might find it easier to convert but I like Western Culture and I like the Western Church. Frankly I really like Pope Benedict XVI and I look forward to a return of the West to a more authentic liturgical expression.
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 Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,215
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #94 on: January 18, 2010, 11:28:47 PM »
Sorry, I was joking a bit with the word indoctrination. The tone I get from our friend Alonso here is a triumphalistic one, so I was trying to be sort of playfully sarcastic. (Though perhaps I should have included more than just a winking face indicating that). I didn't mean that I really felt spiritually abandoned or in limbo or anything like that. I actually respect and appreciate how certain family members dealt with my religious attendance/education. My grandfather, for example, who was my legal guardian for a few years, and who was a practicing Catholic, never insisted that I go to Church with him, and never tried to make me feel guilty about not going.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #95 on: January 18, 2010, 11:33:43 PM »
Sorry, I was joking a bit with the word indoctrination. The tone I get from our friend Alonso here is a triumphalistic one, so I was trying to be sort of playfully sarcastic. (Though perhaps I should have included more than just a winking face indicating that). I didn't mean that I really felt spiritually abandoned or in limbo or anything like that. I actually respect and appreciate how certain family members dealt with my religious attendance/education. My grandfather, for example, who was my legal guardian for a few years, and who was a practicing Catholic, never insisted that I go to Church with him, and never tried to make me feel guilty about not going.

No problem. I find it ironic to see triumphal Catholics... maybe I'm just jaded.  :P
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 deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #96 on: January 19, 2010, 01:15:14 AM »
I find it rather humorous that Romanists on online forums often start out expressing very charitable, accommodating, and ecumenical views towards the EO/OO, yet when they find out that we happen to not hold the same sort of views they, in anger, frustration and vengeance, switch around their views to a harsh Roman supremacist perspective. This is what has happened in this very thread.

I'm a 'Romanist' and I don't think you caricature fits.

I know. I didn't have you in mind. Hence the qualifying "often".

Offline Robb

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,537
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #97 on: January 19, 2010, 01:41:49 AM »
I have faith that the eventual, all great and holy council will eventually be called.  I hope that it accomplishes the reunion of all Christians under the truth of Orthodoxy.  The time is right for it.  There is no way to avoid the necessity of such a council to settle the many, many problems that the Church faces today and may face in the future.
Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #98 on: January 19, 2010, 11:28:41 AM »
I have faith that the eventual, all great and holy council will eventually be called.  I hope that it accomplishes the reunion of all Christians under the truth of Orthodoxy.  The time is right for it.  There is no way to avoid the necessity of such a council to settle the many, many problems that the Church faces today and may face in the future.

If there is room for the Western Church. Amen.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 11:29:09 AM by ignatius »
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 Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #99 on: January 19, 2010, 02:22:32 PM »
I was a young child when I converted and I didn’t care either way when I was that age but when I got older, I did some studying and saw clearly that Orthodoxy is the way. You also make an accusation that those who leave Rome left since they were attracted to ritual but that is a ridicules accusation. The Papacy, Papal infallibility, the filioque, Imaculate Conception, Purgatory, Mary being the Co-redemtrix and mediator of all graces, and the like are hardly small matters. They are not ritual reasons for leaving but are heresy. Should I ignore these heresies and submit to the Pope anyway?

Luther is your baby. We had nothing to do with him. And I say that as a former Lutheran.

Good, good, good, finally we can see it, the masks had fallen, it was necessary to induce people to show them selves as they really are with strong words and now we can see the truth.

By one side Andrew21091 shows how bad a catholic he was, bad enough to point his own parents as responsible of his lack of faith, he blames his parents not remembering that God calls to us to honor them. 

Exodus 20:12
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Were he a catholic, a real catholic, he would before look inside the Church of his parents, to honor them, but he denied to do that and went speedy feet to other confession, now he has been brain washed and has been tough to hate catholicism.

Many issues of doctrine you have quoted, and all of them have been clarified, and some of them are not official teachings as co-redemtrix, ¿Can you show us the articles teaching it in Catechism?

You arrogance drove you to condemn your parents rather than honor them, no humbleness, no submission, no selfdenying.

I the other hand we have “ialmisry”, the one we can see in its full image, the real one, he was a hater of Catholicism as Lutheran, and now he is a hater of Catholicism as new comer Orthodox.  As Lutheran he rejected Images, the Theotokos, the Saints, the Eucharist as the real presence of our lord in body and blood, the confession of sins to a priest, the baptism of child, etc.

Better later than never he saw the mistake of Protestantism, but yet he enjoyed and keep subject to protestant interpretation of apocalypse, he enjoy and keep subject to the idea of a mystical body of Jesus, not subjected to an order. He remains subject to anarchy as if every member of the only body acted as if there were no head, or in the better of cases, many heads, many autocephalies.

We pray to God , for driving him to the truth more ahead, allowing him to realize that the body of Christ doesn’t have many heads in conflict ( as Constantinople with Moscow), but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

Whomever states that Catholics have been baptized in the name of Peter, is far from truth, he knows it, and his heart fully tells us about its corruption.

No problem. I find it ironic to see triumphal Catholics... maybe I'm just jaded.  :P

Ignatius, I don’t know how old are you, but I can see that your salt is lacking of virtue,  it is almost as if you were losing your confidence in the promise of our Lord, to be with us every day until the ends of times,  I rather suggest you to lit again your fire, to be enthusiastic, to be confident,  if you lose your enthusiasm for the church, how are you going to give testimony of her?. I live in the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, We have the greatest seminary in world, 600 students in major seminary, and 1000 in minor seminary,  30 deacons are ordained every year, and some generations are up to 50, Do you think that this happens in a church of members lacking of enthusiasm?

You called me triumphal catholic, I call you to lit your fire.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 02:26:21 PM by Alonso_castillo »
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #100 on: January 19, 2010, 02:46:43 PM »
no humbleness, no submission, no selfdenying.


Black meet Kettle...Kettle meet Black
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #101 on: January 19, 2010, 03:08:11 PM »
Ignatius, I don’t know how old are you, but I can see that your salt is lacking of virtue,  it is almost as if you were losing your confidence in the promise of our Lord, to be with us every day until the ends of times,  I rather suggest you to lit again your fire, to be enthusiastic, to be confident,  if you lose your enthusiasm for the church, how are you going to give testimony of her?. I live in the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, We have the greatest seminary in world, 600 students in major seminary, and 1000 in minor seminary,  30 deacons are ordained every year, and some generations are up to 50, Do you think that this happens in a church of members lacking of enthusiasm?

You called me triumphal catholic, I call you to lit your fire.

I seek Meekness not Bravado in our Faith, friend. Humility not Pride. I find Triumphalism on either side a stain to Virtue. If there be a light in me, it is that which enlightens my own waywardness and need to cast my eyes 'inwards' not 'outwards'.

To me this grasping on both sides that authority which is only given in Virtue is a Satanic Distraction to our pursuit of holiness. It puffs up and does not deflate the ego. We grasp at spiritual membership through institutional claims and not by the fruit of our virtues. It is a weight that holds us down and makes our spiritual labors weak and unfocused.

I am running the race but I am winded and tired but I strive ever forward to labor in my own garden to bear fruit pleasing to our God in Heaven. As yet I find that I am a very poor gardener. These debates pluck at my passions and drive into vice for I lack that which brings peace to my soul. When I find peace I will rejoice. God Willing.
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 Andrew21091

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,272
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #102 on: January 19, 2010, 03:15:30 PM »
Were he a catholic, a real catholic, he would before look inside the Church of his parents, to honor them, but he denied to do that and went speedy feet to other confession, now he has been brain washed and has been tough to hate catholicism.

I did fail to point out that I converted with my mother. If it were not for my mother, I would not be Orthodox. I don't think you should judge me (or anyone since Christ Himself condemns this) since you don't even know me (even if you did, you shouldn't judge). I never said I hated Catholicism either and I have not been brain washed to think such. None of my posts have shown any sort of hatred which you claim to have seen. I could say that it seems that you have been brain washed to hate Orthodoxy.

Quote
You arrogance drove you to condemn your parents rather than honor them, no humbleness, no submission, no selfdenying.

My mother's faith is Orthodox. Even if the rest of my family's faith is not Orthodox, I can still honor them. Why should I stay in a religion that I came to see has false teachings only for the sake of my family though? I think it is wrong to come on and start accusing people of being prideful and what not since you cannot see into the hearts of any person. Only God can. Did not Christ say that we should first remove the plank from our own eye then try to help remove the speck from our brother's eye?

Quote
Ignatius, I don’t know how old are you, but I can see that your salt is lacking of virtue,  it is almost as if you were losing your confidence in the promise of our Lord, to be with us every day until the ends of times,  I rather suggest you to lit again your fire, to be enthusiastic, to be confident,  if you lose your enthusiasm for the church, how are you going to give testimony of her?. I live in the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, We have the greatest seminary in world, 600 students in major seminary, and 1000 in minor seminary,  30 deacons are ordained every year, and some generations are up to 50, Do you think that this happens in a church of members lacking of enthusiasm?

I don't see how bragging about your particular diocese has a large seminary helps your case. Perhaps the Catholic churches in Ireland, France, and other countries in Western Europe (and the US) could use some of those priests since there are large priest shortages there (and a shortage of monastics). It seems like all of Western Europe lacks enthusiasm by your reasoning.


« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 03:29:22 PM by Andrew21091 »

Offline Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #103 on: January 19, 2010, 03:46:19 PM »
Ignatius, I don’t know how old are you, but I can see that your salt is lacking of virtue,  it is almost as if you were losing your confidence in the promise of our Lord, to be with us every day until the ends of times,  I rather suggest you to lit again your fire, to be enthusiastic, to be confident,  if you lose your enthusiasm for the church, how are you going to give testimony of her?. I live in the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, We have the greatest seminary in world, 600 students in major seminary, and 1000 in minor seminary,  30 deacons are ordained every year, and some generations are up to 50, Do you think that this happens in a church of members lacking of enthusiasm?

You called me triumphal catholic, I call you to lit your fire.

I seek Meekness not Bravado in our Faith, friend. Humility not Pride. I find Triumphalism on either side a stain to Virtue. If there be a light in me, it is that which enlightens my own waywardness and need to cast my eyes 'inwards' not 'outwards'.

To me this grasping on both sides that authority which is only given in Virtue is a Satanic Distraction to our pursuit of holiness. It puffs up and does not deflate the ego. We grasp at spiritual membership through institutional claims and not by the fruit of our virtues. It is a weight that holds us down and makes our spiritual labors weak and unfocused.

I am running the race but I am winded and tired but I strive ever forward to labor in my own garden to bear fruit pleasing to our God in Heaven. As yet I find that I am a very poor gardener. These debates pluck at my passions and drive into vice for I lack that which brings peace to my soul. When I find peace I will rejoice. God Willing.

The only way you will find peace and rest is when you share your faith, ¿Were Apostles monastics? No. They pray a lot, really a lot, But the fire of the Holy Spirit in them was not to feel peace for themselves but to send them to pray for the Lord and his Church.

The only fruit pleasing to God, is the conversion , the evangelization the fruits are the new belivers in Christ you got, either by speach or by testimony of life. But faith is not for one alone, for selfish purposes, only in communion, of Material and spiritual goods we can find the plenitud of God blessings.
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 809
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #104 on: January 19, 2010, 03:48:08 PM »
Why do Catholics come on to this forum just so they can attempt to convert us or whatever they are doing?  Unlike most Catholics, who know near to nothing about Orthodoxy, most EO know a very large portion of Roman teaching.  We have seen it, and we don't like it.  Instead of having a good conversation on Ecumenism, all I am seeing is bitterness towards the Orthodox. 

Currently, many forces in our society seek to make it a post-religion world.  When people act like this, it adds much fuel to the anti-religion campaign.  I can't say I don't blame them when they see adults acting like children because people left "their" Church.  We are NOT Roman Catholic...we will NEVER be Roman Catholic (or Protestant, non-Christian, Atheist, etc..) AGAIN.  We are happy with that decision, and our conversions are part of our personal spirituality (which incidentally may not have truly existed until we found Orthodoxy) not up to 'certain' people on an internet forum. 

Recently, there was an inter-faith prayer service at a local Catholic Cathedral (the one where I had served many ordinations and been confirmed in) and how hard it was not to laugh when the Bishop said to my parish priest, "We Catholics and you Orthodox...we are like this..(closed his hand to a fist and shook it, with an eerie grin).  This is what I mean, we are not "like this", not yet anyway.  One thousand years ago, we were quite the same since we were one.  However, with a millennium of stain being put on the Pearl of Great Price, that is no longer true.  Somebody needs to clean the Pearl, and admit they stained it, and here is a hint...it's not "Us Orthodox".  That's just history, not my own opinion although I happen to agree with it. 

Look, I have a whole family of Catholics and my mother could have died when I converted after wanting to for 7 years.  I love them, and I love a lot of people who happen to be Catholics (know a plathora more Catholics than I do Orthodox), I'm not saying something along those same lines that I just went on and on about.  Perhaps the fact that the OC doesn't teach 'supremacy' is a reason for our disgust when we are told this.  Anyway, what I don't love, are many of the Catholic teachings. 

"Ecumenism" in Rome's eyes are all the other Christian churches submitting to the Pope and saying how they were so wrong to 'break up with them'.  Much like the stubborn boyfriend/girlfriend who thinks they have done nothing wrong and that taking their ex back is a real big favor.  We've all had that.  But I digress.

So please, don't come on here and throw catechism lessons at us, or Roman Canons or anything from Rome.  We don't care.  All of that is silly to us and you don't find us going to your house and laying the smack-down on how we feel about all of the oh so many doctrines we disagree with.  You look foolish when you do things like that, so stop for your own sakes.  It really just makes you look intolerable and unintelligent. 

This was definitely the longest post I have ever written on any forum, and certainly this one.  I apologize, but I just had a lot that I have wanted to say about all this for the longest time.   :laugh: 8) ;D

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #105 on: January 19, 2010, 04:00:50 PM »

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
I agree.  ;D
"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 Robb

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,537
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #106 on: January 19, 2010, 04:15:10 PM »
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.


Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #107 on: January 19, 2010, 04:18:39 PM »

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
I agree.  ;D

Sometimes people get confused not only by the term "Orthodox" but also the jurisdictional designation ; "Russian Orthodox" or "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Serbian Orthodox".

The way I clear this up is by asking "Do you need to be Roman to be Roman Catholic or even Italian?
In the same manner you don't need to be Russian to be part of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #108 on: January 19, 2010, 04:20:28 PM »
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?
"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 Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 809
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #109 on: January 19, 2010, 04:24:19 PM »
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome.  

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?

Papist, Robb is 100% right.  Read some documents from Vatican II and onward.  That is what the Catholic Church is now.  Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is gone....forever.  Catholics need to face this fact and if they want to call themselves Catholics, how about following what the Roman Church teaches NOW..not 5 decades ago.  

** A few (even a couple hundred) parishes using the Tridentine Rite isn't really anything.  Technically, a "Rite" isn't simply just the liturgy, it would include the old calendar, fasting days, etc. etc.  The fact that Benedict XVI allowed the Tridentine Rite liturgy doesn't make much sense when you consider everything that is supposed to go along with it.  The only thing it did was allow ultra-conservatives to further their cause that the "novus ordo" ought to be suppressed, among other things.**
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 04:27:35 PM by mctaviix »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #110 on: January 19, 2010, 04:28:51 PM »
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?

Papist, Robb is 100% right.  Read some documents from Vatican II and onward.  That is what the Catholic Church is now.  Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is gone....forever.  Catholics need to face this fact and if they want to call themselves Catholics, how about following what the Roman Church teaches NOW..not 5 decades ago. 
I do believe what the Catholic teaches now, just as I believe what she taught five decades ago. I am a traditionalist, and I see no disconnect. I think you guys desperately want it to be different so that you can point your fingers and say "SEE! SEE! Those dirty Catholics changed their teachings. Thank God that we are so much better than they are."
"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 #111 on: January 19, 2010, 04:43:46 PM »

He remains subject to anarchy as if every member of the only body acted as if there were no head, or in the better of cases, many heads, many autocephalies.

We pray to God , for driving him to the truth more ahead, allowing him to realize that the body of Christ doesn’t have many heads in conflict ( as Constantinople with Moscow), but one Head, the Lord Jesus Himself, who has chosen one to take care of the church, St Peter, consoling it, purifying it and driving it to him with the Holy Spirit who acts in us until he comes back.

Actually, neither the Patriarch of Constantinople nor that of Moscow is a head of "the Body of Christ". They are each heads of limited sections of the ecumenical Church. The only head of the ecumenical Church is Jesus Christ.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #112 on: January 19, 2010, 04:47:22 PM »

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
I agree.  ;D

Good. I'm sure you understand that in the sense that "Romanism is Orthodoxy". But at least it is self-consistent.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #113 on: January 19, 2010, 04:49:26 PM »

Yes, ethnical tensions, so orthodox, nothing of catholicism is left there.

Orthodoxy is Catholicism.
I agree.  ;D

Sometimes people get confused not only by the term "Orthodox" but also the jurisdictional designation ; "Russian Orthodox" or "Antiochian Orthodox" or "Serbian Orthodox".

The way I clear this up is by asking "Do you need to be Roman to be Roman Catholic or even Italian?
In the same manner you don't need to be Russian to be part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In the sense that Rome is the definer of the dogmatic tradition of their communion and that all of their members are ultimately subject to his authority, yes, one does need to be Roman.

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 809
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #114 on: January 19, 2010, 04:53:55 PM »
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?

Papist, Robb is 100% right.  Read some documents from Vatican II and onward.  That is what the Catholic Church is now.  Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is gone....forever.  Catholics need to face this fact and if they want to call themselves Catholics, how about following what the Roman Church teaches NOW..not 5 decades ago. 
I do believe what the Catholic teaches now, just as I believe what she taught five decades ago. I am a traditionalist, and I see no disconnect. I think you guys desperately want it to be different so that you can point your fingers and say "SEE! SEE! Those dirty Catholics changed their teachings. Thank God that we are so much better than they are."

But the Catholic Church doesn't teach the same things that it did 5 decades ago, so just being Catholic becomes a contradiction within itself, no?  Orthodox Christians are not the ones who have the history of acting supreme to every other Church, the quote you just made is something you have stated millions of times on this forum.  The only response you have to my previous post is to paraphrase me and direct it towards the Orthodox.  Pretty lame.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #115 on: January 19, 2010, 04:57:00 PM »
The present RCC actually FORBIDS her members from trying to convert the Orthodox. This has been the policy of the Vatican since the Second Vatican Council.  Those who are coming on this forum and trying to convert the Orthodox are not conforming themselves to the will of the present Pope of Rome or his four predecessors.  Rome now forbids conversion from Orthodoxy to the Latin Church and has actually turned away some misguided Orthodox priest and bishops who have sought to do so in the past.

I really feel that the majority of those who come here and present themselves as Roman Catholics are not officially (at least in the hearts) connected to the present RCC.  They are members of the radical, traditionalist Catholic movement which follows the pre Vatican II form of Catholicism.  They are not connected in spirit to the RCC of today, even if they claim to be and evenuse the parishes of official RC dioceses for their rites and ceremonies.

The religion they seek to convert most of us here to is not the official Vatican- Catholic Church but a schism which was founded by the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and seeks to elevate the writings of previous Catholic Popes (who were not enlightened by the Second Vatican Council) with the teachings of today's Pontiffs of Rome. 

I would rather belong to a true and ancient faith like Eastern Orthodoxy then the sect and sectarian mentality that these so called "Catholics" embrace.  I was there before and, believe me, do not care to go their again.



LOL. Is that what you really think? Funny stuff guy. I attend both a parish that celebrates the Latin Liturgy, with the Bishop's permission, and a parish that celebrates the Novus Ordo reverently. I have no intention of converting and of the EO's here so I am not sure how you think what you think?

Papist, Robb is 100% right.  Read some documents from Vatican II and onward.  That is what the Catholic Church is now.  Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is gone....forever.  Catholics need to face this fact and if they want to call themselves Catholics, how about following what the Roman Church teaches NOW..not 5 decades ago. 
I do believe what the Catholic teaches now, just as I believe what she taught five decades ago. I am a traditionalist, and I see no disconnect. I think you guys desperately want it to be different so that you can point your fingers and say "SEE! SEE! Those dirty Catholics changed their teachings. Thank God that we are so much better than they are."

But the Catholic Church doesn't teach the same things that it did 5 decades ago, so just being Catholic becomes a contradiction within itself, no?  Orthodox Christians are not the ones who have the history of acting supreme to every other Church, the quote you just made is something you have stated millions of times on this forum.  The only response you have to my previous post is to paraphrase me and direct it towards the Orthodox.  Pretty lame.
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.
"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: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #116 on: January 19, 2010, 05:07:26 PM »
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
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 #117 on: January 19, 2010, 05:10:13 PM »
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?
"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 Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 809
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #118 on: January 19, 2010, 05:10:25 PM »
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?  OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)

Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.

BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #119 on: January 19, 2010, 05:19:27 PM »
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?  OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)

Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.

BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)

Please exercise some civility. Just present one or two topics to discuss and I'm sure we can address them.
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 #120 on: January 19, 2010, 05:24:56 PM »
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?
Yup. So I suggest you stop lying about my Church.

 OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  
You know you are being silly.
1. Eating Meat on Fridays. It has never been an issue of divine law that Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Friday. Thus it was obviously could be changed because it was not a matter of revelation/divine law.
However, the only actual Church teaching that is related to this matter is Church authority. Does the Catholic Church have the authority to bind its faithful to certain penances and fasts? Of course she does and the Church has not changed its teaching that she has such authority. So you fail on this point.
2. Magical steeple? Please, my ninth grade students could come up with better arguements. That being said, yes the Church provides induglences and this is seen as nothing more than the exercise of the authority given by Christ when he told the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven." Thus a person can recieve an indulgence from the Church based on this authority. However, an indulgence doesn't keep a person out of hell. It only aides a soul in purgatory. Indulgences require repentance and penance.
3. Yes Purgatory exists.
4. Limbo. Now you are showing how incredibly uninformed you are about Catholic Dogma. The concept of Limbo has NEVER been a dogma of the Church. It is an acceptable theological opinion, and Catholics are still free to believe in the idea if they like, but they are not required to just as it has always been in Church history. No Change here.
What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)
We have always believed in some form of the concept of salvation still being possible for those who are in a state of invincible ignorance. Is the concept applied more liberally today by many Catholic theologians? Definitely, and that may not be the best thing but the Magesterium has not changed Catholic teaching on the matter.
Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.
First, I doubt you ever were Catholic or you would actual understand these concepts. But if you were a Catholic you must have had a pretty poor understanding of your faith if you can actually put such nonsensical arguements in print. Second, because not one of your arguements holds water, you have failed to defend your position.
BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)
I suppose if you think the sin of slander is awesome. Some how I doubt your communion approves of lying though.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 05:27:29 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 Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #121 on: January 19, 2010, 05:27:29 PM »

Look, I have a whole family of Catholics and my mother could have died when I converted after wanting to for 7 years.  I love them, and I love a lot of people who happen to be Catholics (know a plathora more Catholics than I do Orthodox), I'm not saying something along those same lines that I just went on and on about.  Perhaps the fact that the OC doesn't teach 'supremacy' is a reason for our disgust when we are told this.  Anyway, what I don't love, are many of the Catholic teachings. 
 

Ok, lets clarify, ¿why did you convert?
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #122 on: January 19, 2010, 05:27:42 PM »
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?

When Augustine reconverted Saxon Britain to Christianity he did so at the express behest of our Holy Father in Rome at the time. He ordered this new Catholic Church in Britain under two diocese in Canterbury and York with 12 Bishops under each and a Pallium given directly from the Pope as a physical show of their 'right' to rule over the Church in Britain. This was a novelty of the time and something utterly new. Isn't this common history?

The Council of Whitby was held between this reconstituted Church in Britain and the Celtic Church in Ireland. After which the Celtic Church fell under the sway of Rome and Britain. Again this is common history. I don't even know of one Catholic Historian who questions this.

My question is how should 'we' deal with this? How should we recognize it's validity or nullity?
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 #123 on: January 19, 2010, 05:28:54 PM »
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?

When Augustine reconverted Saxon Britain to Christianity he did so at the express behest of our Holy Father in Rome at the time. He ordered this new Catholic Church in Britain under two diocese in Canterbury and York with 12 Bishops under each and a Pallium given directly from the Pope as a physical show of their 'right' to rule over the Church in Britain. This was a novelty of the time and something utterly new. Isn't this common history?

The Council of Whitby was held between this reconstituted Church in Britain and the Celtic Church in Ireland. After which the Celtic Church fell under the sway of Rome and Britain. Again this is common history. I don't even know of one Catholic Historian who questions this.

My question is how should 'we' deal with this? How should we recognize it's validity or nullity?
They both appear to be issues of Positive, rather Divine law.
"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: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #124 on: January 19, 2010, 05:37:36 PM »
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?

When Augustine reconverted Saxon Britain to Christianity he did so at the express behest of our Holy Father in Rome at the time. He ordered this new Catholic Church in Britain under two diocese in Canterbury and York with 12 Bishops under each and a Pallium given directly from the Pope as a physical show of their 'right' to rule over the Church in Britain. This was a novelty of the time and something utterly new. Isn't this common history?

The Council of Whitby was held between this reconstituted Church in Britain and the Celtic Church in Ireland. After which the Celtic Church fell under the sway of Rome and Britain. Again this is common history. I don't even know of one Catholic Historian who questions this.

My question is how should 'we' deal with this? How should we recognize it's validity or nullity?
They both appear to be issues of Positive, rather Divine law.

So you and I, as Catholics should recognize that the See of Rome doesn't actually have the 'right' to appoint Archbishops, Bishops, etc... ?

Because, this is how the See of Rome rest this authority from the dioceses of the Western Church. The Church in Gaul was the next to fall under his influence in this manner.

Before this Bishops where elected 'locally' by popular acclaim even the Popes where elected this way in the early days of the Church...

When did all this change? Is it valid? Does the Orthodox Church have a valid criticism of these practices?

If unity will be seriously considered, I think it must rest on a restoration of the 'original' means of electing Bishops and the cessation of Papal appointments.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 05:58:02 PM by ignatius »
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 Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #125 on: January 19, 2010, 06:10:55 PM »
But the Catholic Church does teach the same things it did fifty years ago. Your slander is pretty lame.

Papist,

Do you recognize the censure of the reconstituted Church in England in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory and the use of the Pallium to recognize the validity of an Archbishop and Bishop a novelty of the See of Rome? I am not speaking of it's necessity under the circumstances but do you recognize it as a novelty created by the Bishop of Rome not present before?

What of the council of Whitby in 664, where this novel Church, under the influence of the See of Rome, convinced the Church in Ireland that they were in error when they were certainly not in error. Do you find this deceptive? As a Catholic, how do you and I reconcile this fact?
Every supposed error in history has been answered. Why don't you get me a source on the above information so I can research and it and find out. BTW, the pallium issue may have been an issue of positive law and not divine law. Do you know what I am talking about?

When Augustine reconverted Saxon Britain to Christianity he did so at the express behest of our Holy Father in Rome at the time. He ordered this new Catholic Church in Britain under two diocese in Canterbury and York with 12 Bishops under each and a Pallium given directly from the Pope as a physical show of their 'right' to rule over the Church in Britain. This was a novelty of the time and something utterly new. Isn't this common history?

The Council of Whitby was held between this reconstituted Church in Britain and the Celtic Church in Ireland. After which the Celtic Church fell under the sway of Rome and Britain. Again this is common history. I don't even know of one Catholic Historian who questions this.

My question is how should 'we' deal with this? How should we recognize it's validity or nullity?
They both appear to be issues of Positive, rather Divine law.

So you and I, as Catholics should recognize that the See of Rome doesn't actually have the 'right' to appoint Archbishops, Bishops, etc... ?

Because, this is how the See of Rome rest this authority from the dioceses of the Western Church. The Church in Gaul was the next to fall under his influence in this manner.

Before this Bishops where elected 'locally' by popular acclaim even the Popes where elected this way in the early days of the Church...

When did all this change? Is it valid? Does the Orthodox Church have a valid criticism of these practices?

If unity will be seriously considered, I think it must rest on a restoration of the 'original' means of electing Bishops and the cessation of Papal appointments.

I don't think so, election of bishops is not a mater for lay people, Jesus elected his apostles from the followers, the disciples, only Peter requested to people to present 3 guys to elect a substitute of Jude, but popular election is not found in Sacred Scripture, we don't want to see catholicism to go as anglicanism in USA Proclaming gay bishops just by popular vote.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 06:11:22 PM by Alonso_castillo »
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #126 on: January 19, 2010, 06:18:50 PM »
I don't think so, election of bishops is not a mater for lay people, Jesus elected his apostles from the followers, the disciples, only Peter requested to people to present 3 guys to elect a substitute of Jude, but popular election is not found in Sacred Scripture, we don't want to see catholicism to go as anglicanism in USA Proclaming gay bishops just by popular vote.

Those are very good points. So what you would say is that pre-6th 7th Century the Church in the East and the West elected Bishops by popular acclaim in error of Apostolic Tradition?
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 #127 on: January 19, 2010, 07:18:05 PM »
I don't think so, election of bishops is not a mater for lay people, Jesus elected his apostles from the followers, the disciples, only Peter requested to people to present 3 guys to elect a substitute of Jude, but popular election is not found in Sacred Scripture, we don't want to see catholicism to go as anglicanism in USA Proclaming gay bishops just by popular vote.

Those are very good points. So what you would say is that pre-6th 7th Century the Church in the East and the West elected Bishops by popular acclaim in error of Apostolic Tradition?
Again, I think its a matter of positive law vs. divine law. As a matter of Divine Law the Pope does indeed have universal jurisdiction. This does not mean that he must exercise his authority in every Church matter. That is why we have priests and bishops. In the early Church because the different Churches were often separated by great distances with no internet or phone, sometimes matters were better left to the local Churches. Thus the Pope did not have to select each bishop from every province but had he wanted to, I think he most certainly could have.
"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 podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #128 on: January 19, 2010, 08:57:10 PM »
I for one don't like the term 'ecumenism' as it has been tossed about so much that it has become a pejorative.  It seems as if the ultra-traditionalists in both the Roman and Orthodox world only view a final unity in terms of the abject surrender by one side to the other. I know that the Orthodox/Catholic consultations both in the States and in Europe have worked for the better part of the past three decades to better understand what the East and West were able to agree upon in the first millennium of Christianity and on areas of common agreement. Obviously the first millennial role of the papacy has been a source of great disagreement within these bodies. This is a tough task after 1000+ years of history, errors and mistrust, but it is a journey worth embarking upon.  With the secularization of the Western world and the threat from an expanding Islam, I believe that both the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches have to try - if only to reassert the common values and morality which we share.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,693
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #129 on: January 19, 2010, 09:03:48 PM »
Again, I think its a matter of positive law vs. divine law. As a matter of Divine Law the Pope does indeed have universal jurisdiction. This does not mean that he must exercise his authority in every Church matter. That is why we have priests and bishops. In the early Church because the different Churches were often separated by great distances with no internet or phone, sometimes matters were better left to the local Churches. Thus the Pope did not have to select each bishop from every province but had he wanted to, I think he most certainly could have.

Papist,

So why did Leo the Great, after his election 'wait' to take his office until his election was approved by the Emperor? Frankly, I'm interested in when the Church 'needed' approval by the Emperor for it's elected Bishops? Surely, that was not the practice of the early Church. What right did the Emperor have approving elections of Bishops?

History is very curious.
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 Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 809
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #130 on: January 19, 2010, 09:30:47 PM »
Papist...seriously?  You are going to try and tell me the Catholic Church teaches the same thing it did 50 years ago?
Yup. So I suggest you stop lying about my Church.

 OK..well then I suppose all those bad Catholics eating meat on Friday (except Lent) are going to burn in a fiery Hell, unless they go underneath a Church steeple a couple times so God can magically take hard time away from Purgatory..or does Purgatory not exist anymore, like Limbo doesn't?  
You know you are being silly.
1. Eating Meat on Fridays. It has never been an issue of divine law that Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Friday. Thus it was obviously could be changed because it was not a matter of revelation/divine law.
However, the only actual Church teaching that is related to this matter is Church authority. Does the Catholic Church have the authority to bind its faithful to certain penances and fasts? Of course she does and the Church has not changed its teaching that she has such authority. So you fail on this point.
2. Magical steeple? Please, my ninth grade students could come up with better arguements. That being said, yes the Church provides induglences and this is seen as nothing more than the exercise of the authority given by Christ when he told the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven." Thus a person can recieve an indulgence from the Church based on this authority. However, an indulgence doesn't keep a person out of hell. It only aides a soul in purgatory. Indulgences require repentance and penance.
3. Yes Purgatory exists.
4. Limbo. Now you are showing how incredibly uninformed you are about Catholic Dogma. The concept of Limbo has NEVER been a dogma of the Church. It is an acceptable theological opinion, and Catholics are still free to believe in the idea if they like, but they are not required to just as it has always been in Church history. No Change here.
What about Extra Nullum Sullus? (sp?)  I understand there is a new interpretation to that document.  Pretty hard to "re-interpret" an obvious statement of "I am Supreme, and you must be under the Pope of Rome unless thoust will suffer an eternity in Hell"...something along those lines anyway.   ::)
We have always believed in some form of the concept of salvation still being possible for those who are in a state of invincible ignorance. Is the concept applied more liberally today by many Catholic theologians? Definitely, and that may not be the best thing but the Magesterium has not changed Catholic teaching on the matter.
Instead of taking up the entire page of the list of changes in Catholicism since 1964, I'll simply not waste my time, as any ex-Catholic knows, what I said is the obvious truth.
First, I doubt you ever were Catholic or you would actual understand these concepts. But if you were a Catholic you must have had a pretty poor understanding of your faith if you can actually put such nonsensical arguements in print. Second, because not one of your arguements holds water, you have failed to defend your position.
BTW, my 'slander' is pretty awesome.    8)
I suppose if you think the sin of slander is awesome. Some how I doubt your communion approves of lying though.

1.Canon 1249 “All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.”

Canon 1250 “All Fridays throughout the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the universal Church.”

Canon 1251 “Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Canon 1252 “The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year.”

2. Actually, I doubt a 9th grader would be aware of the silly superstition that was rampant in Catholicism prior to the 1960s, and a little bit before then.  

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Dispositions necessary to gain an indulgence

The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e. "at least with a contrite heart", is the customary prescription. Regarding the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead, see PURGATORY. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must perform the good works — prayers, alms deeds, visits to a church , etc. — which are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence. For details see "Raccolta".


3. OK.

4. http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm

Where will unbaptized children (and aborted babies) go on the day of the Last Judgment?

It is not a doctrine of Faith that children dying with original sin only on their soul go to a special place or state called the children’s Limbo. However, it is the common opinion of the theologians. This is based upon the teaching of Pope Innocent III (and the Fathers of the Church) on the effects of baptism, in which he has this to say:

    The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. (Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780).

The state of Limbo is consequently a suffering from the pain of loss, or separation from God, but not of the pain of the senses. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches (De malo 5, 3), such a pain of loss is compatible with a certain natural happiness. At the last judgment, when the bodies will rise to share in the punishment or reward of heaven or hell, the bodies of those who are in Limbo will also rise. Although separated from God, in which way they share the punishment of the damned in hell, they will not be tormented by remorse nor will they suffer the pain of the sense which the damned suffer forever in hell.

The denial of this common teaching by the heretical council of Pistoia was condemned by Pope Pius VI as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." Here is his description of the erroneous doctrine:

    The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin, are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire... (Auctorem Fidei, Dz 1526).  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]


First, I doubt you ever were Catholic or you would actual understand these concepts. But if you were a Catholic you must have had a pretty poor understanding of your faith if you can actually put such nonsensical arguements in print. Second, because not one of your arguements holds water, you have failed to defend your position.

Actually, I was a seminarian at the Pontifical College Josephinum and much to Msgr. Paul Langsfeld's dismay, left following my freshmen year as I continued to fall in love with Orthodox Christianity.  In reality, I was on my to the Gregorian University.  What major seminary did you attend?  

Yup. So I suggest you stop lying about my Church.

THANK YOU!!  Wasn't I just talking about it being YOUR Church?  

I suppose if you think the sin of slander is awesome. Some how I doubt your communion approves of lying though.

Thanks for doing your job and proving my point (again, you can't seem to help yourself) that you are the one in judgment over me.

Matthew. 7:5
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 09:44:49 PM by mctaviix »

Offline Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #131 on: January 19, 2010, 10:42:28 PM »
Cypriot Anti-Ecumenist Monks and Clergy Punished

This news comes following the uprising of various Orthodox against the recent meeting between Orthodox and Catholics in Paphos of Cyprus. The Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus, who met on November 4 and 5, has decided to punish the actions of the monastic and clerical protestors of the recent Dialogue which occurred in Paphos. Specifically the monks of the Holy Monastery of Stavrovouniou were penalized for two months to abstain from Holy Communion; while the clergy of the Holy Metropolis of Trimithountos have been penalized with the withholding of one months salary as well as a rebuke for their rebellion.

________________________________________________________

Any comment?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 10:43:41 PM by Alonso_castillo »
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #132 on: January 19, 2010, 11:29:02 PM »
Holy Protestors Force Cancellation of Catholic Wedding

By Charles Charalambous
Cyprus Mail
October 20, 2009

BANNER-WAVING Orthodox protestors yesterday put a stop to a Catholic wedding ceremony at Ayios Yiorgios church in Chlorakas after shouting a string of abuse at the priest and others in the church.

The protestors had gathered for the second day outside a conference of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

The small church is opposite the venue.

Protestors were incensed when the Catholic priest, who has permission from the Church of Cyprus to hold ceremonies, asked them to leave. Instead they heckled him to leave. “We peacefully call on you to leave and to have the wedding in a Catholic Church,” said one of the protestors.

When the priest told them he had permission, another said: “We are Orthodox Christians. It’s our church and you have no place here.”

The incident was caught on camera by Antenna television.

Another protestor outside the church said the Catholic priest had shown up with a key, entered the church and began moving things around “as if he was in a warehouse”.

“Some heretic....a Latin heretic...came and told us to go outside because there was a wedding, a papal wedding,” said the protestor.

He claimed it was all a plot to distort the history of Cyprus because the church in question was historically important in terms of the EOKA struggle when it was used as a drop-off point for weapons.

“They (Catholics) are not allowed to enter our church,” said the first protestor. “Aren’t you ashamed. You came to throw us out,” he said to the priest.

The Catholic priest then walked away, saying the wedding was cancelled.

The protestors who began demonstrating on Saturday oppose dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and claim that the aim of the dialogue between the two churches is the submission of the Orthodox Church to the Pope.

Archbishop Chrysostomos expressed his displeasure about the Saturday protest in scathing terms.

“The Church is certainly a place for healing, and people turn to it in order to be healed. But it is not an asylum, nor shall we allow it to become a home for the mentally-ill. The Church cannot be turned into a lunatic asylum” he said.

“For someone – whether a lay or clerical person – to place his opinion above the opinion and decisions of the local synods of the whole of the Orthodox faith amounts to vanity, and indeed satanic vanity.”

Inviting the protestors to “get their feet back on the ground and gain some redemptive humility”, he declared that all clerics and monks who took part in the protest would be punished, and told the participants to visit him in his office yesterday.

The Archbishop said that the clerics would face suspension and loss of pay, and the monks would be deprived of Holy Communion “for several weeks”.

“If they don’t like it, they should take off their robes and leave the formal Church. Let them go and set up their own church. This is why I will be very strict.”

The protestors responded by saying that instead of “convincing with theological arguments as a pastor”, the Archbishop was “using the powers of his office to issue threats” of disciplinary action against clerics involved in the protest.

Lavrentios de Giorgio, President of the Saint Kosmas Aitolos Orthodox Union, speaking for the protestors argued yesterday that the Archbishop did not have the authority to impose punishments on clergy belonging to the Kitium diocese, describing such actions as “a coup” by the Church leader.

In response, Paphos Bishop Georgios – who is in charge of the inter-faith dialogue – said that the protestors were “ultra-orthodox” people.

“Neither I nor the Synod nor anyone else is less Orthodox than them,” he said.

“People need to understand that we are all in dialogue with our fellow-man and we will not betray our faith or our values.”

The conference takes place every two years, and will end on Friday
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #133 on: January 19, 2010, 11:32:15 PM »
Metropolitan Zizoulas Takes Despotic Stance Against Critics of Ecumenism

10/19/2009
by NAT da Polis

A call to all from John Zizoulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon, tenacious advocate of the value of dialogue.The second meeting for dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, taking place in Cyprus, sees strong protest and progress at a standstill for fear of "subjugating the Orthodox to the Pope in Rome." Even among Catholics there is dogmatic resistance.

Paphos (AsiaNews) - The 2nd round of dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox is being held in Paphos (Cyprus) from October 16 to 23. Progress, however, appears a distant goal. Two days ago, groups of traditionalist Orthodox monks and Orthodox priests from Larnaca interrupted the meeting of the Joint Commission, asking Archbishop Chrisostomos to stop it. They believe that dialogue between the two Churches is designed to "subjugate the Orthodox to the pope in Rome". Yet it is to this very island, a martyred land of ancient Christian traditions, divided by the last wall in Europe, the one between Greece and Turkey, that Benedict XVI will come on a papal visit in June 2010.

The dialogue of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches began in Ravenna in 2007 where a road map for process towards full unity was signed. The Ravenna document, of great importance, is based on the ecclesiology of the first millennium, when the two churches were in full communion, although even then differences arose from time to time.

The Ravenna document was not signed by the Russian Orthodox Church, which withdrew over differences with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on the question of the Church in Estonia. But these days it was involved in the work. Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople confirmed two days ago that "engaging in dialogue is our duty and obligation. Dialogue is a road of no return".

The issue of dialogue is the theme of an in depth interview that the Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizoulas, gave to Cypriot journalist Aris Viketos. Zizoulas is Co-chairman - along with the Cardinal Walter Kasper - of the Joint Commission, an eminent theologian and a charismatic figure, as well as a strong supporter of dialogue.

In ecumenical circles it is said that with this interview Zizoulas is sending an important signal to certain areas of the Orthodox world. They, although a minority, are loudly contesting the dialogue, because they themselves are victims of a traditionalist narcissism bordering on infallibility. The interview also criticizes certain sectors of the Catholic Church who impose a disproportionate dogmatic rationalism, and who want nothing to change.

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".

Dialogue and the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Returning to the interview, Zizoulas immediately clarifies that "the decision to participate in dialogue with the Catholic Church was unanimously made by all Orthodox churches. Therefore inveighing against dialogue, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and my person is unfair. All Orthodox churches were in agreement on the importance of dialogue and the fact that it must continue".

"The Ecumenical Patriarchate - he continues - as in all other Orthodox matters, has only a coordinating role and we, like the other members of the Commission, are the engaged executors, according to our own conscience, of the mandate that was assigned to us. We are open to criticism because we are not infallible, just as our critics are not infallible. Those who do not want dialogue, are opposed to the common will of all Orthodox churches. "

Regarding the positions of the monks of Mount Athos - staunchly opposed to dialogue - the Metropolitan of Pergamon is explicit: "I respect their opinion and their feelings on matters of faith. But why should they have the monopoly of truth on matters of faith? Are the other leaders of the churches perhaps lacking this sensitivity? All the faithful of the Church have the right to express their thoughts. But all opinions should be subject to scrutiny of the synods. If the great Father of the Church St. Basil put his opinion to the judgement of synods, we can do no less!".

Petrine primacy

The monks of Mount Athos and some conservative sectors of the Orthodox world accuse the Ecumenical Patriarchate of yielding to Rome on the question of Petrine primacy. Called upon to answer this question, Zizoulas says, "to the monks, whom I consider no less infallible than my own modest self, I would like to reply that the question of primacy is an ecclesiological one. And ecclesiology as we know, is part of dogma, part of faith. When we dialogue on this issue, we look at our own dogmatic divergence. There is no intention of neglecting other matters of dogma ... Quite simply, our experience has shown us that we must first agree on basic issues of ecclesiology, because the question of primacy has been fatal and tragic in relations between the Catholic and Orthodox world. "

"The Ravenna text" - continues Zizoulas - "is very important, but unfortunately it has not received due attention and disclosure. It was agreed that the primacy at any level it is exercised, should be understood in its synodal character. This is what the Orthodox Church maintains and applies and it has its roots in the 34th Apostolic Canon ... The Orthodox Church also has its primus, but they can not decide without the synod, nor the synod without them. This focal point was accepted at the Ravenna meeting, although it does not agree with [the concept of] the primate, as monarch. The second point of the Ravenna document is that the primate is linked to the concept of the pentarchy of the patriarchates [1]. This was true during the first millennium, and this should apply even if the remaining assumptions of the first millennium will retain their validity. Which is why their [the monks of Mount Athos] opposition to dialogue is incomprehensible. We all have to accept [these findings] and where the pope accepts the canonical structure of the Church as it was configured in the first millennium, we should all be happy ... The Ravenna text adopts the basic principles of the Church of the first millennium".

The Uniates

Regarding the Uniate question and the resulting differences that emerged with the Catholic Church, the Metropolitan of Pergamon responds that the Uniate question "has never ceased to be a serious issue for us Orthodox. There has been much discussion in the context of dialogue and we agree with the Catholic Church not to take uniatism as a model towards unity and not to use it as a model of proselytism. The Uniate issue will be taken into account when the issue of the primacy in the 2nd millennium is addressed, when in fact the phenomenon was born".

Ecumenism: Heresy?

Asked whether ecumenism is a heresy, Zizoulas replied: "In defining someone as a heretic, one must consider if that person rejects the principles endorsed by ecumenical synods. Among those Orthodox participating in the ecumenical dialogue I have not find any deviation from the principles of faith. Moreover knowing how to dialogue with those who oppose your beliefs does not make you a heretic. Ecumenical dialogue has nothing to hide and our journey is still a long one".

On the prospects of dialogue, Zizoulas concludes by saying: "History is guided by God. Those who proclaim that the Church's unity is impossible, are trying to take the place of God. Who are we to predetermine the future? We are called to tirelessly work so we all may be one. If we do not enact this, or we do so at the expense of the faith of our fathers, then we will be called to answer to God. The final outcome is in His hands. He will find a way to see His will is done, so we may all be one. We simply have to work for unity".

[1] The Church of the first millennium was administered by 5 Patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch. Rome held primacy.
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam

Offline Alonso_castillo

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
  • Me when younger
Re: Ecumenism (opinion on news)
« Reply #134 on: January 20, 2010, 12:02:38 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".
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam