The Orthodox Condemnation of Roman Catholicism

[stanley123]

I think Vlad Tepesh was Catholic for a while because the ruler of Hungary was, but I do not remember if he was Catholic or Orthodox by the time he kicked the bucket.

This site gives his religion as Roman Catholic.
http://www.nndb.com/people/439/000113100/

He's yours if you want him! 

But you have him buried in an Orthodox monastery in Snagov?

[Romaios]

I think Vlad Tepesh was Catholic for a while because the ruler of Hungary was, but I do not remember if he was Catholic or Orthodox by the time he kicked the bucket.

This site gives his religion as Roman Catholic.
http://www.nndb.com/people/439/000113100/

He's yours if you want him! 

But you have him buried in an Orthodox monastery in Snagov?

Nope, just some dead horse bones... His head was sent to the Sultan in Constantinople on a pale, though.

[stanley123]

I think Vlad Tepesh was Catholic for a while because the ruler of Hungary was, but I do not remember if he was Catholic or Orthodox by the time he kicked the bucket.

This site gives his religion as Roman Catholic.
http://www.nndb.com/people/439/000113100/

He's yours if you want him! 

But you have him buried in an Orthodox monastery in Snagov?

Nope, just some dead horse bones... His head was sent to the Sultan in Constantinople on a pale, though.

Many Romanian historians say that he is buried at the Comana monastery. However, according to an article in the Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4, by C. Rezachevici (2002), the Orthodox monks at the Snagov monastery say he was buried there. In either case, it is claimed that he was RC and buried at an Orthodox monastery.

[Romaios]

Many Romanian historians say that he is buried at the Comana monastery. However, according to an article in the Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4, by C. Rezachevici (2002), the Orthodox monks at the Snagov monastery say he was buried there. In either case, it is claimed that he was RC and buried at an Orthodox monastery.

Comana is a monastery he himself built.

It's not unheard of for non-Orthodox monarchs/nobles to be buried in our monasteries. Queen Marie was Anglican and apparently sympathetic to the Bahá'í  - she is buried at Curtea de Argeș, with our other kings and queens. Deus suos agnoscet...

[Peter J]

Nope, just some dead horse bones... His head was sent to the Sultan in Constantinople on a pale, though.

Why are you giving away the ending of The Godfather? Some people might not have seen it yet.

[William]

Many Romanian historians say that he is buried at the Comana monastery. However, according to an article in the Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4, by C. Rezachevici (2002), the Orthodox monks at the Snagov monastery say he was buried there. In either case, it is claimed that he was RC and buried at an Orthodox monastery.

Comana is a monastery he himself built.

It's not unheard of for non-Orthodox monarchs/nobles to be buried in our monasteries. Queen Marie was Anglican and apparently sympathetic to the Bahá'í  - she is buried at Curtea de Argeș, with our other kings and queens. Deus suos agnoscet...

That's sad.

[jmbejdl]

My understanding (and I'm afraid that I can't find the sources at the moment so this is from memory) is that Vlad Tepes had returned to the Orthodox Church prior to his death. He certainly did convert to Roman Catholicism at one point, but it appears to have been for political advantage. Of course, being the way he was any return to Orthodoxy might just as easily have been for political gain also. He certainly had the support of his cousin Stefan cel Mare, who was undoubtedly committed to the Orthodox Church. On the other hand Stefan was so preoccupied with defending Moldavia against the Turks that I doubt he would have cared if Vlad was Roman Catholic.

James

[Shanghaiski]

Many Romanian historians say that he is buried at the Comana monastery. However, according to an article in the Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4, by C. Rezachevici (2002), the Orthodox monks at the Snagov monastery say he was buried there. In either case, it is claimed that he was RC and buried at an Orthodox monastery.

Comana is a monastery he himself built.

It's not unheard of for non-Orthodox monarchs/nobles to be buried in our monasteries. Queen Marie was Anglican and apparently sympathetic to the Bahá'í  - she is buried at Curtea de Argeș, with our other kings and queens. Deus suos agnoscet...

That's sad.

Well, they could have thrown her remains out into the street to be eaten by dogs, but she wasn't as bad as Jezebel.

[Romaios]

Well, they could have thrown her remains out into the street to be eaten by dogs, but she wasn't as bad as Jezebel.

She was no Jezebel indeed. Actually she was very popular - the people loved her. My grandmother had fond memories of seeing her ride her horse at Balcic every morning. She had a kind heart. 

[Peter J]

"RCs" = "Roman-Rite Catholics"?

Good thread, btw.

[augustin717]

Pray that Augustin doesn't follow in his footsteps!

Whose footsteps may I ask? I would appreciate your concern maybe had things been a bit different than they turned out to be. As they are, it kinda rubs me the wrong way. Sorry.

[Shanghaiski]

"RCs" = "Roman-Rite Catholics"?

Yes. Rebellious Concubines would not really fit.

[JamesR]

This thread started off goofy, but it got me thinking "what if".

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism.  Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.

[OrthoNoob]

This thread started off goofy, but it got me thinking "what if".

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism.  Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.

Except that the Church is not supposed to 'go' in a 'direction'. She is supposed to hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints. Now, I'm not saying that the geographic separation and resulting cultural differences didn't contribute to the Schism. But I am saying that if we have a different faith now, it's because one side didn't do what it was supposed to do, and should have been able to do regardless of geography.

[choy]

This thread started off goofy, but it got me thinking "what if".

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism.  Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.

I agree.  The schism was really something that was a slow drifting apart rather than a lightning quick separation.  1054 was a convenient point in history to pin the Great Schism, but there is evidence that communion even continued after 1054 all the way to the Fall of Constantinople.  And by 1054 it shows that there were already a number of disagreements on a number of points and as the years go by it just grew and grew.  The growing schism meant a lack of dialogue and as the theology evolved on both sides, there was no check with the other side to make sure they were still on the same page.

Another big issue is the Reformation.  Although a united Church could have prevented the Reformation.  I've been thinking lately if someone who can make a comparison with Martin Luther and St. Maximos, and if Martin Luther could have had reformed the Church from within (and thus be kept orthodox in teaching) if he had the same avenues at St. Maximos had.  That is, St. Maximos was able to find a Patriarch that supported his position (the Pope of Rome) so he continued the fight within the Church.  Martin Luther did not have anywhere else to run to after Rome told him without question to retract his thesis.  I'm not knowledgable on the matter, but it did seem that Luther wasn't having a dialogue, but rather was being told.  And with no other bishop to support him, what else could he do but leave the Roman Catholic Church?

Now, post reformation, I believe the Roman Catholic Church is slowly falling into Luther's reformation.  I believe Trent is as guilty as Vatican II for the mess the church is in today.  Of course Trent externally displayed traditional Catholic beliefs, the mentality and approach changed significantly since then as an effort to continously respond to Protestant criticism.  The RCChurch seemed to think that they need to respond to and differentiate themselves from the Protestant criticism rather than staying true to their original character.  That is why we have all these Marian Dogmas and Pastor Aeternus, as a response to the Protestant criticism.  This is what I think.

[Romaios]

Pray that Augustin doesn't follow in his footsteps!

Whose footsteps may I ask?

As the Noble Qu'rân sayeth:

"Guide us to the Straight Way, the Way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose portion is not wrath, and who go not astray." (Surah 1:6-7)

Hadîth: I asked Allah's Messenger PBUH about the statement of Allah: 1. Gharil maghdubi 'alaihim ("not [the way] of those who earned Your anger"), he replied: "They are the Communists". And 2. Walad dâllîn ("nor of those who went astray"): "The Leftists, they were the ones who went astray".

I would appreciate your concern maybe had things been a bit different than they turned out to be. As they are, it kinda rubs me the wrong way. Sorry.

Indeed, compunction is optimal when self-induced, not inflicted by others.

Prostite i blagoslovite.

[augustin717]

Now you take it as your  mission to bring me to the "Straight Way" whatever you think that is. With Koran trivia.

[Romaios]

it's bizarre^

So is your "jurisdiction".

[augustin717]

it's bizarre^

So is your "jurisdiction".

get over it, man. come on

[Romaios]

Now you take it as your  mission to bring me to the "Straight Way" whatever you think that is. With Koran trivia.

That would be a mission impossible, in more than one way.

I was but half-serious (on the one half, though - I am dead serious).

I quoted the Qu'ran for a change, because I usually over-quote the Bible. So it was for the sake of variety, sort of...

[Peter J]

Now you take it as your  mission to bring me to the "Straight Way" whatever you think that is. With Koran trivia.

That would be a mission impossible, in more than one way.

I was but half-serious (on the one half, though - I am dead serious).

I quoted the Qu'ran for a change, because I usually over-quote the Bible. So it was for the sake of variety, sort of...

I have to admit that I too was a little baffled when you started quoting the Qu'ran.

[choy]

Okay, this page isn't officially of the Catholic Church, but its bad taste to deface icons just for a few giggles (and it's not funny anyway).  https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=163036973846053&set=a.100243983458686.368.100237920125959&type=1

[username!]

stay on track and no more bickering between each other.  Want a koran thread, find the right forum and start one in it.  -username! section moderator

[Napoletani]

I think Vlad Tepesh was Catholic for a while because the ruler of Hungary was, but I do not remember if he was Catholic or Orthodox by the time he kicked the bucket.

The faith of the Hungarian ruler does not prove anything, otherwise all Romanian rulers would have been catholics, but the Basarab, Mihai Viteazul and Stefan Cel Mare were Orthodox.

[Napoletani]

This thread started off goofy, but it got me thinking "what if".

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism.  Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.

I dont agree, georgians were also separated geographically, but they remained orthodox. Copts and Armenians are not really close to each other but they remained oriental orthodox.

[jmbejdl]

I think Vlad Tepesh was Catholic for a while because the ruler of Hungary was, but I do not remember if he was Catholic or Orthodox by the time he kicked the bucket.

The faith of the Hungarian ruler does not prove anything, otherwise all Romanian rulers would have been catholics, but the Basarab, Mihai Viteazul and Stefan Cel Mare were Orthodox.

True - Hungary has absolutely no relevance to either Wallachia or Moldavia as neither principality was ruled by them. Vlad was voievod of Wallachia and so the religion of the Hungarian rulers signifies very little. To the best of my knowledge the overwhelming majority of Wallachian rulers were always Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic (although Radu cel Frumos converted to Islam) and the only Roman Catholic ruler of Moldavia was Latcu Voda.

James

[rakovsky]

Speaking of Orthodox condemnation, I don't quite get what the narrator is talking about in this Orthodox program.

At 21:20, she says that "the Bible is still on the list of forbidden books" for Catholics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3gtMeUn-GE

I know she is using humor, but I am still confused what she is talking about.

[Michał Kalina]

Translations of the Bible that had no approved by the Vatican were for several hundreds of years not approved to read for believers.

[rakovsky]

Translations of the Bible that had no approved by the Vatican were for several hundreds of years not approved to read for believers.

Was that just certain translations of the Bible though, or the Bible itself?

[Michał Kalina]

Translations of the Bible that had no approved by the Vatican were for several hundreds of years not approved to read for believers.

Was that just certain translations of the Bible though, or the Bible itself?

Certain translations were not banned.

[rakovsky]

Translations of the Bible that had no approved by the Vatican were for several hundreds of years not approved to read for believers.

Was that just certain translations of the Bible though, or the Bible itself?

Certain translations were not banned.

OK. She also follows this statement with something else that is funny.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: The Orthodox Condemnation of Roman Catholicism