OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 04:28:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox and Catholic views of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich  (Read 17582 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« on: May 14, 2010, 10:18:27 AM »

Split from A Question on the Immaculate Conception

Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator




I take Father Lev Gillet's sources seriously.  I take Father Casimir Kucharek's sources seriously.  
These are not MY arguments, so you cannot hush the reality that they exist by hushing ME.


I have heard that the Ruthenian Catholics are, of all the Eastern Catholic Churches, the most docile and submissive to Rome.   While they dedicate their churches in the States to the Immaculate Conception, other Eastern Catholics stand up and say they deny the dogma.

I would think that prize  Roll Eyes would go to the Maronites.  The Ruthenians of Austro-Hungarian Galicia certainly displayed little "docility," nor when they immigrated to the US.  Perhaps the dynamics have changed with the return of many Ruthenians to Orthodoxy: all that remained under the Vatican perhaps feel that they have to prove their loyalty to their "Mother Church."

An example might be the "canonization" of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich: the Ruthenian church opposed it. It was pushed by the Latin Poles, and for decades the only churches dedicated to him were Latin Polish ones.  It is telling that the Priestly Society of Ioasaphat, a SSPX type organization among the Ukrainians, fights to keep all the Latinization. I would think the IC would be one of them.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 10:40:44 AM by Schultz » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2010, 10:35:51 AM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

I have discovered that Orthodox faithful are wonderful pious people but they can be lousy historians, and they are the first to claim that they are never mean spirited.   Amazing how it all works.

M.



I take Father Lev Gillet's sources seriously.  I take Father Casimir Kucharek's sources seriously.  
These are not MY arguments, so you cannot hush the reality that they exist by hushing ME.


I have heard that the Ruthenian Catholics are, of all the Eastern Catholic Churches, the most docile and submissive to Rome.   While they dedicate their churches in the States to the Immaculate Conception, other Eastern Catholics stand up and say they deny the dogma.

I would think that prize  Roll Eyes would go to the Maronites.  The Ruthenians of Austro-Hungarian Galicia certainly displayed little "docility," nor when they immigrated to the US.  Perhaps the dynamics have changed with the return of many Ruthenians to Orthodoxy: all that remained under the Vatican perhaps feel that they have to prove their loyalty to their "Mother Church."

An example might be the "canonization" of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich the Ruthenian church opposed it. It was pushed by the Latin Poles, and for decades the only churches dedicated to him were Latin Polish ones.  It is telling that the Priestly Society of Ioasaphat, a SSPX type organization among the Ukrainians, fights to keep all the Latinization. I would think the IC would be one of them.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2010, 10:45:06 AM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2010, 10:49:28 AM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

So my suggestion stands. 

It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2010, 11:11:45 AM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

You mean the stuff that gathered dust in the Vatican, untill the Poles in Galicia got the bright idea of pushing the issue, part of the push to polanize Galicia?

Quote
I have discovered that Orthodox faithful are wonderful pious people but they can be lousy historians, and they are the first to claim that they are never mean spirited.

Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

On him, btw:
I have never had a negative experience with a member of Opus Dei, whether laity or clergy, nor do I have any real issues with them.  I have been to several of their workshops and seminars at their conference centre north of Toronto, on subjects that most Orthodox members would have little to no qualms about, let alone Roman Catholics members.  They have been doing great work in and around Toronto for over 2 decades now, and I pray they continue to help those who come to them.  I know some get turned off by 'corporal mortification', but I have never seen it as a huge issue.  I've used a cilice (under supervision of my confessor) and probably have it laying around somewhere still, and it isn't nearly as bad as people think Tongue.  The only point of conflict I would run into members with was surrounding the use of the Tridentine and Ambrosian masses over the Novus Ordo.

I haven't had any personal experience with them, but know many Orthodox who have.  Their main opinion of them is that Opus Dei memebers are "Catholic who look and act Catholic."  The only problem they had was not with Opus Dei per se, but their promoting of the Divine Mercy and Sr. Faustina, which is a little spooky to a lot of Orthodox.  The only problem I've heard was one Orthodox who teaches in a school controlled by them, when his turn to reading came on the commemoration of "St" Josaphat Kuntsevich.  He told them he would strike a deal: he'd agree that Kuntsevich should have been canonized if they would agree that Kuntsevich should have been killed.

Not quite sure I want to understand the cilice.  Life can be painful enough.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2010, 11:14:44 AM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.


The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands. 

Quote
It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2010, 12:14:30 PM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.


The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands.  

Quote
It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

There are records from the period after his death where Orthodox faithful came forward to say that the Orthodox were as much guilty of causing trouble and violence as the Eastern Catholics.   They also said formally that the bishop was not the evil man that he was portrayed to be and some even said that he died a martyrs death because he was personally innocent.

Those records exist and you can do what you want with that...but it would not be the first time in history where Orthodox faithful bit off more than they should have in a fight.

Mary



Forbidden "U" word replaced with more acceptable alternative  -PtA
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 03:01:40 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2010, 12:26:57 PM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.


The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands. 

Quote
It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

There are records from the period after his death where Orthodox faithful came forward to say that the Orthodox were as much guilty of causing trouble and violence as the Uniates.   They also said formally that the bishop was not the evil man that he was portrayed to be and some even said that he died a martyrs death because he was personally innocent.

Those records exist and you can do what you want with that...but it would not be the first time in history where Orthodox faithful bit off more than they should have in a fight.

Mary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2010, 03:15:36 PM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.


The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands. 

Quote
It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

There are records from the period after his death where Orthodox faithful came forward to say that the Orthodox were as much guilty of causing trouble and violence as the Uniates.   They also said formally that the bishop was not the evil man that he was portrayed to be and some even said that he died a martyrs death because he was personally innocent.

Those records exist and you can do what you want with that...but it would not be the first time in history where Orthodox faithful bit off more than they should have in a fight.

Mary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?

Orthodoc

You've never heard of "picking up the pieces"?
Logged

Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 933


« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2010, 05:16:22 PM »

Quote
This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

Really?  Please provide your "solid evidence" to disprove the Chancellor's comments.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2010, 05:23:34 PM »

Quote
This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

Really?  Please provide your "solid evidence" to disprove the Chancellor's comments.

Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.
Logged

IreneOlinyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox (EP)
Posts: 203


« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2010, 06:56:47 PM »

Quote
This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

Really?  Please provide your "solid evidence" to disprove the Chancellor's comments.

Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2010, 08:29:04 PM »

Quote
This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all. 

Really?  Please provide your "solid evidence" to disprove the Chancellor's comments.

Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

There's one letter that has been fingered as the smoking gun against him but there's nothing about that letter that is an eye-witness report because the letter has been found to be based upon second and third hand complaints against the bishop without further corroboration.

There are 116 interviews that support his canonization.  Among those letter are Orthodox testimonials that indicate that the Orthodox had lied about the bishop's savagery.  I suppose the brutality of his murder was enough to give some folks second thoughts.

Maybe you could point us toward an eye-witness to his personal savagery?

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2010, 09:00:22 PM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.


The contemporary Orthodox found otherwise.

So my suggestion stands. 

Quote
It would be good to examine the documentation that was collected prior to the time of his canonization.

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

There are records from the period after his death where Orthodox faithful came forward to say that the Orthodox were as much guilty of causing trouble and violence as the Uniates.   They also said formally that the bishop was not the evil man that he was portrayed to be and some even said that he died a martyrs death because he was personally innocent.

Those records exist and you can do what you want with that...but it would not be the first time in history where Orthodox faithful bit off more than they should have in a fight.

Mary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?

Orthodoc

You've never heard of "picking up the pieces"?

Is that like connect the dots?
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox (EP)
Posts: 203


« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2010, 09:01:20 PM »

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.  


Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.
[/quote]

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

There's one letter that has been fingered as the smoking gun against him but there's nothing about that letter that is an eye-witness report because the letter has been found to be based upon second and third hand complaints against the bishop without further corroboration.

There are 116 interviews that support his canonization.  Among those letter are Orthodox testimonials that indicate that the Orthodox had lied about the bishop's savagery.  I suppose the brutality of his murder was enough to give some folks second thoughts.

Maybe you could point us toward an eye-witness to his personal savagery?

M.
[/quote]



116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 09:02:37 PM by IreneOlinyk » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2010, 09:12:32 PM »

This is old news.  The rest of the story is that the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all.  


Hi Orest:  Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum or look at some of the histories that are available on-line.  Its out there to be found if you want to find it.  All my note is suggesting is that it is better to go find the truth than to keep repeating the same old canards.

M.

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.

There's one letter that has been fingered as the smoking gun against him but there's nothing about that letter that is an eye-witness report because the letter has been found to be based upon second and third hand complaints against the bishop without further corroboration.

There are 116 interviews that support his canonization.  Among those letter are Orthodox testimonials that indicate that the Orthodox had lied about the bishop's savagery.  I suppose the brutality of his murder was enough to give some folks second thoughts.

Maybe you could point us toward an eye-witness to his personal savagery?

M.
[/quote]



116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
[/quote]

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.  I am not trying to rub salt actually.  I simply do not believe the man was a savage, and I think there is evidence to support that view.  I do also believe he was murdered unjustly.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2010, 09:22:58 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2010, 09:38:19 PM »

116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2010, 09:40:43 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,544


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2010, 10:30:08 PM »

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.
Usually, a request for primary sources means that you quote the sources for us AND provide links to those sources if they're online, bibliographical references if they're not.  Merely saying, "Try checking out the Vatican Archives," or "Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum.com," don't count since you're merely passing off your responsibility to the person who asked you to provide the sources.

That said, someone asked you to cite primary sources that back up your claim that "the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all."  You still need to do so.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 10:34:44 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2010, 10:45:12 PM »

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.
Usually, a request for primary sources means that you quote the sources for us AND provide links to those sources if they're online, bibliographical references if they're not.  Merely saying, "Try checking out the Vatican Archives," or "Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum.com," don't count since you're merely passing off your responsibility to the person who asked you to provide the sources.

That said, someone asked you to cite primary sources that back up your claim that "the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all."  You still need to do so.

And I will continue to need to do so.  My sources are second hand.  I happen to trust them.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2010, 10:46:32 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2010, 10:51:44 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2010, 11:02:38 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop. 

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2010, 11:41:01 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican.  That's objective.


Quote
And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.  

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary
No, Ultramontanims is.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 11:42:08 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,544


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2010, 12:45:25 AM »

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.
Usually, a request for primary sources means that you quote the sources for us AND provide links to those sources if they're online, bibliographical references if they're not.  Merely saying, "Try checking out the Vatican Archives," or "Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum.com," don't count since you're merely passing off your responsibility to the person who asked you to provide the sources.

That said, someone asked you to cite primary sources that back up your claim that "the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all."  You still need to do so.

And I will continue to need to do so.  My sources are second hand.  I happen to trust them.
Doesn't do us any good.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2010, 12:52:00 AM »

Elijahmaria,
You were the one who made the claim about "solid evidence".  So you have to provide proof.  Please provide us with primary sources.

Primary sources?  Try searching the Vatican archives.
Usually, a request for primary sources means that you quote the sources for us AND provide links to those sources if they're online, bibliographical references if they're not.  Merely saying, "Try checking out the Vatican Archives," or "Go look up some of the threads on ByzCathForum.com," don't count since you're merely passing off your responsibility to the person who asked you to provide the sources.

That said, someone asked you to cite primary sources that back up your claim that "the Chancellor's comments were not founded on solid evidence at all."  You still need to do so.

And I will continue to need to do so.  My sources are second hand.  I happen to trust them.
Doesn't do us any good.

No one really needs the quotations, but without them it is clear that a person is free to discount Mary's position as unproven.

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2010, 01:57:13 AM »

116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

Thank you for this my friend! 

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #28 on: May 16, 2010, 02:09:31 AM »

116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

Thank you for this my friend! 

Could someone place the relevant extract on the forum, please.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2010, 09:38:10 AM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican.  That's objective.


Quote
And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.  

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary
No, Ultramontanims is.

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be. 

Then there's folks like you.  Loud and not particularly something others are always proud of.  I've been around long enough to know that.  You may get kudos from like-minded people but you don't wear well outside of your own hive.

I don't discount you at all but I am not concerned that your "approach" will prevail.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2010, 10:21:59 AM »


There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be.  


Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2010, 10:29:39 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2010, 10:41:45 AM »


There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be.  


Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

LOL...you mean like what we see on the Internet...LOL
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2010, 11:34:49 AM »


There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be.  


Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

LOL...you mean like what we see on the Internet...LOL

Puzzled at my end.  Are there bishops writing on the Internet?  I like to read the blog of Bishop Seraphim (Sigrist) but he prefers to talk about literature and not theology.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2010, 11:35:47 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2010, 11:53:32 AM »


There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be.  


Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

LOL...you mean like what we see on the Internet...LOL

Puzzled at my end.  Are there bishops writing on the Internet?  I like to read the blog of Bishop Seraphim (Sigrist) but he prefers to talk about literature and not theology.

Puzzled?  Why?  Are you not the one who taught me that if Orthodox Bishops teach heresy they are deposed?  Has not Archbishop Hilarion been called a heretic already? 

I figure it is just going to be another Big Fat Greek Internet War....don't you?

I mean why would any Bishop speak out against the loud-crowd and risk being called a heretic.

Maybe Bishop Seraphim talks about literature because he knows Father Alexander took an axe in the back of his head...hard to tell, but history does tend to repeat itself.

M.                                         
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2010, 12:01:37 PM »


There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be. 


Thanks to the shenanigans of the unionists at Belgrade 2006 and Ravenna 2007 (principally Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan John Zizioulas) the Church's bishops have pricked up their ears, intervened in Cyprus 2009 and stopped the issuing of the position paper being called "the Cretan Unia."  The bishops have halted the unionist direction in which the merry band of ecumenical professionals were steering the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.  I think the unionists are in for rough times ahead.  The bishops have taken over their playground.  We may now expect a much more theologically sound dialogue.

LOL...you mean like what we see on the Internet...LOL

Puzzled at my end.  Are there bishops writing on the Internet?  I like to read the blog of Bishop Seraphim (Sigrist) but he prefers to talk about literature and not theology.

Puzzled?  Why?  Are you not the one who taught me that if Orthodox Bishops teach heresy they are deposed?  Has not Archbishop Hilarion been called a heretic already? 
                                         

Getting a bit silly here, Mary.  Roll Eyes  I think it was five people who came to one of Met Hilarion's services in Moscow and were shouting heretic.   There was no news of the hundreds of people in the church supporting them.  Nor that the millions of Russian Church members supported them. 

Yes, bishops who teach heresy are deposed.  But it is not done by five laymen.  There is a canonical process which ensures the accused bishop is accorded a just trial by 12 of his peers.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2010, 09:15:41 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?

Orthodoc

He was hit with an axe and shot then thrown into a river.  I've never read that he was hacked into pieces.  His incorrupt body is now in St. Peter's Basilica.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2010, 09:18:17 PM »

An example might be the "canonization" of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich: the Ruthenian church opposed it. It was pushed by the Latin Poles, and for decades the only churches dedicated to him were Latin Polish ones.

Substantiate please, I've never heard that before.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #37 on: May 17, 2010, 09:32:00 PM »


Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

Interresting that you mention the Poles quest to Latinize the Ukrainians then quote the letter of the Polish Latin Catholic Chancellor.  St Josaphat was equally hated by the Orthodox, for being united to Rome, and the Polish Latins, for refusing to Latinize or Polonize, so why would it be surprising that a Polish Latin official would do a hatchet job on him to make him look bad?  If we discount Orthodox and Catholic propaganda the only neutral group, the Jews spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2010, 09:40:30 PM »

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

St. Josaphat was beatified 20 years after his death, which means about 90% of the work was done immediately after his death.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2010, 11:35:10 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican.  That's objective.


Quote
And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.  

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary
No, Ultramontanims is.

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be. 

Then there's folks like you.  Loud and not particularly something others are always proud of.  I've been around long enough to know that.  You may get kudos from like-minded people but you don't wear well outside of your own hive.

I don't discount you at all but I am not concerned that your "approach" will prevail.

M.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2010, 11:46:04 PM »

An example might be the "canonization" of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich: the Ruthenian church opposed it. It was pushed by the Latin Poles, and for decades the only churches dedicated to him were Latin Polish ones.

Substantiate please, I've never heard that before.
I already have:
116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false
Somewhere here I posted links to all the "St. Joasaphat" Churches I could find.  All were Polish Latin ones.  The first Ukrainian one was a parish in Western Canada which grew out of a French parish St. Joachim.  For now, wikipedia will have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._josaphat#Legacy
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 11:48:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2010, 11:50:21 PM »

You after the 200+ years the canonization file gathered dust, or before?

St. Josaphat was beatified 20 years after his death, which means about 90% of the work was done immediately after his death.

So, were his feet hanging out of heaven?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2010, 11:54:08 PM »


Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

Interresting that you mention the Poles quest to Latinize the Ukrainians then quote the letter of the Polish Latin Catholic Chancellor.  St Josaphat was equally hated by the Orthodox, for being united to Rome, and the Polish Latins, for refusing to Latinize or Polonize, so why would it be surprising that a Polish Latin official would do a hatchet job on him to make him look bad? 

To himself?  The letter was addressed to Joe himself.

Quote
If we discount Orthodox and Catholic propaganda the only neutral group, the Jews spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.

Not heard of "a pox on both their houses, divide and conquer"? IIRC, the Vatican didn't accept Jews testifying in court at the time.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2010, 01:20:29 AM »

I already have:
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka
http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

His proof is one pro-Russian paper protested?

Somewhere here I posted links to all the "St. Joasaphat" Churches I could find.  All were Polish Latin ones.  The first Ukrainian one was a parish in Western Canada which grew out of a French parish St. Joachim.  For now, wikipedia will have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._josaphat#Legacy

The US Ukrainian Catholics have a Cathedral in Parma, OH and parishes in New Britain, CT; Rochester, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Munster,IN; and Warren MI.

He is also commemorated in every proskomedia and litija litany in the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic Churches.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2010, 01:25:26 AM »


Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

Interresting that you mention the Poles quest to Latinize the Ukrainians then quote the letter of the Polish Latin Catholic Chancellor.  St Josaphat was equally hated by the Orthodox, for being united to Rome, and the Polish Latins, for refusing to Latinize or Polonize, so why would it be surprising that a Polish Latin official would do a hatchet job on him to make him look bad? 

To himself?  The letter was addressed to Joe himself.

He sent copies to no one?  That is if the letter wasn't forged by the pro-Russian paper that published it.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2010, 01:38:31 AM »


Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622
Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

Interresting that you mention the Poles quest to Latinize the Ukrainians then quote the letter of the Polish Latin Catholic Chancellor.  St Josaphat was equally hated by the Orthodox, for being united to Rome, and the Polish Latins, for refusing to Latinize or Polonize, so why would it be surprising that a Polish Latin official would do a hatchet job on him to make him look bad?  If we discount Orthodox and Catholic propaganda the only neutral group, the Jews spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.
The  article in wikipedia is quite favorable to St. Josaphat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josaphat_Kuncevyc
One thing mentioned in the article was that St. Josaphat had successfully converted the Patriarch of Moscow,  Ignatius, 1540-1620 to Catholicism. Ignatius was Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia from 1605-1606, and originally was a fierce opponent of Catholicism.  Perhaps the later conversion of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat  has something to do with why there is so much opposition to St. Josaphat from the Orthodox point of view?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 01:39:17 AM by stanley123 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #46 on: May 18, 2010, 01:52:40 AM »

One thing mentioned in the article was that St. Josaphat had successfully converted the Patriarch of Moscow,  Ignatius, 1540-1620 to Catholicism. Ignatius was Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia from 1605-1606, and originally was a fierce opponent of Catholicism.  Perhaps the later conversion of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat  has something to do with why there is so much opposition to St. Josaphat from the Orthodox point of view?

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans.   laugh

Anyway he seems to have been a total political disaster for Russia. Maybe he had been sent into Russia by Russia's enemies to destabilise the country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Ignatius
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,199


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2010, 02:07:27 AM »

Quote
Ignatius was Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia from 1605-1606

For someone who didn't die in office, a rather short tenure as Patriarch. I wonder why?  Roll Eyes
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2010, 03:02:09 AM »

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans. 
This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and  would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 03:02:58 AM by stanley123 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #49 on: May 18, 2010, 03:20:06 AM »

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans. 
This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and  would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

His Wiki biography says that not once but twice, he tried to impose a false Tsar on the Russian Throne.   The second time he had to hightail it to Poland or risk lengthy imprisonment.  If Kuntsevich liked to convert people of this calibre he is welcome to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Ignatius
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2010, 03:31:33 AM »

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans. 
This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and  would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

His Wiki biography says that not once but twice, he tried to impose a false Tsar on the Russian Throne.   The second time he had to hightail it to Poland or risk lengthy imprisonment.  If Kuntsevich liked to convert people of this calibre he is welcome to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Ignatius
but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2010, 04:14:09 AM »


but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

I know nothing about him.  As the Wiki article says: 

Ignatius "....suffered from damnatio memoriae in subsequent ages and often is not counted among the legitimate patriarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church."
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #52 on: May 18, 2010, 05:14:46 AM »


but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

I know nothing about him.  As the Wiki article says: 

Ignatius "....suffered from damnatio memoriae in subsequent ages and often is not counted among the legitimate patriarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church."
OK Father Ambrose.
But let's look at it this way. Suppose a Roman Pope had converted to Russian Orthodoxy. I would guess that the Roman Catholic Church would not give him a sterling writeup in their history books.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: May 18, 2010, 05:27:17 AM »


but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

I know nothing about him.  As the Wiki article says: 

Ignatius "....suffered from damnatio memoriae in subsequent ages and often is not counted among the legitimate patriarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church."
OK Father Ambrose.
But let's look at it this way. Suppose a Roman Pope had converted to Russian Orthodoxy. I would guess that the Roman Catholic Church would not give him a sterling writeup in their history books.

The attempt to impose two false Tsars on Russia in spoken if in Wikipedia - not in a Russian Orthodox publication.   It must be a fact of secular history?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #54 on: May 18, 2010, 08:05:48 AM »

I already have:
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka
http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

His proof is one pro-Russian paper protested?

The Ruthenians refused to contribute to the celebrations in Rome, amongst othre "irregularities," in contrast to the enthusiasm of the Poles.

Somewhere here I posted links to all the "St. Joasaphat" Churches I could find.  All were Polish Latin ones.  The first Ukrainian one was a parish in Western Canada which grew out of a French parish St. Joachim.  For now, wikipedia will have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._josaphat#Legacy

The US Ukrainian Catholics have a Cathedral in Parma, OH and parishes in New Britain, CT; Rochester, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Munster,IN; and Warren MI.

He is also commemorated in every proskomedia and litija litany in the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic Churches.
Is now: how far back does that go?

The parishes you mention all date from after the Edmonton Ukrainian cathedral (1904), the Poles started dedicating churches to him in the 1880's in Chicago, Milwaukee etc.  What the situation in Europe I do not know, but would be interesting.  You have any info.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #55 on: May 18, 2010, 08:19:44 AM »

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans.  
This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and  would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs.  Unlike the editing of the  lists of popes of Rome, such editing causes no dogmatic concerns.

Since the Russian Church had obtained autocephaly by default when Constantinople embraced heresy at Florence, the Russians had been masters of their own house for nearly two centuries.  That a foreignor was picked, after the legitimate patriarch St. Job had been deposed by force by a usurper seizing the throne, raises questions about Ignatius serving that power (whom he crowned, and for whom he had taken oaths of allegience even before seizing the throne), rather than the Church. That he converted when the occupying Poles freed him in Moscow (where he was imprisoned when legitimate authority was restored), and he retreated with them.

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans. 
This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and  would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

His Wiki biography says that not once but twice, he tried to impose a false Tsar on the Russian Throne.   The second time he had to hightail it to Poland or risk lengthy imprisonment.  If Kuntsevich liked to convert people of this calibre he is welcome to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Ignatius
but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

To serve as false patriarch to a false czar.  Birds of a feather...
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 08:23:11 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #56 on: May 18, 2010, 08:27:42 AM »


but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

I know nothing about him.  As the Wiki article says: 

Ignatius "....suffered from damnatio memoriae in subsequent ages and often is not counted among the legitimate patriarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church."
OK Father Ambrose.
But let's look at it this way. Suppose a Roman Pope had converted to Russian Orthodoxy. I would guess that the Roman Catholic Church would not give him a sterling writeup in their history books.

I don't know, ya'll bend over backwards to exonerate Honorius I, who coverted to heresy.  Of course, given Vatican I, if a Roman Pope converted to Russian Orthodoxy, the RCC would return to Catholic unity, and I should think that that would be as celebrated at least as much as the false unions of Brest, Uzhhorod, Transylvania, etc. are celebrated by the Vatican today
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #57 on: May 18, 2010, 02:28:35 PM »

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs.
That could not be because he converted to Catholicism, could it?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #58 on: May 18, 2010, 02:31:03 PM »

Since the Russian Church had obtained autocephaly by default when Constantinople embraced heresy at Florence, the Russians had been masters of their own house for nearly two centuries.  That a foreignor was picked, after the legitimate patriarch St. Job had been deposed by force by a usurper seizing the throne, raises questions about Ignatius serving that power (whom he crowned, and for whom he had taken oaths of allegience even before seizing the throne), rather than the Church.
It also raises questions about who is in charge of the Russian Orthodox Church and how was it that he assumed the office of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia? Who is the final authority in the Russian Orthodox Church?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2010, 02:42:46 PM »

other Eastern Catholics stand up and say they deny the dogma.

Then they're not in substantial union with Rome. Those who think that they can be "in communion" with Rome but differ from her dogmatic tradition are fools.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2010, 02:45:38 PM »

other Eastern Catholics stand up and say they deny the dogma.

Then they're not in substantial union with Rome. Those who think that they can be "in communion" with Rome but differ from her dogmatic tradition are fools.
Amen
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
griego catolico
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 225

...for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord.


« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2010, 03:00:01 PM »

Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome?  One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river!  Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?
Orthodoc

Orthodoc

Yes, Saint Josaphat's incorrupt body is enshrined in the altar of Saint Basil's chapel within Saint Peter's basilica.



There is talk of moving the relics or at least part of them to the Basilian Monastery of the Holy Trinity in Vilnius, Lithuania once the restoration work is complete. St. Josaphat was abbot of the monastery.

Although Saint Josaphat was killed by an axe to the head, he was never cut to pieces.


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2010, 03:06:01 PM »

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs.
That could not be because he converted to Catholicism, could it?
The Apostate Isodore the Greek is listed as St. Jonas' predecessor in Moscow. So I guess that's not it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #63 on: May 18, 2010, 03:09:22 PM »

Since the Russian Church had obtained autocephaly by default when Constantinople embraced heresy at Florence, the Russians had been masters of their own house for nearly two centuries.  That a foreignor was picked, after the legitimate patriarch St. Job had been deposed by force by a usurper seizing the throne, raises questions about Ignatius serving that power (whom he crowned, and for whom he had taken oaths of allegience even before seizing the throne), rather than the Church.
It also raises questions about who is in charge of the Russian Orthodox Church and how was it that he assumed the office of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia? Who is the final authority in the Russian Orthodox Church?
That's quite settled: the Holy Synod of Russia, headed by her patriarch, under Christ the supreme Head.  As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time. 
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 225

...for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord.


« Reply #64 on: May 18, 2010, 03:15:54 PM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

Irish Hermit,
I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians.  
Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.



« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 03:17:24 PM by griego catolico » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2010, 03:28:39 PM »

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time. 
So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2010, 03:50:57 PM »

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time. 
So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?
No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2010, 03:52:57 PM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

Irish Hermit,
I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians.  
Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.





Such stories would be more credible if they were not so embedded in fairy tales of how the Orthodox rushed to the "Union" of Brest of their own free will and without compulsion from the PL king's sword.

Some views:
Four hundred years Union of Brest (1596-1996): a critical re-evaluation ... By Bert Groen, William Peter van den Bercken
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
The Orthodox Church in the history of Russia By Dimitry Pospielovsky
http://books.google.com/books?id=2cP0wc_E6yEC&pg=PA97&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
Religion and society in Russia: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries By Paul Bushkovitch
http://books.google.com/books?id=vB0OqzCU5i4C&pg=PA163&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&lr=&cd=11#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 04:23:45 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2010, 03:55:34 PM »

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time. 
So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?
No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2010, 04:20:00 PM »

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time. 
So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?
No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc
LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king.  Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

After his downfall, his ashes were shot out of a canon pointed at Poland.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2010, 06:54:59 PM »

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs.

That could not be because he converted to Catholicism, could it?


That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt.   Moscow had been conquered by the Poles.   The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches.  The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles  The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen.  He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne.  He serves the Liturgy for Easter.  He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State.  That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation.   The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city.  They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York.  He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2010, 06:56:25 PM »

Since the Russian Church had obtained autocephaly by default when Constantinople embraced heresy at Florence, the Russians had been masters of their own house for nearly two centuries.  That a foreignor was picked, after the legitimate patriarch St. Job had been deposed by force by a usurper seizing the throne, raises questions about Ignatius serving that power (whom he crowned, and for whom he had taken oaths of allegience even before seizing the throne), rather than the Church.
It also raises questions about who is in charge of the Russian Orthodox Church and how was it that he assumed the office of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia? Who is the final authority in the Russian Orthodox Church?

See message #70.
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2010, 07:12:04 PM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

Irish Hermit,
I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians.  
Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.





Such stories would be more credible if they were not so embedded in fairy tales of how the Orthodox rushed to the "Union" of Brest of their own free will and without compulsion from the PL king's sword.

Some views:
Four hundred years Union of Brest (1596-1996): a critical re-evaluation ... By Bert Groen, William Peter van den Bercken
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
The Orthodox Church in the history of Russia By Dimitry Pospielovsky
http://books.google.com/books?id=2cP0wc_E6yEC&pg=PA97&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
Religion and society in Russia: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries By Paul Bushkovitch
http://books.google.com/books?id=vB0OqzCU5i4C&pg=PA163&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&lr=&cd=11#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false

Yes.  One has to wonder where some people put their common sense when reading these white washed historical revision put out by the RCC. Those that are nieve enough to believe them. If St Josephat was such a loving man, why would he ellicitsuch a reaction from the Orthodox?  Was it just a full moon?  Or the revision of the Union of Brest where its indicated that a group if illerate people undertood enough to think that RC theology was superior!  Or why they wouldn't want to accept the western Latin Rites if they were so superior!

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2010, 07:32:29 PM »

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs.

That could not be because he converted to Catholicism, could it?


That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt.   Moscow had been conquered by the Poles.   The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches.  The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles  The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen.  He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne.  He serves the Liturgy for Easter.  He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State.  That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation.   The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city.  They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York.  He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States. 
I am interested in the source for saying that the Poles had put Ignatius as Patriarch? I thought that it was Feodor II of Russia, the son of Boris Godunov, who had appointed him patriarch, with the consent of the Orthodox bishops, on June 30, 1605?
It seems to me quite unlikely that the Poles would endorse a fierce opponent of Catholicism, such as Ignatius was at that time of June 30, 1605. 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2010, 07:40:01 PM »

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs.

That could not be because he converted to Catholicism, could it?


That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt.   Moscow had been conquered by the Poles.   The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches.  The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles  The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen.  He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne.  He serves the Liturgy for Easter.  He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State.  That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation.   The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city.  They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York.  He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States. 
I am interested in the source for saying that the Poles had put Ignatius as Patriarch? I thought that it was Feodor II of Russia, the son of Boris Godunov, who had appointed him patriarch, with the consent of the Orthodox bishops, on June 30, 1605?
It seems to me quite unlikely that the Poles would endorse a fierce opponent of Catholicism, such as Ignatius was at that time of June 30, 1605. 

Oh here we go!! More of that revisionist Catholic white-wash history!!....Really!!   Grin

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2010, 07:43:29 PM »

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs.

That could not be because he converted to Catholicism, could it?


That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt.   Moscow had been conquered by the Poles.   The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches.  The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles  The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen.  He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne.  He serves the Liturgy for Easter.  He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State.  That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation.   The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city.  They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York.  He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States. 
I am interested in the source for saying that the Poles had put Ignatius as Patriarch? I thought that it was Feodor II of Russia, the son of Boris Godunov, who had appointed him patriarch, with the consent of the Orthodox bishops, on June 30, 1605?
It seems to me quite unlikely that the Poles would endorse a fierce opponent of Catholicism, such as Ignatius was at that time of June 30, 1605. 

I cannot find the same site where I obtained that information last night but here is something similar

"A History of Russian Christianity Volume II the Patriarchal Era Through Tsar"

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=InHJfUAp0OEC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=ignatius+patriarch+poles+moscow+450+churches&source=bl&ots=bZRgjx_NQs&sig=vwrzVz5DZrqq_qynBBQNVuI0zko&hl=en&ei=2iTzS-zgMYfitgOfz53RAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ignatius%20patriarch%20poles%20moscow%20450%20churches&f=false

By the way if you are familiar with Shubin's recent books you will know that he is very anti-Russian Church.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 07:45:43 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 933


« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2010, 07:52:33 PM »

Quote
Oh here we go!! More of that revisionist Catholic white-wash history!!....Really!!   

M.
 
 
Mary,
Maybe you never studied Russian history at university.  I have a degree in Russian & East European History from a secular university.
These are just historic facts about Russian history, not revisonist anti-Catholic history.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2010, 08:01:01 PM »

Quote
Oh here we go!! More of that revisionist Catholic white-wash history!!....Really!!   

M.
 
 
Mary,
Maybe you never studied Russian history at university.  I have a degree in Russian & East European History from a secular university.
These are just historic facts about Russian history, not revisonist anti-Catholic history.

 That's wonderful Orest!!  I wish I had your language skills.  There are basic facts that are indisputable!  I am trained in history and philosophy and theology, but a different part of the world for history.  My Russian history has been taught to me ad hoc by a Russian Catholic...that is not to say I am anything BUT a neophyte!!

M.
Logged

Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 933


« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2010, 09:10:45 PM »

Quote
Oh here we go!! More of that revisionist Catholic white-wash history!!....Really!!   

M.
 
 
Mary,
Maybe you never studied Russian history at university.  I have a degree in Russian & East European History from a secular university.
These are just historic facts about Russian history, not revisonist anti-Catholic history.

 That's wonderful Orest!!  I wish I had your language skills.  There are basic facts that are indisputable!  I am trained in history and philosophy and theology, but a different part of the world for history.  My Russian history has been taught to me ad hoc by a Russian Catholic...that is not to say I am anything BUT a neophyte!!

M.

I am referring only to the historical facts about the hierarch mentioned as "Patriarch Ignatius".
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2010, 09:58:55 PM »

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs.

That could not be because he converted to Catholicism, could it?


That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt.   Moscow had been conquered by the Poles.   The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches.  The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles  The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen.  He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne.  He serves the Liturgy for Easter.  He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State.  That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation.   The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city.  They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York.  He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States. 
I am interested in the source for saying that the Poles had put Ignatius as Patriarch? I thought that it was Feodor II of Russia, the son of Boris Godunov, who had appointed him patriarch, with the consent of the Orthodox bishops, on June 30, 1605?
It seems to me quite unlikely that the Poles would endorse a fierce opponent of Catholicism, such as Ignatius was at that time of June 30, 1605. 

I cannot find the same site where I obtained that information last night but here is something similar

"A History of Russian Christianity Volume II the Patriarchal Era Through Tsar"

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=InHJfUAp0OEC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=ignatius+patriarch+poles+moscow+450+churches&source=bl&ots=bZRgjx_NQs&sig=vwrzVz5DZrqq_qynBBQNVuI0zko&hl=en&ei=2iTzS-zgMYfitgOfz53RAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ignatius%20patriarch%20poles%20moscow%20450%20churches&f=false

By the way if you are familiar with Shubin's recent books you will know that he is very anti-Russian Church.

Dear Father Ambrose:
  Thank you so kindly for this source of Shubin. It is really pretty interesting to read these and other details of Russian history. It does say though, that an ecclesiastical assembly at Uspenski Cathedral had unanimously chosen Ignatius as patriarch of Moscow. This version of the events says that this decision was made under pressure from the false Dimitri. It gives no indication of what Tsar Feodor had thought about it. At least, I didn't see it yet. Wiki says Ignatius was strongly anti-Catholic at the time, but i don't see anything about that here either. So there is misinformation somewhere along the line. 
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 10:05:16 PM by stanley123 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #80 on: May 19, 2010, 01:32:35 AM »

error
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 01:36:46 AM by stanley123 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #81 on: May 19, 2010, 01:38:33 AM »

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time. 
So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?
No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc
LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king.  Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

There are some studies that suggest that the false Dimitri was not really false at all, but the actual son of Ivan the terrible.  For one example, there is the book by Kostomarov: Kto byl pervy Lzedimitrij?
According to Kostomarov, Demetrius was convinced that he was of royal origin, and when Shuiski  said that he was not Ivan’s son, Demetrius summoned a assembly of Russia to look at these charges. Why would he have done this, if he were not convinced of his royal origin. And further, the assembly unanimously sentenced Shuiski to death, but Demetrius pardoned him. Why would Demetrius have pardoned his enemy Shuiski, unless Demetrius believed that the evidence that Shuiski had against him would not stand up?
And further, there is an article in volume 60, number 4 of the Slavic Review: “Who Was Tsar Dmitrii?”
“Chester Dunning
In this article, Dunning challenges traditional scholarship concerning the identity and character of Tsar Dmitrii (reigned 1605¬06), better known as the "False Dmitrii"--the only tsar ever raised to the Russian throne by means of a military campaign and popular uprisings. Usually dismissed as a frivolous imposter who was despised by his subjects for being a tool of Polish intervention in Russia's Time of Troubles, Tsar Dmitrii turns out to have been a charismatic, well-educated warrior-prince who was revered by many of his subjects. Furthermore, he truly believed that he was the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. This article deconstructs the legends and scholarship identifying Tsar Dmitrii as the lascivious and bloodthirsty monk-sorcerer, Grishka Otrep'ev and demonstrates that the faulty image of Tsar Dmitrii has been shaped by historians' overreliance on folklore and on the propaganda manufactured by Dmitrii's enemies. Dunning calls for a new biography of this mysterious and controversial ruler.”
http://www.slavicreview.illinois.edu/indexes/vol60/abstracts4.html
•   Who Was Tsar Dmitrii?
•   Chester Dunning
•   Slavic Review, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Winter, 2001), pp. 705-729
•   Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #82 on: May 19, 2010, 08:12:29 AM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

Irish Hermit,
I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians.  
Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.

17 executions IIRC.  That the Polish state took out the stick isn't a suprise: the "Union," after all, was state policy, and Kuntsevich was still the King's man.  Odd that if Vitebsk felt he was so holy, that it remained so Orthodox.

Quote
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Since the Orthodox officially ceased to exist in 1592, very odd that they were around to be eyewitnesses and swear testimony. Could Orthodox legally give testimony, being non-existent? Or is this "Orthodox in communion with Rome?"  The PL king only bent to reality in 1632, nearly two decades after the events.  Was perjury for the beatification part of the deal to relegalize the Orthodox?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #83 on: May 19, 2010, 08:16:00 AM »

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time. 
So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?
No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc
LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king.  Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

There are some studies that suggest that the false Dimitri was not really false at all, but the actual son of Ivan the terrible.  For one example, there is the book by Kostomarov: Kto byl pervy Lzedimitrij?
According to Kostomarov, Demetrius was convinced that he was of royal origin, and when Shuiski  said that he was not Ivan’s son, Demetrius summoned a assembly of Russia to look at these charges. Why would he have done this, if he were not convinced of his royal origin. And further, the assembly unanimously sentenced Shuiski to death, but Demetrius pardoned him. Why would Demetrius have pardoned his enemy Shuiski, unless Demetrius believed that the evidence that Shuiski had against him would not stand up?
Saddam Hussein used to frequently call assemblies to show how popular he was.  What he did was pull out opponents (who disappeared, everyone knew where) in front of a crowd he knew had control of.  What use did the false czar have for Shuiski?  There would lie your answer.
Logged

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #84 on: May 19, 2010, 08:56:58 AM »

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

Irish Hermit,
I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians.  
Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.

17 executions IIRC.  That the Polish state took out the stick isn't a suprise: the "Union," after all, was state policy, and Kuntsevich was still the King's man.  Odd that if Vitebsk felt he was so holy, that it remained so Orthodox.

Quote
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Since the Orthodox officially ceased to exist in 1592, very odd that they were around to be eyewitnesses and swear testimony. Could Orthodox legally give testimony, being non-existent? Or is this "Orthodox in communion with Rome?"  The PL king only bent to reality in 1632, nearly two decades after the events.  Was perjury for the beatification part of the deal to relegalize the Orthodox?

Reply:  A very good question!  Especially since not only was the Orthodox Church non-existent but to claim to be Orthodox was still considered an act of treason against the state.  Did the Polish state grant some type of immunity to these people who suddenly admitted to being Orthodox?
Did the Polish government validate testimony from people who were 'enemies of the state'?


Ref:  The Council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596.  In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox Churches in the city, the now Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev sealed all Orthodox Churches  on the day before the Council was to begin, except for the cathedral where the Council was to take place.  The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with prince Ostrozhskii and his private  army at the head.  Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school for a separate Orthodox  Council.  The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council.  The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes.  But the Polish  King decided otherwise:  his edict of October 15, LEGALIZED ONLY THOSE BYZANTINE RITE CHRISTIANS WHO JOINED THE UNIA;  IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL ITS CLERGY EXCOMMUNICATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #85 on: May 19, 2010, 11:12:56 AM »

The Greek Catholic Church was outlawed by Soviets but it never ceased to exist.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2010, 11:34:31 AM »

The Greek Catholic Church was outlawed by Soviets but it never ceased to exist.
are we finally getting an admission 1596=1946.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2010, 11:53:14 AM »

They cannot be directly compared, the relation between Church and State differed completely.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #88 on: May 19, 2010, 12:13:38 PM »

They cannot be directly compared, the relation between Church and State differed completely.
yes, the PL King was the loyal son of the Vatican and doing its will, and the Russian Church was enduring presecusion while continuing the call of the wayward sheep home as had started in the days of SS. Alexis Toth and Kabaliuk.

So, still in denial?
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Greek Catholic Archeparchy of Przemyśl–Warsaw
Posts: 30


St Sharbel pray for us


« Reply #89 on: May 19, 2010, 06:20:13 PM »

Although my English isn't so good it try to say something in this topic.

The Union of Best could happen due to the conflict in Orthodoxy on the territory of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1589 the Patriarch Jeremias II established the Moscow patriarchate, it made that Bishops lost their confidence to Ecumenical Patriarch and in the next year they refused to obey of the Patriarch of Constantinopole. Then they started their efforts to unite which Roman Catholic Church.
It's not like the King of someone in "Rzeczypospolita (Comonwealth)" ordered to establish this Union but circumstances of those time allowed for such step. I wanted only to notice that standart of Orthodoxy before the Union was terrible (common poligamy of bishops, ignorancy of the Clergy etc). And in the matter of fact becouse of this agreement later the Rutheanian Orthodoxy in the person of Peter Mogila climbed to the top.
If someone is interested. below is link to my blog and there is a short repord of feast of Josaphat Kuntsevych (Jozafat Kuncewicz) from Warsaw (Nov 2008) (unfortunately in Polish Sad )
http://christianos.pl/?p=1013
Logged

Господи Ісусе Христе, Сину Божий, помилуй мене грішного.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #90 on: May 19, 2010, 08:12:44 PM »

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time. 
So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?
No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc
LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king.  Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

There are some studies that suggest that the false Dimitri was not really false at all, but the actual son of Ivan the terrible.  For one example, there is the book by Kostomarov: Kto byl pervy Lzedimitrij?
According to Kostomarov, Demetrius was convinced that he was of royal origin, and when Shuiski  said that he was not Ivan’s son, Demetrius summoned a assembly of Russia to look at these charges. Why would he have done this, if he were not convinced of his royal origin. And further, the assembly unanimously sentenced Shuiski to death, but Demetrius pardoned him. Why would Demetrius have pardoned his enemy Shuiski, unless Demetrius believed that the evidence that Shuiski had against him would not stand up?
Saddam Hussein used to frequently call assemblies to show how popular he was.  What he did was pull out opponents (who disappeared, everyone knew where) in front of a crowd he knew had control of.  What use did the false czar have for Shuiski?  There would lie your answer.
That is more nonsense. Shuiski was up for execution and Dimitri commuted his sentence and let him go free, in spite of the fact that Shuiski was hostile to him personally. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #91 on: May 19, 2010, 11:22:22 PM »

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc
LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king.  Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

No. Not true.
This rumor is part of the historical vilification campaign waged against Dimitri. According to the following sources, Dimitri  was Russian and not Polish. See for example, Jacques Margeret, The Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of Muscovy, p. 80, 83; Howe, False Dimitri; Nikolai Kostomarov, Smutnoe vremia Moskovskogo gosudarstva v nachale XVII stolettiia (St. Petersburg 1904), p. 642; Solov’ev, Istoriia, 4:406; S. F. Platonov, Stat’i  po Russkoi istorii (St. Petersburg 1912), p. 276; S. M. Troitskii, Samozvantsy v Rossi XVII-XVIII vekov, Voprosy istorii, 1969, no. 3, p. 135; M.N. Tikhomirov, Samozvanshchina, Nauka I zhizen 1969, no 1, p. 119.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 20, 2010, 10:06:00 AM »

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc
LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king.  Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

No. Not true.
This rumor is part of the historical vilification campaign waged against Dimitri. According to the following sources, Dimitri  was Russian and not Polish. See for example, Jacques Margeret, The Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of Muscovy, p. 80, 83; Howe, False Dimitri; Nikolai Kostomarov, Smutnoe vremia Moskovskogo gosudarstva v nachale XVII stolettiia (St. Petersburg 1904), p. 642; Solov’ev, Istoriia, 4:406; S. F. Platonov, Stat’i  po Russkoi istorii (St. Petersburg 1912), p. 276; S. M. Troitskii, Samozvantsy v Rossi XVII-XVIII vekov, Voprosy istorii, 1969, no. 3, p. 135; M.N. Tikhomirov, Samozvanshchina, Nauka I zhizen 1969, no 1, p. 119.

I was under the impression that Ialmisry was the Orthodox history scholar on the board?  Is that not the case?

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #93 on: May 20, 2010, 11:57:43 AM »

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc
LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king.  Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

No. Not true.
This rumor is part of the historical vilification campaign waged against Dimitri. According to the following sources, Dimitri  was Russian and not Polish. See for example, Jacques Margeret, The Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of Muscovy, p. 80, 83; Howe, False Dimitri; Nikolai Kostomarov, Smutnoe vremia Moskovskogo gosudarstva v nachale XVII stolettiia (St. Petersburg 1904), p. 642; Solov’ev, Istoriia, 4:406; S. F. Platonov, Stat’i  po Russkoi istorii (St. Petersburg 1912), p. 276; S. M. Troitskii, Samozvantsy v Rossi XVII-XVIII vekov, Voprosy istorii, 1969, no. 3, p. 135; M.N. Tikhomirov, Samozvanshchina, Nauka I zhizen 1969, no 1, p. 119.

I was under the impression that Ialmisry was the Orthodox history scholar on the board?  Is that not the case?

M.
Yes, your point?
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #94 on: May 20, 2010, 04:14:15 PM »

and in the next year they refused to obey of the Patriarch of Constantinopole.

First heard of it. Any sources?


Quote
I wanted only to notice that standart of Orthodoxy before the Union was terrible (common poligamy of bishops, ignorancy of the Clergy etc).

It's a false stereotype. There weren't many differences in the education of pre-Trent RCC and Orthodox clergy. In the second half of 16th century there were activities taken to improve the education of the clergy (Academy of Ostrog).

Could you also give any example of 'a polygamous Bishop'?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 04:15:14 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #95 on: May 20, 2010, 05:58:07 PM »

and in the next year they refused to obey of the Patriarch of Constantinopole.

First heard of it. Any sources?


Quote
I wanted only to notice that standart of Orthodoxy before the Union was terrible (common poligamy of bishops, ignorancy of the Clergy etc).

It's a false stereotype. There weren't many differences in the education of pre-Trent RCC and Orthodox clergy. In the second half of 16th century there were activities taken to improve the education of the clergy (Academy of Ostrog).

Could you also give any example of 'a polygamous Bishop'?

Perhaps you should be asking youself WHY!  In those days the churches and seminaries, clergy, professors, etc. were paid by the government.  When the territory came under RC rule, the first thing the new RC government did was to undermine the Orthodox Church by not providing the necessary finances to support the church and educational institutions which had an  effect both the morale of the Hierachs and clergy.  Seminarians had to be approved by the government & bishops approved before they were consecrated.  Many of those applying for seminary were not religiously motivated but trying to learn to read and write.  These were the people chosen and approved by the government.

So many of those who support the Unia don't want to go back far enough to see the many reasons besides force and deceit that produced it.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #96 on: May 20, 2010, 06:28:08 PM »

and in the next year they refused to obey of the Patriarch of Constantinopole.

First heard of it. Any sources?
I've held off commenting, but since you said something, I'd like to know if this is no more than projecting back the present divide between the Ukrainians and the Russians.
Logged

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

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #97 on: May 20, 2010, 10:49:46 PM »

If Josaphat is not a saint (Or, at least in Heaven) then how does he supposedly work miracles?

I know not much about his life other then some GC apologetic material that I've read and some OC criticism, but he was canonized after all?
Logged

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #98 on: May 20, 2010, 11:39:01 PM »

If Josaphat is not a saint (Or, at least in Heaven) then how does he supposedly work miracles?

You've heard of Jannes and Jambres?



Quote
I know not much about his life other then some GC apologetic material that I've read and some OC criticism, but he was canonized after all?
By the Vatican, to please the Polish Latin hierarchy.  We are not impressed.
Logged

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

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #99 on: May 21, 2010, 12:38:25 AM »

Quote from: Robb on Yesterday at 10:49:46 PM
If Josaphat is not a saint (Or, at least in Heaven) then how does he supposedly work miracles?

You've heard of Jannes and Jambres?

Actually no, I haven't.
Logged

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
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,199


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #100 on: May 21, 2010, 12:56:31 AM »

Jannes and Jambres were court magicians to Pharaoh, during the time of Moses. Their "miracles" are described in Exodus ch 7; they are mentioned by name in 2 Tim. 3:8.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #101 on: May 21, 2010, 01:14:01 AM »

I wouldn't put it Passed the catholic church after stitching him up,they dipping him in a vat of wax sculpting him, and walla it a miracle un-corrupted...... Grin
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 01:42:12 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
griego catolico
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 225

...for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord.


« Reply #102 on: May 21, 2010, 01:51:14 AM »

I wouldn't put it Passed the catholic church after stitching him up,that dipping him in a vat of wax sculpting him, and walla it a miracle un-corrupted...... Grin

How sad to see Orthodox Christians still taking pot shots at Saint Josaphat. Sad

It is fact based on sworn testimonies that Orthodox Christians regarded him as a holy man and that the accusations against him were completely false. Plus, are we forgetting that Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky, who persecuted Saint Josaphat, converted as a result of his martyrdom?

Why do you avoid discussing these facts?

What Mark Twain once said is applicable here: ""A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." 

The words of Our Lord are even more to the point: "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved." (Matthew 10:22)

I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.
 
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #103 on: May 21, 2010, 02:04:35 AM »

I wouldn't put it Passed the catholic church after stitching him up,that dipping him in a vat of wax sculpting him, and walla it a miracle un-corrupted...... Grin

How sad to see Orthodox Christians still taking pot shots at Saint Josaphat. Sad

It is fact based on sworn testimonies that Orthodox Christians regarded him as a holy man and that the accusations against him were completely false.

How can non-existent Orthodox (the Orthodox having ceased to exist in 1596  Roll Eyes) swear to anything, in particular as they had no legal standing? Is the sotry of the Orthodox joyfully flocking to submit to the Vatican also based on such "testimony?"


Quote
Plus, are we forgetting that Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky, who persecuted Saint Josaphat, converted as a result of his martyrdom?

Are we forgetting that someone trying to save his own neck can say all manner of things?
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&dq=Meletij+Smotritsky+Kuntsevich&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Meletij%20Smotritsky%20Kuntsevich&f=false

Quote
Why do you avoid discussing these facts?

Because they are not, much like the "Happy Union" fables.

Quote
What Mark Twain once said is applicable here: ""A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."  

The words of Our Lord are even more to the point: "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved." (Matthew 10:22)

I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.

He's beyond your opinion, but has anyone even accused him of mass murder?
 
Quote
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!
Lord, by the prayers of Your saint Father Alexis, save us from such.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 02:04:53 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #104 on: May 21, 2010, 02:26:09 AM »

A Orthodox person would have to be insane, to accept or venerate some one that destroyed our Holy Orthodox churches and faithful....... Grin
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 933


« Reply #105 on: May 21, 2010, 09:46:42 PM »

Quote
I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.
 
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!

St. Alexis Toth does not personally persecute Christians of other denominations not have the support of the government behind him.  There is no comparison.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #106 on: May 21, 2010, 11:13:42 PM »

Quote
I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.
 
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!

St. Alexis Toth does not personally persecute Christians of other denominations not have the support of the government behind him.  There is no comparison.
Wikipedia has a revealing article on him. Here is part:
...............................................................................................
"As a *{Byzantine Catholic)* , Toth honored the custom that required him to visit the local Roman Catholic bishop in his new area, even though as a Ruthenian Catholic he had been given authority to serve in Minneapolis by his own prelate and did not require the Roman bishop's permission to function as a priest there. The Catholic bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis at this time was John Ireland, who was involved in attempts to "Americanize" German and other Catholic immigrants, and who desired the expulsion of all *(Byzantine Catholic)* clergy from the United States. When speaking of their meeting, Toth later reported that Bishop Ireland became angry and threw Toth's priestly credentials onto his table while ardently protesting his presence in the city. Ireland even insisted that neither Toth nor his bishop were Catholic at all, in clear contradiction of the Union of Brest and Papal decrees to the contrary. Toth reported that the conversation became more heated as it progressed, with both men losing their tempers.
Ireland refused to give Toth permission to serve as a priest in Minneapolis, although such permission was not legally required under Catholic law (as Toth was Ruthenian Catholic, and thus under a separate synod of bishops from the Roman Catholic church). He furthermore ordered the Roman Catholic parishes and priests in the city not to have anything to do with Toth or his parishioners."
...................................................................................

This is beyond outrageous. No wonder Father Toth converted to Russian Orthodoxy.
N.B. Original article in wikipedia has the U word instead of *(Byzantine Catholic)*. I changed it because of the policy of the board, so it is not a completely 100% accurate quote from wikipedia. But the full article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Toth
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 11:23:08 PM by stanley123 » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 21, 2010, 11:19:35 PM »

Quote
I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.
 
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!

St. Alexis Toth does not personally persecute Christians of other denominations not have the support of the government behind him.  There is no comparison.
Wikipedia has a revealing article on him. Here is part:
"As a Uniate, Toth honored the custom that required him to visit the local Roman Catholic bishop in his new area, even though as a Ruthenian Catholic he had been given authority to serve in Minneapolis by his own prelate and did not require the Roman bishop's permission to function as a priest there. The Catholic bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis at this time was John Ireland, who was involved in attempts to "Americanize" German and other Catholic immigrants, and who desired the expulsion of all Uniate clergy from the United States. When speaking of their meeting, Toth later reported that Bishop Ireland became angry and threw Toth's priestly credentials onto his table while ardently protesting his presence in the city. Ireland even insisted that neither Toth nor his bishop were Catholic at all, in clear contradiction of the Union of Brest and Papal decrees to the contrary. Toth reported that the conversation became more heated as it progressed, with both men losing their tempers.

Ireland refused to give Toth permission to serve as a priest in Minneapolis, although such permission was not legally required under Catholic law (as Toth was Ruthenian Catholic, and thus under a separate synod of bishops from the Roman Catholic church). He furthermore ordered the Roman Catholic parishes and priests in the city not to have anything to do with Toth or his parishioners."
This is beyond outrageous. No wonder Father Toth converted to Russian Orthodoxy.


It depends. The bishops may or may not have been justified. I have encountered a number of "Eastern Catholics" nowadays who blatantly repudiate the dogmatic tradition of Rome.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 11:20:02 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: May 22, 2010, 01:47:54 AM »

Quote
I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.
 
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!

St. Alexis Toth does not personally persecute Christians of other denominations not have the support of the government behind him.  There is no comparison.
Wikipedia has a revealing article on him. Here is part:
"As a Uniate, Toth honored the custom that required him to visit the local Roman Catholic bishop in his new area, even though as a Ruthenian Catholic he had been given authority to serve in Minneapolis by his own prelate and did not require the Roman bishop's permission to function as a priest there. The Catholic bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis at this time was John Ireland, who was involved in attempts to "Americanize" German and other Catholic immigrants, and who desired the expulsion of all Uniate clergy from the United States. When speaking of their meeting, Toth later reported that Bishop Ireland became angry and threw Toth's priestly credentials onto his table while ardently protesting his presence in the city. Ireland even insisted that neither Toth nor his bishop were Catholic at all, in clear contradiction of the Union of Brest and Papal decrees to the contrary. Toth reported that the conversation became more heated as it progressed, with both men losing their tempers.

Ireland refused to give Toth permission to serve as a priest in Minneapolis, although such permission was not legally required under Catholic law (as Toth was Ruthenian Catholic, and thus under a separate synod of bishops from the Roman Catholic church). He furthermore ordered the Roman Catholic parishes and priests in the city not to have anything to do with Toth or his parishioners."
This is beyond outrageous. No wonder Father Toth converted to Russian Orthodoxy.


It depends. The bishops may or may not have been justified. I have encountered a number of "Eastern Catholics" nowadays who blatantly repudiate the dogmatic tradition of Rome.

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 22, 2010, 08:39:26 AM »

Quote
I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.
 
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!

St. Alexis Toth does not personally persecute Christians of other denominations not have the support of the government behind him.  There is no comparison.
Wikipedia has a revealing article on him. Here is part:
"As a Uniate, Toth honored the custom that required him to visit the local Roman Catholic bishop in his new area, even though as a Ruthenian Catholic he had been given authority to serve in Minneapolis by his own prelate and did not require the Roman bishop's permission to function as a priest there. The Catholic bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis at this time was John Ireland, who was involved in attempts to "Americanize" German and other Catholic immigrants, and who desired the expulsion of all Uniate clergy from the United States. When speaking of their meeting, Toth later reported that Bishop Ireland became angry and threw Toth's priestly credentials onto his table while ardently protesting his presence in the city. Ireland even insisted that neither Toth nor his bishop were Catholic at all, in clear contradiction of the Union of Brest and Papal decrees to the contrary. Toth reported that the conversation became more heated as it progressed, with both men losing their tempers.

Ireland refused to give Toth permission to serve as a priest in Minneapolis, although such permission was not legally required under Catholic law (as Toth was Ruthenian Catholic, and thus under a separate synod of bishops from the Roman Catholic church). He furthermore ordered the Roman Catholic parishes and priests in the city not to have anything to do with Toth or his parishioners."
This is beyond outrageous. No wonder Father Toth converted to Russian Orthodoxy.


It depends. The bishops may or may not have been justified. I have encountered a number of "Eastern Catholics" nowadays who blatantly repudiate the dogmatic tradition of Rome.

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.   Not all Slavs behave like some of the more aggressive and nasty Slavic peoples, so you cannot judge the ones who are not mean-spirited as simply submissive by comparison. 

Many Greek Catholics were deeply disturbed and still are but they see things changing and are happy for that and not regretful for remaining with what they believe to be the true Catholic Church.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #110 on: May 22, 2010, 08:53:18 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 08:54:55 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: May 22, 2010, 08:57:41 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #112 on: May 22, 2010, 09:15:21 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.   
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.

I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 22, 2010, 09:38:56 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.


I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

This is false witness.  I protest.  I have said they allow any manner of pressures from other bishops to deter them and I have called some of them venal and corrupt but I know how our episcopacy works and I have NEVER faulted a bishop for loyalty to the Catholic faith....never.

Mary
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 09:41:48 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #114 on: May 22, 2010, 09:49:24 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.   
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.


I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

This is false witness.  I protest.  I have said they allow any manner of pressures from other bishops to deter them and I have called some of them venal and corrupt but I know how our episcopacy works and I have NEVER faulted a bishop for loyalty to the Catholic faith....never.

Mary

Hmmm... nice red herring!   Did I say you have faulted bishops for their loyalty to the Catholic faith?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #115 on: May 22, 2010, 10:32:22 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.   
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.


I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

This is false witness.  I protest.  I have said they allow any manner of pressures from other bishops to deter them and I have called some of them venal and corrupt but I know how our episcopacy works and I have NEVER faulted a bishop for loyalty to the Catholic faith....never.

Mary

Hmmm... nice red herring!   Did I say you have faulted bishops for their loyalty to the Catholic faith?
What loyalty to the Catholic Faith?  They submitted to the Vatican.
Logged

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #116 on: May 22, 2010, 10:38:33 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.

I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

Mary:

Speaking of the Byzantine Catholic Forum, from your own admission you were banned from there for life!  When I used to participate, I was suspended more than once.  Usually for thirty days at a time.  But never banned for life!  Since you are the one who made it public, mind sharing with us why you received such a harsh punishment? 

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 10:39:54 AM by Orthodoc » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #117 on: May 22, 2010, 10:43:18 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.   
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.


I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

This is false witness.  I protest.  I have said they allow any manner of pressures from other bishops to deter them and I have called some of them venal and corrupt but I know how our episcopacy works and I have NEVER faulted a bishop for loyalty to the Catholic faith....never.

Mary

Hmmm... nice red herring!   Did I say you have faulted bishops for their loyalty to the Catholic faith?
What loyalty to the Catholic Faith?  They submitted to the Vatican.

I profess the same Creed that you do! and I am a Catholic and I revere the pope and look to him and to his office for guidance on many things,  and believe without question that the Mother of God was filled with the Holy Spirit from the instant of her becoming.

 Kiss
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #118 on: May 22, 2010, 10:56:12 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.   
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.


I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

This is false witness.  I protest.  I have said they allow any manner of pressures from other bishops to deter them and I have called some of them venal and corrupt but I know how our episcopacy works and I have NEVER faulted a bishop for loyalty to the Catholic faith....never.

Mary

Hmmm... nice red herring!   Did I say you have faulted bishops for their loyalty to the Catholic faith?
What loyalty to the Catholic Faith?  They submitted to the Vatican.

I profess the same Creed that you do!

Not with filioque you don't.

Quote
and I am a Catholic and I revere the pope and look to him and to his office for guidance on many things, 

after upholding the Catholic Faith on filioque, at the emperor's direction (they don't talk much about Caesaropapism in the West) he misguided you on filioque.  He has misguided you on Kuntsevich.

Quote
and believe without question that the Mother of God was filled with the Holy Spirit from the instant of her becoming.
So was the prophet Jeremiah and St. John the Baptist.  Are their feasts for their immaculate conceptions too?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #119 on: May 22, 2010, 10:56:46 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.

I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

Mary:

Speaking of the Byzantine Catholic Forum, from your own admission you were banned from there for life!  When I used to participate, I was suspended more than once.  Usually for thirty days at a time.  But never banned for life!  Since you are the one who made it public, mind sharing with us why you received such a harsh punishment? 

Orthodoc

I do not know really what caused the hardness of heart in John Vernosky.  

What I THINK started it does not bear repeating in detail.  I will give you this much.  

My spiritual father was exceptionally ill treated by a bishop.  I was irate watching my spiritual father suffer unduly and without just cause, and have to grovel to people outside of the Church just for groceries, so I began to call for the timely retirement of that bishop.  That set a number of people and priests in the diocese against me to the point where I was called at my home and harassed by them.  I had been seeking counsel with my Church for help with a vocation and I was told that my vocation was "dead in the water."  In the sense that I will ever again seek with them, they are correct.  God will provide.  There is much that is ugly in all of this and that is as much of it as I will air now.

Also I defended Catholic teaching strongly against those who would represent it falsely.  

Also I am a woman working hard in a man's world...Intellectual world.

So I was bullied as I have been bullied here.  For example Father Ambrose in an effort to best me in a discussion here has revealed something in my private life that is deeply distressing to me and that I had asked for prayers for in a semi-private forum where he was a periodic participant.  But he unloaded it here simply to make a point knowing that his comparison is apples and oranges, but he exposed my personal distress nonetheless.  I am shocked that a priest would do that simply to gain points in an argument, but one learns not to have great expectations in this life.  This is not our home and so we should not look for creature comforts.

Frankly I think John Vernosky has control issues and I challenged him for his double standard...the one he imposes on others for civil discourse but does not keep himself.  He is the one who has insisted that I never return there.  It is no loss to me.  But I think it was a combination of things and I am sorry for the times I did loose my temper but I never apologize for telling the truth as my Church has taught me over the years.

Mary

Logged

Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 933


« Reply #120 on: May 22, 2010, 11:03:08 AM »

Quote
The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?   

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.
So they are just that "proposed".  What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: May 22, 2010, 11:14:27 AM »

Quote
The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?   

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.
So they are just that "proposed".  What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".

It is true Orest and more's the pity because the reasonable understanding was that Rome agreed to the terms and it was upon those terms that the unionizing bishops agreed to come forward, and it was what the people expected as well.

It is a deep shame to the Catholic Church...this treatment of those who would accept union.  It is a very deep shame, and in some measure we deserve what we get.  But even that has limits and it has been said over and over again that it would not happen ever again.  I'd like to trust that as the truth.  I think there are many people dedicated to insuring that it does not.

Mary
Logged

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #122 on: May 22, 2010, 11:22:36 AM »

Quote
The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.
So they are just that "proposed".  What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".


If I remember correctly was signed by only 66 priests out of hundreds and not one Orthodox bishop.  All the Orthodox bishops were in prison at the time!

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 11:23:20 AM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #123 on: May 22, 2010, 11:27:03 AM »


For example Father Ambrose in an effort to best me in a discussion here has revealed something in my private life that is deeply distressing to me and that I had asked for prayers for in a semi-private forum where he was a periodic participant.  But he unloaded it here simply to make a point......

No, sweet Mary (although you caused me to be stricken with a moment of profound guilt.)  You have spoken of this publicly and on this forum on 1st May.

May I have your son's first name? I'll add him to my prayers. I've struggled with faith as well over the last few years.

Francis Barrett is his name.  He struggles with alcohol addiction.

Mary

Since you revealed that I have included his name in the Friday night Akathist to the Mother of God of the Inexhaustible Cup.  Let's pray it together, for both our suffering sons, Francis and Nicholas.

Text of this wonderful Akathist: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/services/akathist_inexhaustible_cup.htm


« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 11:31:24 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #124 on: May 22, 2010, 11:30:18 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.

I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

Mary:

Speaking of the Byzantine Catholic Forum, from your own admission you were banned from there for life!  When I used to participate, I was suspended more than once.  Usually for thirty days at a time.  But never banned for life!  Since you are the one who made it public, mind sharing with us why you received such a harsh punishment?

Orthodoc

I do not know really what caused the hardness of heart in John Vernosky.  

What I THINK started it does not bear repeating in detail.  I will give you this much.  

My spiritual father was exceptionally ill treated by a bishop.  I was irate watching my spiritual father suffer unduly and without just cause, and have to grovel to people outside of the Church just for groceries, so I began to call for the timely retirement of that bishop.  That set a number of people and priests in the diocese against me to the point where I was called at my home and harassed by them.  I had been seeking counsel with my Church for help with a vocation and I was told that my vocation was "dead in the water."  In the sense that I will ever again seek with them, they are correct.  God will provide.  There is much that is ugly in all of this and that is as much of it as I will air now.


Also I defended Catholic teaching strongly against those who would represent it falsely.  

Also I am a woman working hard in a man's world...Intellectual world.

So I was bullied as I have been bullied here.  For example Father Ambrose in an effort to best me in a discussion here has revealed something in my private life that is deeply distressing to me and that I had asked for prayers for in a semi-private forum where he was a periodic participant.  But he unloaded it here simply to make a point knowing that his comparison is apples and oranges, but he exposed my personal distress nonetheless.  I am shocked that a priest would do that simply to gain points in an argument, but one learns not to have great expectations in this life.  This is not our home and so we should not look for creature comforts.

Frankly I think John Vernosky has control issues and I challenged him for his double standard...the one he imposes on others for civil discourse but does not keep himself.  He is the one who has insisted that I never return there.  It is no loss to me.  But I think it was a combination of things and I am sorry for the times I did loose my temper but I never apologize for telling the truth as my Church has taught me over the years.

Mary



So you were also in there to try and teach them what they should believe as true Eastern Catholics In Communion With The Pope and they disagreed on what you had to say?  

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 11:31:39 AM by Orthodoc » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #125 on: May 22, 2010, 11:34:42 AM »

I apologize. I was wrong then. 

You see how deeply I am distressed by it.  I come and ask prayers of those who cause me deep hurt.

Sometimes I wonder why God has placed this burden in my heart...not my son, but the desire for union of our confessions.  I wish to heaven He had let me alone as a peaceful and good Latin Catholic.  I do not understand any of this some days.

I always have Nicholas in my prayers, and you however upset I get with you.

I can tell you now that if I had know then what I know now about the people on this Forum, I would never has asked so openly and with trust....

Mary


For example Father Ambrose in an effort to best me in a discussion here has revealed something in my private life that is deeply distressing to me and that I had asked for prayers for in a semi-private forum where he was a periodic participant.  But he unloaded it here simply to make a point......

No, sweet Mary (although you caused me to be stricken with a moment of profound guilt.)  You have spoken of this publicly and on this forum on 1st May.

May I have your son's first name? I'll add him to my prayers. I've struggled with faith as well over the last few years.

Francis Barrett is his name.  He struggles with alcohol addiction.

Mary

Since you revealed that I have included his name in the Friday night Akathist to the Mother of God of the Inexhaustible Cup.  Let's pray it together, for both our suffering sons, Francis and Nicholas.

Text of this wonderful Akathist: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/services/akathist_inexhaustible_cup.htm


[/quote]
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: May 22, 2010, 11:36:32 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.

I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

Mary:

Speaking of the Byzantine Catholic Forum, from your own admission you were banned from there for life!  When I used to participate, I was suspended more than once.  Usually for thirty days at a time.  But never banned for life!  Since you are the one who made it public, mind sharing with us why you received such a harsh punishment?

Orthodoc

I do not know really what caused the hardness of heart in John Vernosky.  

What I THINK started it does not bear repeating in detail.  I will give you this much.  

My spiritual father was exceptionally ill treated by a bishop.  I was irate watching my spiritual father suffer unduly and without just cause, and have to grovel to people outside of the Church just for groceries, so I began to call for the timely retirement of that bishop.  That set a number of people and priests in the diocese against me to the point where I was called at my home and harassed by them.  I had been seeking counsel with my Church for help with a vocation and I was told that my vocation was "dead in the water."  In the sense that I will ever again seek with them, they are correct.  God will provide.  There is much that is ugly in all of this and that is as much of it as I will air now.


Also I defended Catholic teaching strongly against those who would represent it falsely.  

Also I am a woman working hard in a man's world...Intellectual world.

So I was bullied as I have been bullied here.  For example Father Ambrose in an effort to best me in a discussion here has revealed something in my private life that is deeply distressing to me and that I had asked for prayers for in a semi-private forum where he was a periodic participant.  But he unloaded it here simply to make a point knowing that his comparison is apples and oranges, but he exposed my personal distress nonetheless.  I am shocked that a priest would do that simply to gain points in an argument, but one learns not to have great expectations in this life.  This is not our home and so we should not look for creature comforts.

Frankly I think John Vernosky has control issues and I challenged him for his double standard...the one he imposes on others for civil discourse but does not keep himself.  He is the one who has insisted that I never return there.  It is no loss to me.  But I think it was a combination of things and I am sorry for the times I did loose my temper but I never apologize for telling the truth as my Church has taught me over the years.

Mary



So you were also in there to try and teach them what they should believe as true Eastern Catholics In Communion With The Pope and they disagreed on what you had to say?  

Orthodoc

Make it look as ugly as you like lovie.  It is your soul, not mine.   I happen to have some understanding of what it is the Latin Church DOES teach and so when I find it being mutilated, I will correct to the best of my ability and there is NO shame in that at all.

Mary
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 11:37:49 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #127 on: May 22, 2010, 11:42:56 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.

I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

Mary:

Speaking of the Byzantine Catholic Forum, from your own admission you were banned from there for life!  When I used to participate, I was suspended more than once.  Usually for thirty days at a time.  But never banned for life!  Since you are the one who made it public, mind sharing with us why you received such a harsh punishment?

Orthodoc

I do not know really what caused the hardness of heart in John Vernosky.  

What I THINK started it does not bear repeating in detail.  I will give you this much.  

My spiritual father was exceptionally ill treated by a bishop.  I was irate watching my spiritual father suffer unduly and without just cause, and have to grovel to people outside of the Church just for groceries, so I began to call for the timely retirement of that bishop.  That set a number of people and priests in the diocese against me to the point where I was called at my home and harassed by them.  I had been seeking counsel with my Church for help with a vocation and I was told that my vocation was "dead in the water."  In the sense that I will ever again seek with them, they are correct.  God will provide.  There is much that is ugly in all of this and that is as much of it as I will air now.


Also I defended Catholic teaching strongly against those who would represent it falsely.  

Also I am a woman working hard in a man's world...Intellectual world.

So I was bullied as I have been bullied here.  For example Father Ambrose in an effort to best me in a discussion here has revealed something in my private life that is deeply distressing to me and that I had asked for prayers for in a semi-private forum where he was a periodic participant.  But he unloaded it here simply to make a point knowing that his comparison is apples and oranges, but he exposed my personal distress nonetheless.  I am shocked that a priest would do that simply to gain points in an argument, but one learns not to have great expectations in this life.  This is not our home and so we should not look for creature comforts.

Frankly I think John Vernosky has control issues and I challenged him for his double standard...the one he imposes on others for civil discourse but does not keep himself.  He is the one who has insisted that I never return there.  It is no loss to me.  But I think it was a combination of things and I am sorry for the times I did loose my temper but I never apologize for telling the truth as my Church has taught me over the years.

Mary



So you were also in there to try and teach them what they should believe as true Eastern Catholics In Communion With The Pope and they disagreed on what you had to say?  

Orthodoc

Make it look as ugly as you like lovie.  It is your soul, not mine.   I happen to have some understanding of what it is the Latin Church DOES teach and so when I find it being mutilated, I will correct to the best of my ability and there is NO shame in that at all.

Mary

Gee, does the pope know what an expert you are on Roman Catholic theology.  How about your martyr complex?

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: May 22, 2010, 11:55:55 AM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect.

Of course it is a slap in the face to call those who remained as Greek Catholics submissive.    
.

My dear lady,  it is considered a very praiseworthy virtue to be submissive to Rome and the Supreme Pontiff.  This is stressed innumerable times in the canon law of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Churches, and in more encyclicals than you can shake a stick at..

The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?  laugh

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

Send these kinds of raspberries to our bishops and monks..... laugh   Play this at a level that isn't safe and then come back to me.

I have seen you complaining on other venues that your bishops are lickspittles for Rome.   Other well educated Eastern Catholics (including a priest or two) writing on Eastern Forums say the same things.

Mary:

Speaking of the Byzantine Catholic Forum, from your own admission you were banned from there for life!  When I used to participate, I was suspended more than once.  Usually for thirty days at a time.  But never banned for life!  Since you are the one who made it public, mind sharing with us why you received such a harsh punishment?

Orthodoc

I do not know really what caused the hardness of heart in John Vernosky.  

What I THINK started it does not bear repeating in detail.  I will give you this much.  

My spiritual father was exceptionally ill treated by a bishop.  I was irate watching my spiritual father suffer unduly and without just cause, and have to grovel to people outside of the Church just for groceries, so I began to call for the timely retirement of that bishop.  That set a number of people and priests in the diocese against me to the point where I was called at my home and harassed by them.  I had been seeking counsel with my Church for help with a vocation and I was told that my vocation was "dead in the water."  In the sense that I will ever again seek with them, they are correct.  God will provide.  There is much that is ugly in all of this and that is as much of it as I will air now.


Also I defended Catholic teaching strongly against those who would represent it falsely.  

Also I am a woman working hard in a man's world...Intellectual world.

So I was bullied as I have been bullied here.  For example Father Ambrose in an effort to best me in a discussion here has revealed something in my private life that is deeply distressing to me and that I had asked for prayers for in a semi-private forum where he was a periodic participant.  But he unloaded it here simply to make a point knowing that his comparison is apples and oranges, but he exposed my personal distress nonetheless.  I am shocked that a priest would do that simply to gain points in an argument, but one learns not to have great expectations in this life.  This is not our home and so we should not look for creature comforts.

Frankly I think John Vernosky has control issues and I challenged him for his double standard...the one he imposes on others for civil discourse but does not keep himself.  He is the one who has insisted that I never return there.  It is no loss to me.  But I think it was a combination of things and I am sorry for the times I did loose my temper but I never apologize for telling the truth as my Church has taught me over the years.

Mary



So you were also in there to try and teach them what they should believe as true Eastern Catholics In Communion With The Pope and they disagreed on what you had to say?  

Orthodoc

Make it look as ugly as you like lovie.  It is your soul, not mine.   I happen to have some understanding of what it is the Latin Church DOES teach and so when I find it being mutilated, I will correct to the best of my ability and there is NO shame in that at all.

Mary

Gee, does the pope know what an expert you are on Roman Catholic theology.  How about your martyr complex?

Orthodoc

My spiritual father knows and guides me to ever deeper understanding.  Orthodox priests, monks and a bishop or two also know what I do and guide when they have the opportunity or when I ask for guidance.  I have had seminary faculty teach me in formal classes and I have had them teach me informally when I have asked. 

There is much about me that you have no idea about and so when you do this you do it as a reproach to yourself.  It is unfortunate but there it is.

Have fun!!  Smiley

Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #129 on: May 22, 2010, 06:43:05 PM »

In those days there was only the Roman Catholic Church.

Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.

They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation.

I don't know that the story makes sense if that is true. What reason would the bishop have had to not recognize Alexis as "Catholic" if he just towed the Roman line?
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #130 on: May 22, 2010, 06:46:29 PM »

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 22, 2010, 07:57:37 PM »

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #132 on: May 22, 2010, 08:01:40 PM »

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I wasn't really commenting on that personal situation. There is no criticism of you on that level.

What I was commenting on was the general issue of submission to Rome. With regards to that, a good amount of those of the Eastern rites today appear to be questioning the dogma of papal supremacy.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #133 on: May 22, 2010, 08:30:15 PM »

Quote
I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.
 
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!

St. Alexis Toth does not personally persecute Christians of other denominations not have the support of the government behind him.  There is no comparison.
Wikipedia has a revealing article on him. Here is part:
"As a Uniate, Toth honored the custom that required him to visit the local Roman Catholic bishop in his new area, even though as a Ruthenian Catholic he had been given authority to serve in Minneapolis by his own prelate and did not require the Roman bishop's permission to function as a priest there. The Catholic bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis at this time was John Ireland, who was involved in attempts to "Americanize" German and other Catholic immigrants, and who desired the expulsion of all Uniate clergy from the United States. When speaking of their meeting, Toth later reported that Bishop Ireland became angry and threw Toth's priestly credentials onto his table while ardently protesting his presence in the city. Ireland even insisted that neither Toth nor his bishop were Catholic at all, in clear contradiction of the Union of Brest and Papal decrees to the contrary. Toth reported that the conversation became more heated as it progressed, with both men losing their tempers.

Ireland refused to give Toth permission to serve as a priest in Minneapolis, although such permission was not legally required under Catholic law (as Toth was Ruthenian Catholic, and thus under a separate synod of bishops from the Roman Catholic church). He furthermore ordered the Roman Catholic parishes and priests in the city not to have anything to do with Toth or his parishioners."
This is beyond outrageous. No wonder Father Toth converted to Russian Orthodoxy.


It depends. The bishops may or may not have been justified. I have encountered a number of "Eastern Catholics" nowadays who blatantly repudiate the dogmatic tradition of Rome.
I see. This is something that I did not think about. Still, I thought that according to the Brest treaty, that the Byzantine Catholics were allowed to keep their customs.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #134 on: May 22, 2010, 08:35:07 PM »

Quote
I don't personally believe that Fr. Alexis Toth is a saint, but that does not give me permission to make such uncharitable comments about him.
 
Holy Hieromartyr Josaphat, pray for us!

St. Alexis Toth does not personally persecute Christians of other denominations not have the support of the government behind him.  There is no comparison.
Wikipedia has a revealing article on him. Here is part:
"As a Uniate, Toth honored the custom that required him to visit the local Roman Catholic bishop in his new area, even though as a Ruthenian Catholic he had been given authority to serve in Minneapolis by his own prelate and did not require the Roman bishop's permission to function as a priest there. The Catholic bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis at this time was John Ireland, who was involved in attempts to "Americanize" German and other Catholic immigrants, and who desired the expulsion of all Uniate clergy from the United States. When speaking of their meeting, Toth later reported that Bishop Ireland became angry and threw Toth's priestly credentials onto his table while ardently protesting his presence in the city. Ireland even insisted that neither Toth nor his bishop were Catholic at all, in clear contradiction of the Union of Brest and Papal decrees to the contrary. Toth reported that the conversation became more heated as it progressed, with both men losing their tempers.

Ireland refused to give Toth permission to serve as a priest in Minneapolis, although such permission was not legally required under Catholic law (as Toth was Ruthenian Catholic, and thus under a separate synod of bishops from the Roman Catholic church). He furthermore ordered the Roman Catholic parishes and priests in the city not to have anything to do with Toth or his parishioners."
This is beyond outrageous. No wonder Father Toth converted to Russian Orthodoxy.


It depends. The bishops may or may not have been justified. I have encountered a number of "Eastern Catholics" nowadays who blatantly repudiate the dogmatic tradition of Rome.
I see. This is something that I did not think about. Still, I thought that according to the Brest treaty, that the Byzantine Catholics were allowed to keep their customs.

Sure, they are. But they are not allowed to keep their dogma.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #135 on: May 22, 2010, 08:56:27 PM »

Quote
The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?   

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.
So they are just that "proposed".  What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".
Pope Clement Viii issued a bull Magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis,1 announced the union to the whole Church and in the Apostolic Letter Benedictus sit Pastor2 he addressed the Bishops of the Metropolia, informing them that the union had taken place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest
http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-124/32-documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #136 on: May 22, 2010, 09:05:30 PM »

Quote
The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?   

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.
So they are just that "proposed".  What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".
Pope Clement Viii issued a bull Magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis,1 announced the union to the whole Church and in the Apostolic Letter Benedictus sit Pastor2 he addressed the Bishops of the Metropolia, informing them that the union had taken place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest
http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-124/32-documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest



And so did he promise anything, or just register the submission?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #137 on: May 22, 2010, 09:17:37 PM »

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I wasn't really commenting on that personal situation. There is no criticism of you on that level.

What I was commenting on was the general issue of submission to Rome. With regards to that, a good amount of those of the Eastern rites today appear to be questioning the dogma of papal supremacy.

They are not questioning the dogma.  They are challenging the jurisdictional rights and privileges of the Vatican Curia to interfere in their local jurisdictions and in the lives of those Churches Rome has truly and clearly delineated as Sister Churches during John Paul II's ponitficate.  It is a legitimate scuffle.

They don't have much to worry about with Pope St. Benedict but they DO have a long row to hoe with some of the members of the Curial secretariats.  

If I might be so bold as to say these things without finding some citation to support them.  If not then I'll withdraw.

M.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 09:19:21 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #138 on: May 22, 2010, 09:27:44 PM »

From Apostolic Letter on the Fourth Centenary of the Union of Brest from John Paul II:

http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-124/32-documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest

In search of unity

2. The celebrations commemorating the Union of Brest must be seen in the context of the Millennium of the Baptism of the Rus'. Seven years ago, in 1988, that event was celebrated with great solemnity. For the occasion I published two documents: the Apostolic Letter Euntes in mundum of 25 January 1988,5 for the whole Church, and the Message Magnum Baptismi donum, of 14 February of the same year,6 addressed to Ukrainian Catholics. It was an occasion for celebrating a moment of fundamental importance for the Christian and cultural identity of those peoples, a moment of unique significance, since at that time the Churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Church of Rome were still living in full communion.

After the division which damaged the unity between the West and the Byzantine East, frequent and intense efforts were made to restore full communion. I wish to mention two particularly significant events: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and above all the Council of Florence in 1439, when protocols of union with the Eastern Churches were signed. Unfortunately, various causes prevented the promise and potential of those agreements from being realized.

The Bishops of the Metropolia of Kiev, in restoring communion with Rome, made explicit reference to the decisions of the Council of Florence, a Council which had numbered among its participants representatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In this context, the figure of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev stands out. As a faithful interpreter and defender of the decisions of that Council, he had to endure exile for his convictions.

The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage.

Between persecutionand growth

3. After the union, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church enjoyed a period in which its ecclesiastical structures flourished, with resulting benefits for religious life, the education of the clergy and the spiritual commitment of the faithful. With remarkable farsightedness, great importance was attached to education. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Basilian Order and other Religious Congregations, there was a great growth in the study of the sacred sciences and the nation's culture. In the present century, a figure of extraordinary prestige, in this regard as well as in his witness of suffering borne for Christ, was Metropolitan Andrii Sheptyckyi, whose education and fine spiritual qualities were combined with outstanding organizational gifts. He founded schools and academies, supported theological studies and the human sciences, the press and sacred art, and sought to preserve historical memories.

And yet, all this ecclesial vitality was continually marked by the tragedy of misunderstanding and opposition. An illustrious victim in this regard was the Archbishop of Polock and Vitebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych, whose martyrdom merited the unfading crown of eternal glory. His body now lies in the Vatican Basilica, where it is continuously venerated with devotion and gratitude by Catholics from throughout the world.

The difficulties and trials continued unabated. Pope Pius XII recalled them in the Encyclical Letter Orientales omnes. After describing the earlier persecutions, he predicted the tragic persecution which would take place under the atheistic regime.7

Outstanding among the heroic witnesses to the rights not only of the faith but also of human conscience in those difficult years is the figure of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj: his courage in enduring exile and prison for 18 years and his indomitable confidence in the resurrection of his Church make him one of the most powerful figures among the confessors of the faith in our time. Nor should his many companions in punishment be forgotten, particularly Bishops Hryhory Khomyshyn and Josaphat Kocylowskyj.

These tempestuous events shook the Church in the homeland to its roots. But Divine Providence had already begun to make it possible for many of its members to find a way of escape for themselves and their people. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, great waves of emigrants began to cross the ocean, settling above all in Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. The Holy See took care to be close to them, by providing assistance and establishing pastoral structures for them in their new homes, including the establishment of their own Eparchies. At the time of trial, during the atheistic persecution in their native land, the voice of these believers could thus be raised, in full freedom, with strength and courage. In the international forum they defended the right of their persecuted brethren to religious freedom, and thus strengthened the Second Vatican Council's appeal for religious freedom,8 and the efforts made in this regard by the Holy See.

4. The whole Catholic Community recalls with deep emotion the victims of such great suffering: the martyrs and confessors of the faith of the Church in Ukraine offer us a magnificent lesson in fidelity even at the price of life itself. And we, the favoured witnesses of their sacrifice, are aware that they helped to maintain the dignity of a world which seemed overwhelmed by atrocities. They knew the truth, and the truth set them free. Christians in Europe and throughout the world, pausing in prayer before the concentration camps and prisons, should be grateful for the light which they gave: it was the light of Christ, which they caused to shine in the darkness. For long years the darkness seemed in the eyes of the world to prevail, but it was not able to extinguish that light, which was the light of God and the light of man, wounded but not laid low.

This inheritance of suffering and glory today stands at a historic crossroads: now that the chains of imprisonment have been broken, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has begun again to breathe in freedom and to regain fully its own active role in the Church and in history. This task, difficult yet providential, today calls for particular reflection, that it may be carried out with wisdom and farsightedness.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #139 on: May 22, 2010, 09:57:32 PM »

From Apostolic Letter on the Fourth Centenary of the Union of Brest from John Paul II:

http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-124/32-documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest

In search of unity

2. The celebrations commemorating the Union of Brest must be seen in the context of the Millennium of the Baptism of the Rus'. Seven years ago, in 1988, that event was celebrated with great solemnity. For the occasion I published two documents: the Apostolic Letter Euntes in mundum of 25 January 1988,5 for the whole Church, and the Message Magnum Baptismi donum, of 14 February of the same year,6 addressed to Ukrainian Catholics. It was an occasion for celebrating a moment of fundamental importance for the Christian and cultural identity of those peoples, a moment of unique significance, since at that time the Churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Church of Rome were still living in full communion.

After the division which damaged the unity between the West and the Byzantine East, frequent and intense efforts were made to restore full communion. I wish to mention two particularly significant events: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and above all the Council of Florence in 1439, when protocols of union with the Eastern Churches were signed. Unfortunately, various causes prevented the promise and potential of those agreements from being realized.

The Bishops of the Metropolia of Kiev, in restoring communion with Rome, made explicit reference to the decisions of the Council of Florence, a Council which had numbered among its participants representatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In this context, the figure of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev stands out. As a faithful interpreter and defender of the decisions of that Council, he had to endure exile for his convictions.

The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage.

Between persecutionand growth

3. After the union, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church enjoyed a period in which its ecclesiastical structures flourished, with resulting benefits for religious life, the education of the clergy and the spiritual commitment of the faithful. With remarkable farsightedness, great importance was attached to education. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Basilian Order and other Religious Congregations, there was a great growth in the study of the sacred sciences and the nation's culture. In the present century, a figure of extraordinary prestige, in this regard as well as in his witness of suffering borne for Christ, was Metropolitan Andrii Sheptyckyi, whose education and fine spiritual qualities were combined with outstanding organizational gifts. He founded schools and academies, supported theological studies and the human sciences, the press and sacred art, and sought to preserve historical memories.

And yet, all this ecclesial vitality was continually marked by the tragedy of misunderstanding and opposition. An illustrious victim in this regard was the Archbishop of Polock and Vitebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych, whose martyrdom merited the unfading crown of eternal glory. His body now lies in the Vatican Basilica, where it is continuously venerated with devotion and gratitude by Catholics from throughout the world.

The difficulties and trials continued unabated. Pope Pius XII recalled them in the Encyclical Letter Orientales omnes. After describing the earlier persecutions, he predicted the tragic persecution which would take place under the atheistic regime.7

Outstanding among the heroic witnesses to the rights not only of the faith but also of human conscience in those difficult years is the figure of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj: his courage in enduring exile and prison for 18 years and his indomitable confidence in the resurrection of his Church make him one of the most powerful figures among the confessors of the faith in our time. Nor should his many companions in punishment be forgotten, particularly Bishops Hryhory Khomyshyn and Josaphat Kocylowskyj.

These tempestuous events shook the Church in the homeland to its roots. But Divine Providence had already begun to make it possible for many of its members to find a way of escape for themselves and their people. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, great waves of emigrants began to cross the ocean, settling above all in Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. The Holy See took care to be close to them, by providing assistance and establishing pastoral structures for them in their new homes, including the establishment of their own Eparchies. At the time of trial, during the atheistic persecution in their native land, the voice of these believers could thus be raised, in full freedom, with strength and courage. In the international forum they defended the right of their persecuted brethren to religious freedom, and thus strengthened the Second Vatican Council's appeal for religious freedom,8 and the efforts made in this regard by the Holy See.

4. The whole Catholic Community recalls with deep emotion the victims of such great suffering: the martyrs and confessors of the faith of the Church in Ukraine offer us a magnificent lesson in fidelity even at the price of life itself. And we, the favoured witnesses of their sacrifice, are aware that they helped to maintain the dignity of a world which seemed overwhelmed by atrocities. They knew the truth, and the truth set them free. Christians in Europe and throughout the world, pausing in prayer before the concentration camps and prisons, should be grateful for the light which they gave: it was the light of Christ, which they caused to shine in the darkness. For long years the darkness seemed in the eyes of the world to prevail, but it was not able to extinguish that light, which was the light of God and the light of man, wounded but not laid low.

This inheritance of suffering and glory today stands at a historic crossroads: now that the chains of imprisonment have been broken, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has begun again to breathe in freedom and to regain fully its own active role in the Church and in history. This task, difficult yet providential, today calls for particular reflection, that it may be carried out with wisdom and farsightedness.

As per usual, not a whisper about the emperors dragging the bishops to Lyons and Florence to force them to sign "unions" in exchange for military aid (the Vatican has selective condemnation of Caesaropapism).  

Interesting about the reference to the Baptism of Rus': not a reference to the fact that the envoys in the history go to the Latins, and rejected them.

Praising people like Isodore of Kiev, like Kuntsevich, and they wonder why we don't trust them.  Not a peep about the forced Latinization in the New World (which, e.g. married priests, continues) and they wonder why we do not trust them.  No acknowledgement of the force used to consumate the "union," and they wonder why we do not trust them.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 09:58:07 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #140 on: May 22, 2010, 10:32:56 PM »

From Apostolic Letter on the Fourth Centenary of the Union of Brest from John Paul II:

http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-124/32-documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest

In search of unity

2. The celebrations commemorating the Union of Brest must be seen in the context of the Millennium of the Baptism of the Rus'. Seven years ago, in 1988, that event was celebrated with great solemnity. For the occasion I published two documents: the Apostolic Letter Euntes in mundum of 25 January 1988,5 for the whole Church, and the Message Magnum Baptismi donum, of 14 February of the same year,6 addressed to Ukrainian Catholics. It was an occasion for celebrating a moment of fundamental importance for the Christian and cultural identity of those peoples, a moment of unique significance, since at that time the Churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Church of Rome were still living in full communion.

After the division which damaged the unity between the West and the Byzantine East, frequent and intense efforts were made to restore full communion. I wish to mention two particularly significant events: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and above all the Council of Florence in 1439, when protocols of union with the Eastern Churches were signed. Unfortunately, various causes prevented the promise and potential of those agreements from being realized.

The Bishops of the Metropolia of Kiev, in restoring communion with Rome, made explicit reference to the decisions of the Council of Florence, a Council which had numbered among its participants representatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In this context, the figure of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev stands out. As a faithful interpreter and defender of the decisions of that Council, he had to endure exile for his convictions.

The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage.

Between persecutionand growth

3. After the union, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church enjoyed a period in which its ecclesiastical structures flourished, with resulting benefits for religious life, the education of the clergy and the spiritual commitment of the faithful. With remarkable farsightedness, great importance was attached to education. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Basilian Order and other Religious Congregations, there was a great growth in the study of the sacred sciences and the nation's culture. In the present century, a figure of extraordinary prestige, in this regard as well as in his witness of suffering borne for Christ, was Metropolitan Andrii Sheptyckyi, whose education and fine spiritual qualities were combined with outstanding organizational gifts. He founded schools and academies, supported theological studies and the human sciences, the press and sacred art, and sought to preserve historical memories.

And yet, all this ecclesial vitality was continually marked by the tragedy of misunderstanding and opposition. An illustrious victim in this regard was the Archbishop of Polock and Vitebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych, whose martyrdom merited the unfading crown of eternal glory. His body now lies in the Vatican Basilica, where it is continuously venerated with devotion and gratitude by Catholics from throughout the world.

The difficulties and trials continued unabated. Pope Pius XII recalled them in the Encyclical Letter Orientales omnes. After describing the earlier persecutions, he predicted the tragic persecution which would take place under the atheistic regime.7

Outstanding among the heroic witnesses to the rights not only of the faith but also of human conscience in those difficult years is the figure of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj: his courage in enduring exile and prison for 18 years and his indomitable confidence in the resurrection of his Church make him one of the most powerful figures among the confessors of the faith in our time. Nor should his many companions in punishment be forgotten, particularly Bishops Hryhory Khomyshyn and Josaphat Kocylowskyj.

These tempestuous events shook the Church in the homeland to its roots. But Divine Providence had already begun to make it possible for many of its members to find a way of escape for themselves and their people. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, great waves of emigrants began to cross the ocean, settling above all in Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. The Holy See took care to be close to them, by providing assistance and establishing pastoral structures for them in their new homes, including the establishment of their own Eparchies. At the time of trial, during the atheistic persecution in their native land, the voice of these believers could thus be raised, in full freedom, with strength and courage. In the international forum they defended the right of their persecuted brethren to religious freedom, and thus strengthened the Second Vatican Council's appeal for religious freedom,8 and the efforts made in this regard by the Holy See.

4. The whole Catholic Community recalls with deep emotion the victims of such great suffering: the martyrs and confessors of the faith of the Church in Ukraine offer us a magnificent lesson in fidelity even at the price of life itself. And we, the favoured witnesses of their sacrifice, are aware that they helped to maintain the dignity of a world which seemed overwhelmed by atrocities. They knew the truth, and the truth set them free. Christians in Europe and throughout the world, pausing in prayer before the concentration camps and prisons, should be grateful for the light which they gave: it was the light of Christ, which they caused to shine in the darkness. For long years the darkness seemed in the eyes of the world to prevail, but it was not able to extinguish that light, which was the light of God and the light of man, wounded but not laid low.

This inheritance of suffering and glory today stands at a historic crossroads: now that the chains of imprisonment have been broken, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has begun again to breathe in freedom and to regain fully its own active role in the Church and in history. This task, difficult yet providential, today calls for particular reflection, that it may be carried out with wisdom and farsightedness.

As per usual, not a whisper about the emperors dragging the bishops to Lyons and Florence to force them to sign "unions" in exchange for military aid (the Vatican has selective condemnation of Caesaropapism).  

Interesting about the reference to the Baptism of Rus': not a reference to the fact that the envoys in the history go to the Latins, and rejected them.

Praising people like Isodore of Kiev, like Kuntsevich, and they wonder why we don't trust them.  Not a peep about the forced Latinization in the New World (which, e.g. married priests, continues) and they wonder why we do not trust them.  No acknowledgement of the force used to consumate the "union," and they wonder why we do not trust them.

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come.  There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about.  And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones. 

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #141 on: May 22, 2010, 10:51:31 PM »

From Apostolic Letter on the Fourth Centenary of the Union of Brest from John Paul II:

http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-124/32-documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest

In search of unity

2. The celebrations commemorating the Union of Brest must be seen in the context of the Millennium of the Baptism of the Rus'. Seven years ago, in 1988, that event was celebrated with great solemnity. For the occasion I published two documents: the Apostolic Letter Euntes in mundum of 25 January 1988,5 for the whole Church, and the Message Magnum Baptismi donum, of 14 February of the same year,6 addressed to Ukrainian Catholics. It was an occasion for celebrating a moment of fundamental importance for the Christian and cultural identity of those peoples, a moment of unique significance, since at that time the Churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Church of Rome were still living in full communion.

After the division which damaged the unity between the West and the Byzantine East, frequent and intense efforts were made to restore full communion. I wish to mention two particularly significant events: the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and above all the Council of Florence in 1439, when protocols of union with the Eastern Churches were signed. Unfortunately, various causes prevented the promise and potential of those agreements from being realized.

The Bishops of the Metropolia of Kiev, in restoring communion with Rome, made explicit reference to the decisions of the Council of Florence, a Council which had numbered among its participants representatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In this context, the figure of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev stands out. As a faithful interpreter and defender of the decisions of that Council, he had to endure exile for his convictions.

The Bishops who promoted the union and the members of their Church retained a lively awareness of their original close ties to their Orthodox brethren, together with a full consciousness of the Oriental identity of their Metropolia, an identity which was also to be upheld after the union. In the history of the Catholic Church, it is a highly significant fact that this just desire was respected and that the act of union did not involve passing over to the Latin tradition, as some thought would happen. Their Church saw an acknowledgment of its right to be governed by its own hierarchy with a specific discipline and to maintain its Eastern liturgical and spiritual heritage.

Between persecutionand growth

3. After the union, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church enjoyed a period in which its ecclesiastical structures flourished, with resulting benefits for religious life, the education of the clergy and the spiritual commitment of the faithful. With remarkable farsightedness, great importance was attached to education. Thanks to the valuable contribution of the Basilian Order and other Religious Congregations, there was a great growth in the study of the sacred sciences and the nation's culture. In the present century, a figure of extraordinary prestige, in this regard as well as in his witness of suffering borne for Christ, was Metropolitan Andrii Sheptyckyi, whose education and fine spiritual qualities were combined with outstanding organizational gifts. He founded schools and academies, supported theological studies and the human sciences, the press and sacred art, and sought to preserve historical memories.

And yet, all this ecclesial vitality was continually marked by the tragedy of misunderstanding and opposition. An illustrious victim in this regard was the Archbishop of Polock and Vitebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych, whose martyrdom merited the unfading crown of eternal glory. His body now lies in the Vatican Basilica, where it is continuously venerated with devotion and gratitude by Catholics from throughout the world.

The difficulties and trials continued unabated. Pope Pius XII recalled them in the Encyclical Letter Orientales omnes. After describing the earlier persecutions, he predicted the tragic persecution which would take place under the atheistic regime.7

Outstanding among the heroic witnesses to the rights not only of the faith but also of human conscience in those difficult years is the figure of Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj: his courage in enduring exile and prison for 18 years and his indomitable confidence in the resurrection of his Church make him one of the most powerful figures among the confessors of the faith in our time. Nor should his many companions in punishment be forgotten, particularly Bishops Hryhory Khomyshyn and Josaphat Kocylowskyj.

These tempestuous events shook the Church in the homeland to its roots. But Divine Providence had already begun to make it possible for many of its members to find a way of escape for themselves and their people. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, great waves of emigrants began to cross the ocean, settling above all in Canada, the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. The Holy See took care to be close to them, by providing assistance and establishing pastoral structures for them in their new homes, including the establishment of their own Eparchies. At the time of trial, during the atheistic persecution in their native land, the voice of these believers could thus be raised, in full freedom, with strength and courage. In the international forum they defended the right of their persecuted brethren to religious freedom, and thus strengthened the Second Vatican Council's appeal for religious freedom,8 and the efforts made in this regard by the Holy See.

4. The whole Catholic Community recalls with deep emotion the victims of such great suffering: the martyrs and confessors of the faith of the Church in Ukraine offer us a magnificent lesson in fidelity even at the price of life itself. And we, the favoured witnesses of their sacrifice, are aware that they helped to maintain the dignity of a world which seemed overwhelmed by atrocities. They knew the truth, and the truth set them free. Christians in Europe and throughout the world, pausing in prayer before the concentration camps and prisons, should be grateful for the light which they gave: it was the light of Christ, which they caused to shine in the darkness. For long years the darkness seemed in the eyes of the world to prevail, but it was not able to extinguish that light, which was the light of God and the light of man, wounded but not laid low.

This inheritance of suffering and glory today stands at a historic crossroads: now that the chains of imprisonment have been broken, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine has begun again to breathe in freedom and to regain fully its own active role in the Church and in history. This task, difficult yet providential, today calls for particular reflection, that it may be carried out with wisdom and farsightedness.

As per usual, not a whisper about the emperors dragging the bishops to Lyons and Florence to force them to sign "unions" in exchange for military aid (the Vatican has selective condemnation of Caesaropapism).  

Interesting about the reference to the Baptism of Rus': not a reference to the fact that the envoys in the history go to the Latins, and rejected them.

Praising people like Isodore of Kiev, like Kuntsevich, and they wonder why we don't trust them.  Not a peep about the forced Latinization in the New World (which, e.g. married priests, continues) and they wonder why we do not trust them.  No acknowledgement of the force used to consumate the "union," and they wonder why we do not trust them.

When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come.  There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about.  And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones. 
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 22, 2010, 11:58:44 PM »

They are not questioning the dogma.  They are challenging the jurisdictional rights and privileges of the Vatican Curia to interfere in their local jurisdictions and in the lives of those Churches Rome has truly and clearly delineated as Sister Churches during John Paul II's ponitficate.

That sounds like a denial of papal supremacy to me.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #143 on: May 23, 2010, 02:15:55 AM »

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth.  Cheesy The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #144 on: May 23, 2010, 07:18:23 AM »

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth.  Cheesy The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.

Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #145 on: May 23, 2010, 07:40:52 AM »

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth.  Cheesy The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.

Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.

Are you consciously uttering a mistruth about what I wrote - in message 108?  Are you bullying me? Or are you trying to create a fight?

I said:

"Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.'

Notice the tense, Mary.  It is the past tense.  It refers to the period prior to c.1965.

"They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation."

Notice the tense.  It is the past tense, and speaks of the time prior to 1965 when they were known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite." This is quite true.


"It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect."

Notice what is said - that this submissiveness continued until Vatican II and was then replaced by a jauntier spirit.

So for you to go on accusing me of attacking your spiritual father is quite misplaced.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 07:42:29 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #146 on: May 23, 2010, 08:10:42 AM »

Why don't you ask some of the Byzantine priests on the Byzantine Catholic Forum?  Why don't you write to my spiritual Father and get the skinny from the horse's mouth?  Do this with them and see how far you get.

The problem is that actually both you and Irish Hermit are correct. And this results in yet another instance where Eastern sui juris churches don't really respect the dogmatic tradition that they are supposed to be bound to.

Many eastern Catholic priests from all the jurisdictions have gone well out of their way to move against the westernizing tide and reintroduce traditional liturgies during the early-middle and middle centuries of the 20th century.  My spiritual father was one of them and it took a good deal of persistence and willingness to struggle with his own brother clergy and with some of his flock as well.  So when the man from NZ by gross generalization tells me that Father is just another toadie...I feel compelled to correct.

I suspect that you may have a few licks of purgatorial fire for that untruth.  Cheesy The Irish Hermit NEVER mentioned your Father as one of the lickspittles.

Via "gross generalization", as I said quite explicitly, yes, indeed you did...and many many others who do not deserve the same either.

Are you consciously uttering a mistruth about what I wrote - in message 108?  Are you bullying me? Or are you trying to create a fight?

I said:

"Members of any Eastern rite grouping were officially known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite" or "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite", etc.'

Notice the tense, Mary.  It is the past tense.  It refers to the period prior to c.1965.

"They tended to be submissive to Rome and happy to embrace latinisation."

Notice the tense.  It is the past tense, and speaks of the time prior to 1965 when they were known as "Roman Catholics of the Greek Rite." This is quite true.


"It remained this way until Vatican II when the Roman Catholics of the East found the courage to demand respect for the Orthodox traditions from which they had come and Vatican II went a long way towards granting them that respect."

Notice what is said - that this submissiveness continued until Vatican II and was then replaced by a jauntier spirit.

So for you to go on accusing me of attacking your spiritual father is quite misplaced.

Who said I was responding to just this note?  On this forum you have asserted the submissive lickspittle line over and over again and often with no nuance at all.  And now you demand that impute nuance to your messages?...all of them? 

Do you think only the nuanced ones have an impact?

Perhaps you do.

You'd be in error if you do.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #147 on: May 23, 2010, 08:36:28 AM »


When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come.  There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about.  And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones. 
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice.  There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact.   Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind.  But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.  Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #148 on: May 23, 2010, 10:01:34 AM »


When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come.  There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about.  And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones. 
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice.  There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact.   Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind. 

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side.  We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote
But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote
  Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again."  One should defend oneself accordingly.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #149 on: May 23, 2010, 05:18:41 PM »


When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come.  There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about.  And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones. 
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice.  There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact.   Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind. 

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side.  We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote
But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote
  Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again."  One should defend oneself accordingly.

You have a particular perspective.  I don't expect that to alter, and that is not a criticism.  I also know there is another side and it is not just the Vatican wanting a whole side at all...at least that is not how it appears to me.

There's no point in my pot-shotting from the side lines and I do understand what you mean when you say that "I never did that" very often can mean "I will do it again."

I also know that it can mean "I never did that."

At any rate keep me in your prayers and I you.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #150 on: May 23, 2010, 05:53:52 PM »


When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come.  There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about.  And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones. 
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice.  There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact.   Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind. 

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side.  We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote
But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote
  Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again."  One should defend oneself accordingly.

You have a particular perspective.  I don't expect that to alter, and that is not a criticism.  I also know there is another side and it is not just the Vatican wanting a whole side at all...at least that is not how it appears to me.

Being on the Vatican's side, how else would it appear to you?

Quote
There's no point in my pot-shotting from the side lines and I do understand what you mean when you say that "I never did that" very often can mean "I will do it again."

I also know that it can mean "I never did that."

Indeed.  In the case at bar, we know better.

Quote
At any rate keep me in your prayers and I you.

Happy Pentacost!
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #151 on: May 23, 2010, 05:57:28 PM »


When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come.  There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about.  And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones. 
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice.  There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact.   Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind. 

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side.  We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote
But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote
  Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again."  One should defend oneself accordingly.

You have a particular perspective.  I don't expect that to alter, and that is not a criticism.  I also know there is another side and it is not just the Vatican wanting a whole side at all...at least that is not how it appears to me.

Being on the Vatican's side, how else would it appear to you?

Quote
There's no point in my pot-shotting from the side lines and I do understand what you mean when you say that "I never did that" very often can mean "I will do it again."

I also know that it can mean "I never did that."

Indeed.  In the case at bar, we know better.

Quote
At any rate keep me in your prayers and I you.

Happy Pentacost!

And to you. 

Just an aside FWIW...I am not listening to the Vatican.  I am listening to Romanian Greek Catholics.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #152 on: May 23, 2010, 06:39:10 PM »


When you get to a point where you can cope with the fact that anti-unionists are no more pleasant and peace lovin' to deal with than unionists the closer to the truth you'll come.  There is a record of the anti-unionist activities after Florence in Greece and up through the Balkins and it is not anything I would want to brag about.  And that history comes out of secular sources as well as ecclesiastical ones. 
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of Orthodoxy is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Where extremism rules the can be no justice.  There can only be murder and mayhem and the senseless destruction of property and holy artifact.   Romanian Greek Catholics come to mind. 

They were not only given a finger but an arm, and then the Vatican, as always, wanted the whole side.  We have a whole thread on this somewhere.

Quote
But certainly not the only examples.

Tit for Tat is a senseless game.

Not as senseless as demanding tat, and refusing to recognize tit.

Quote
  Your extremism cannot truly hold the high moral ground no matter what you assert.

It's been my experience that when someone asserts "I never did that," what he means is "if given an opportunity, I will do it again."  One should defend oneself accordingly.

You have a particular perspective.  I don't expect that to alter, and that is not a criticism.  I also know there is another side and it is not just the Vatican wanting a whole side at all...at least that is not how it appears to me.

Being on the Vatican's side, how else would it appear to you?

Quote
There's no point in my pot-shotting from the side lines and I do understand what you mean when you say that "I never did that" very often can mean "I will do it again."

I also know that it can mean "I never did that."

Indeed.  In the case at bar, we know better.

Quote
At any rate keep me in your prayers and I you.

Happy Pentacost!

And to you. 

Just an aside FWIW...I am not listening to the Vatican.  I am listening to Romanian Greek Catholics.
Acelas. Same thing.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #153 on: May 23, 2010, 10:20:44 PM »

They are not questioning the dogma.  They are challenging the jurisdictional rights and privileges of the Vatican Curia to interfere in their local jurisdictions and in the lives of those Churches Rome has truly and clearly delineated as Sister Churches during John Paul II's ponitficate.

That sounds like a denial of papal supremacy to me.

Mary, would you care to explain?
Logged

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

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


« Reply #154 on: May 23, 2010, 11:21:08 PM »

Quote
The medallion struck by the Pope to commemorate the submission of the Orthodox at Brest shows the Pope seated on his throne and a Slav submissively prostrate before him.  This is just the way of it!   Don't they hand out copies of this medallion to transverts such as yourself?   

By the way, the proposed "Articles of Brest" were never signed by the Pope or any official of the Roman Catholic Church.
So they are just that "proposed".  What created the Ruthenian Catholic Church was an act of submission to the Pope and a declaration signed by the Pope not the "Articles of Brest".
Pope Clement Viii issued a bull Magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis,1 announced the union to the whole Church and in the Apostolic Letter Benedictus sit Pastor2 he addressed the Bishops of the Metropolia, informing them that the union had taken place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest
http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-124/32-documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest



And so did he promise anything, or just register the submission?
According to the Orthodoxwkipedia  the Roman Catholic Pope accepted the 33 articles of the union.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Union_of_Brest
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,173



WWW
« Reply #155 on: May 25, 2010, 11:34:28 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican.  That's objective.


Quote
And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.  

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary
No, Ultramontanims is.

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be. 

Then there's folks like you.  Loud and not particularly something others are always proud of.  I've been around long enough to know that.  You may get kudos from like-minded people but you don't wear well outside of your own hive.

I don't discount you at all but I am not concerned that your "approach" will prevail.

M.


Ialmisery, what is this icon? Can you interpret it?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #156 on: May 25, 2010, 11:37:49 PM »


The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.




Maybe he was at his episcopal palace on the river, and the Orthodox were squatting on his front lawn, and they got his body out from the house and threw it in the river.

I expect this is representative of historical Orthodox attitudes.

Which is a great part of the reason that I do not believe the Archbishop was a savage.

Mary

Yeah.  And the Orthodox just flocked to the "unions." The fact that the Vatican's anointed kings were swinging the sword of state at them had nothing to do with it.

I am sorry.  That is not the entire story at all, and you may be able to convince some but you are not going to convince me at all.  I prefer a bit more of an objective reporting of history.

Yes, slant it towards the Vatican.  That's objective.


Quote
And it would never cross my mind to squat in the front yard of any Orthodox bishop.  

I think that is a fundamental difference in attitude between us.

Mary
No, Ultramontanims is.

There have always been those in Orthodox lands who are unionists.  There always will be. 

Then there's folks like you.  Loud and not particularly something others are always proud of.  I've been around long enough to know that.  You may get kudos from like-minded people but you don't wear well outside of your own hive.

I don't discount you at all but I am not concerned that your "approach" will prevail.

M.


Ialmisery, what is this icon? Can you interpret it?
St. Mark of Ephesus standing on the "Roman pope," who is combined with some imagery of the beast in Revelation.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,173



WWW
« Reply #157 on: May 26, 2010, 12:38:01 AM »

I see the pope part, but why is there a sword through the lock?

Did Mark of Ephesus reject the branch theory that the Pope is Peter's successor with the keys of the kingdom, which the pope in the icon is holding.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,199


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #158 on: May 26, 2010, 01:53:20 AM »

That's not an icon, it's an ecclesiopolitical propaganda piece. The item run through with the sword is supposed to be a Gospel book. A shameful debasement of iconography.
<