Topic: Honorius and Pastor Aeternus

[Fr. George]

That is the problem when you crush the Church into the singularity of a supreme pontiff: once the illusion is unmaksed, people get disillusioned.

Trod the Orthodox Way, which may be narrow, but it is straight and well supported by many pillars.

You're very foolish if you believe this tired monkish bickering makes anyone want to become Orthodox, or Catholic. It's simply frustrating and exhausting, and I no longer have the patience for it. The ecclesiological history of the Christian Church, Catholic and Orthodox, is the history of puffed up self-important monks who never achieved anything of any particular importance outside of their own endless bickering, so it's not surprising that those who are so animated by it are themselves puffed up, self-important, and monkish. The idea that people are heretics because they say "And the Son" in the Nicene Creed? Please. How incredibly stupid. Why should I care what some council said about it?

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

You spit on Sts. Basil, Benedict, John Chrysostom, Athanasios, Anthony, et al.?  Really mature of you.  Because you either don't understand, or don't care about, what substantial things separate us, you instead decide to slam thousands of people who struggled in their own way to make the Kingdom more present in their lives.  Yes, there have been monks who have sinned, who have been condemned, and who have caused division; but there have been quite a few luminaries, beacons of true Faith and Worship of the Undivided Trinity.  Leave your misplaced epithets at home, unless you're declaring that you have no need of the faith that, amongst others, many monks have handed down; if so, then you're neither Orthodox Catholic, nor Roman Catholic.

[Fr. George]

By the way, I do get quite the chuckle from the argument, "Well, yes, Honorius was completely expelled from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church on charges of heresy, and since he was not reinstated during his lifetime we cannot conduct services for his salvation, but the Pope amended that anathema, so it isn't quite as bad as one thinks it is."

[ialmisry]

By the way, I do get quite the chuckle from the argument, "Well, yes, Honorius was completely expelled from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church on charges of heresy, and since he was not reinstated during his lifetime we cannot conduct services for his salvation, but the Pope amended that anathema, so it isn't quite as bad as one thinks it is."

...so Dante moved him up a level or two.

[Fr. George]

By the way, I do get quite the chuckle from the argument, "Well, yes, Honorius was completely expelled from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church on charges of heresy, and since he was not reinstated during his lifetime we cannot conduct services for his salvation, but the Pope amended that anathema, so it isn't quite as bad as one thinks it is."

...so Dante moved him up a level or two.

Oh, well; if it was to get him a penthouse apartment instead of a ground-level studio, then I understand.

[FrChris]

Oh, well; if it was to get him a penthouse apartment instead of a ground-level studio, then I understand.

You bet! As long as you're comfy in Hell, I guess it's not that bad. 

So, if the Popes could allegedly help one of their own by amending the declaration of an Ecumenical Council, why don't they help everyone else to be there by giving them similar penthouses?

[ialmisry]

Oh, well; if it was to get him a penthouse apartment instead of a ground-level studio, then I understand.

You bet! As long as you're comfy in Hell, I guess it's not that bad. 

So, if the Popes could allegedly help one of their own by amending the declaration of an Ecumenical Council, why don't they help everyone else to be there by giving them similar penthouses?

What? You haven't heard of indulgences, Father?

[John Larocque]

Not sure this is the right thread for it, but the Japanese word for pope (probably reflecting the understanding of the papacy by the the Jesuit missionaries) is rouma houou - literally, "Roman Law-King" or "Roman Principle-King".

http://www.mahou.org/Kanji/4B21/
http://www.mahou.org/Kanji/3226/

[elijahmaria]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

Thomist, please do not stop.  You are proving to be a wonderful catalyst for people who are reading these messages with an interest in the faith and thanks to you two Catholics are writing back and forth to me .

Father...We want you to take every unhappy Catholic you can find!!  Please...

And we will take in those Orthodox who have lost "connection" with Orthodoxy.

It is a big world and we all need a spiritual home where we can flourish!!

[elijahmaria]

is polytheistic, are post-hoc justifications for millenia-old struggles that were always more political than religious, and I have no doubt it enrages Christ.

 

Careful there, son!  You are speaking of the passionless Passionbearer!!

Jesus, wept.

M.

[elijahmaria]

P.S: In reality what Papal infallibility has meant in practice, and what it's going to be massaged in to meaning in the future if ecumenicism progresses - is that once the whole Church has decided something, the Pope gets to be the one who stands up at the podium and says it.

This would not only be contrary to the traditional way in which Councils have announced their decisions but it would also place a stranglehold on the principle of conciliarity (sobornost) in the episcopate.  If the bishops of the world formulate something against which the Pope has voted and with which he disagrees (such as the anathema against Honorius) will the Pope refuse to proclaim it?  Will the Church then be obliged to convene a Council to depose him?

The pope is infallible with the infallibility of the Church.  The scenario you describe is contrary to the dogmatic understanding of both primacy and infallibility.

You don't make sense with respect to Catholic teaching, in other words.

So who cares what your scenario says...It ain't real or possible 

[Irish Hermit]

P.S: In reality what Papal infallibility has meant in practice, and what it's going to be massaged in to meaning in the future if ecumenicism progresses - is that once the whole Church has decided something, the Pope gets to be the one who stands up at the podium and says it.

This would not only be contrary to the traditional way in which Councils have announced their decisions but it would also place a stranglehold on the principle of conciliarity (sobornost) in the episcopate.  If the bishops of the world formulate something against which the Pope has voted and with which he disagrees (such as the anathema against Honorius) will the Pope refuse to proclaim it?  Will the Church then be obliged to convene a Council to depose him?

The pope is infallible with the infallibility of the Church.  The scenario you describe is contrary to the dogmatic understanding of both primacy and infallibility.

You don't make sense with respect to Catholic teaching, in other words.

So who cares what your scenario says...It ain't real or possible 

Concrete scenario....

Union has occurred.

The bishops of the East say: we wish to revisit and revise the teachings of Humanae Vitae.

The bishops of the West say: we agree with you. Humanae Vitae was promulgated by Paul VI based on the "Minority Opinion" of the Church.

The resulting Council comes to the decision to revoke Humanae Vitae

In its stead the Council adopts a position allowing for non-abortive contraceptive.

The Pope is against this and refuses to go on the podium and proclaim it.

How will the episcopate deal with this recalcitrant Pope?

[Irish Hermit]

So who cares what your scenario says...It ain't real or possible 

You'll have to battle that out with Thomist since this is the type of scenario made possible by what she writes in message 130.

[elijahmaria]

P.S: In reality what Papal infallibility has meant in practice, and what it's going to be massaged in to meaning in the future if ecumenicism progresses - is that once the whole Church has decided something, the Pope gets to be the one who stands up at the podium and says it.

This would not only be contrary to the traditional way in which Councils have announced their decisions but it would also place a stranglehold on the principle of conciliarity (sobornost) in the episcopate.  If the bishops of the world formulate something against which the Pope has voted and with which he disagrees (such as the anathema against Honorius) will the Pope refuse to proclaim it?  Will the Church then be obliged to convene a Council to depose him?

The pope is infallible with the infallibility of the Church.  The scenario you describe is contrary to the dogmatic understanding of both primacy and infallibility.

You don't make sense with respect to Catholic teaching, in other words.

So who cares what your scenario says...It ain't real or possible 

Concrete scenario....

Union has occurred.

The bishops of the East say: we wish to revisit and revise the teachings of Humanae Vitae.

The bishops of the West say: we agree with you. Humanae Vitae was promulgated by Paul VI based on the "Minority Opinion" of the Church.

The resulting Council comes to the decision to revoke Humanae Vitae

In its stead the Council adopts a position allowing for non-abortive contraceptive.

The Pope is against this and refuses to go on the podium and proclaim it.

How will the episcopate deal with this recalcitrant Pope?

If that happens, more than likely it will mean that the Russian/Chinese axis will be in charge and we all know their solutions for dealing with the "difficult-to-educate"...and since the Third Rome Church dances to the Piper-Czar's tune...well...hey!!

[elijahmaria]

So who cares what your scenario says...It ain't real or possible 

You'll have to battle that out with Thomist since this is the type of scenario made possible by what she writes in message 130.

I never fight with fantasy, Father.  Leaves one open to demonic influences 

[Irish Hermit]

likely it will mean that the Russian/Chinese axis will be in charge and we all know their solutions for dealing with the "difficult-to-educate"...and since the Third Rome Church dances to the Piper-Czar's tune...well...hey!!

Now *there's* a fantasy!   

[Irish Hermit]

and we all know their solutions for dealing with the "difficult-to-educate

Yes!  Kill one third.  Convert one third.  Expel one third.


No, wait!  That was Catholic Croatia.

[elijahmaria]

and we all know their solutions for dealing with the "difficult-to-educate

Yes!  Kill one third.  Convert one third.  Expel one third.


No, wait!  That was Catholic Croatia.

I have family who are Croats and Italo-Albanians. 

I pray you never have to bear the kind of scars that they bore in their hearts because of the Serbs and the Orthodox Church and its Blind Eye.

You have NOTHING to say to me about that region.  NOTHING at all.

I never talk about it in its particulars.  It is, however, a kind of sickness to present the history of the region as all one-sided.

[militantsparrow]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

Thomist, Please do not leave. You and Papist have been extremely helpful to me in my faith journey. I know it must be disheartening for you at times, but I can assure you at least one Christian is being positively impacted by your sacrifice.

Lawrence

[militantsparrow]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

Thomist, Please do not leave. You and Papist have been extremely helpful to me in my faith journey. I know it must be disheartening for you at times, but I can assure you at least one Christian is being positively impacted by your sacrifice.

Lawrence

My appogies. I should have mentioned M. too.

[Irish Hermit]

I pray you never have to bear the kind of scars that they bore in their hearts because of the Serbs and the Orthodox Church and its Blind Eye.

You have NOTHING to say to me about that region.  NOTHING at all.

I have my own scars.  I lived in Yugoslavia during the years of Tito. I have things to say.

[ialmisry]

and we all know their solutions for dealing with the "difficult-to-educate

Yes!  Kill one third.  Convert one third.  Expel one third.


No, wait!  That was Catholic Croatia.

I have family who are Croats and Italo-Albanians. 

I pray you never have to bear the kind of scars that they bore in their hearts because of the Serbs and the Orthodox Church and its Blind Eye.

You have NOTHING to say to me about that region.  NOTHING at all.

I never talk about it in its particulars.  It is, however, a kind of sickness to present the history of the region as all one-sided.

are you admitting your bias?

[Shiny]

ialmisry = walking Christian encyclopedia.

[SolEX01]

and we all know their solutions for dealing with the "difficult-to-educate

Yes!  Kill one third.  Convert one third.  Expel one third.


No, wait!  That was Catholic Croatia.

I have family who are Croats and Italo-Albanians. 

I pray you never have to bear the kind of scars that they bore in their hearts because of the Serbs and the Orthodox Church and its Blind Eye.

Surely, the Serbs didn't kill as many Catholics as the other way around ... but I digress that was only 65-70 years ago and neither side has had 16 Generations to live peaceably like the Ruthenian Catholics following the 1595 Treaty of Brest (which happened 6 years after the Patriarch of Moscow was created; however, I digress once again).   

You have NOTHING to say to me about that region.  NOTHING at all.

Why keep playing that game?   

I never talk about it in its particulars.  It is, however, a kind of sickness to present the history of the region as all one-sided.

Yup, with the Pope of Rome, everything will always be one-sided.   

[ialmisry]

ialmisry = walking Christian encyclopedia.

Nah, just come across things. But thanks.

Just came across this:

The other most distinguished theologian who has recently discussed apologetically the case of Honorius is more candid, probably because much better informed, than Archbishop Manning; and consequently his apology, because more honest, is more futile. M. le P. Dom Prosper Gueranger, in his first and second replies to Pore Gratry, thus attempts to ward off his opponent's appeal to Honorius. He allows that the judgments of Honorius on the monothelite doctrine were 'ex cathedra;' that they were condemned by the sixth Council; but he thinks to save the infallibility of Honorius by the fact that Pope Leo II. does not class Honorius with Sergius and others, but places him apart and anathematizes him in a separate sentence (i. page 17). As if an anathema were not'the stronger from being concentrated on one head, or Honorius ceased to be a heretic because he is distinguished from all others in a special clause, by reason of the dignity of his apostolic office and the greater treachery of his defection from the faith. And again, Pope Leo not only repeated, of himself, the anathemas of the sixth Council, with the alteration we have noted, but he sanctioned and confirmed all its decrees; and it was in its decrees, as we have shown, that the .Council pronounced its judgment on Honorius and excommunicated him from the Church. No subterfuge accordingly, or brazen-toned denial, has served to prevent the universal condemnation of Honorius by the Church being cited as an infallible witness against Infallibility.

'Ideirco et nos et per nostrum officium haec veneranda sedes Apostolica concorditer ac unanimiter his quae definita sunt ab ea (Synodo) et Petri auctoritate confirmat, sicut supra solidam pctram qui Christus est, ab ipso Domino adeptis firmitatem:' a passage which is interesting as showing how, even in Roman speech, Christus is the Petra, and the decrees of the Council received their certainty from the Lord himself.

The British quarterly review, Volumes 57-58 By Robert Vaughan
http://books.google.com/books?id=T55PghGi79kC&pg=RA1-PA47&lpg=RA1-PA47&dq=Ideirco+et+Nos+et+per+nostrum+officium+haec+veneranda+Sedes+Apostolica+his+quae+definita+sunt,&source=bl&ots=LC1TRKa4pz&sig=R3P4SLns8exQRGBiGtD5jHnfNRE&hl=en&ei=iNAnTdGeMoTWnAeih9mzAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ideirco%20et%20Nos%20et%20per%20nostrum%20officium%20haec%20veneranda%20Sedes%20Apostolica%20his%20quae%20definita%20sunt%2C&f=false

[ialmisry]

Pope Leo II's letters on the Sixth Council can be found here;
Patrologiae cursus completus: sive biblioteca universalis,integra ..., Volume 96

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PT112&lpg=PT121&dq=Ideirco+et+Nos+et+per+nostrum+officium+haec+veneranda+Sedes+Apostolica+his+quae+definita+sunt,&sig=WOenYFhXnrB18Z-MUrLLhfDGrGo&ei=iNAnTdGeMoTWnAeih9mzAQ&ct=result&id=d_UQAAAAYAAJ&ots=njjVKb4G-S#v=onepage&q&f=false

[elijahmaria]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

Thomist, Please do not leave. You and Papist have been extremely helpful to me in my faith journey. I know it must be disheartening for you at times, but I can assure you at least one Christian is being positively impacted by your sacrifice.

Lawrence

Yes.  Please remain here and continue to participate.  No virtue without temptation...and all that.

One of the things that would help is if you do not try to address so much of the cut and paste commentary.  Be a little more selective, make your point and then go do something more soothing to the spirit.  Not that I take my own advice mind you, but I do better with it, now and then.

Don't ever think that you will be able to do anything to stem the tide you see here in individuals.  That will never happen.  Once you set that in your mind and know that your real target audience is reading and not responding, you'll feel better. 

You've been very irenic.  Please continue if you are able to in good spirit.  Many here do appreciate that kind of response.

Mary

[elijahmaria]

I pray you never have to bear the kind of scars that they bore in their hearts because of the Serbs and the Orthodox Church and its Blind Eye.

You have NOTHING to say to me about that region.  NOTHING at all.

I have my own scars.  I lived in Yugoslavia during the years of Tito. I have things to say.

Every Catholic on the Internet that I know is aware that you have much to say.  None of it recognizes that there is any more than one side to that situation.

[elijahmaria]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

Thomist, Please do not leave. You and Papist have been extremely helpful to me in my faith journey. I know it must be disheartening for you at times, but I can assure you at least one Christian is being positively impacted by your sacrifice.

Lawrence

My appogies. I should have mentioned M. too.

Not necessary but I am please...

M.

[elijahmaria]

and we all know their solutions for dealing with the "difficult-to-educate

Yes!  Kill one third.  Convert one third.  Expel one third.


No, wait!  That was Catholic Croatia.

I have family who are Croats and Italo-Albanians. 

I pray you never have to bear the kind of scars that they bore in their hearts because of the Serbs and the Orthodox Church and its Blind Eye.

You have NOTHING to say to me about that region.  NOTHING at all.

I never talk about it in its particulars.  It is, however, a kind of sickness to present the history of the region as all one-sided.

are you admitting your bias?

There really is something very strange about you.

[Irish Hermit]

Every Catholic on the Internet that I know is aware that you have much to say.  None of it recognizes that there is any more than one side to that situation.

Are you having selective memory loss?  

You know that both here and on Indiana (at this moment) I defend the right of the Russians to acknowledge the authenticity of Roman Catholic apostolic succession and sacraments even though that is not my position (mine stems  from the spiritual background of my Serbian spiritual father.)

In this instance and many others I present both sides.

So your criticism is dishonest.  You know better.

As you just said to Ialmisry "there is something very strange about you."  I suspect that you carry on with this campaign to destroy my reputation because you are aware of the Roman Catholics whom I have assisted into Orthodoxy via the Internet.  Why, you may even be a Catholic troll sent here with the purpose of trying to hinder people converting !!?

[Apotheoun]

The British quarterly review, Volumes 57-58 By Robert Vaughan

That is a very interesting article.  Thanks for posting it.

[Irish Hermit]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate.

Thomist, your interest in and adherence to Christianity is very insubstantial if just a few days on a forum is able to cause such a loss of interest.  Have you never encountered Orthodoxy's position viz-a-viz Roman Catholicism before?

I was on Catholic Answers Forum for several years and took some very hard knocks from seasoned Catholic apologists but not once did I begin to doubt my interest in Christianity.

Your problem may be contained in the words addressed to Pius IX by the Eastern Patriarchs.  As a Roman Catholic your faith is misplaced and back to front, based on authority and not on truth.

"Not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne,
but from his Apostolic Throne he seeks to establish his dignity,
and from his dignity, his Confession.  The truth is the other way."

~Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns," §11, 1848
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

[militantsparrow]

I believe that this sort of bickering back and forth is not only displeasing to God; I believe it is the real catalyst for the two Churches being separated.

Debating the truth is certainly very healthy and beneficial but there is no good that comes from personal attacks.

[elijahmaria]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate.

Thomist, your interest in and adherence in Christianity is very insubstantial if just a few days on a forum is able to cause such a loss of interest.  Have you never encountered Orthodoxy's position viz-a-viz Roman Catholicism before?

I was on Catholic Answers Forum for several years and took some very hard knocks from seasoned Catholic apologists but not once did I begin to doubt my interest in Christianity.

Your problem may be contained in the words addressed to Pius IX by the Eastern Patriarchs.  As a Roman Catholic your faith is misplaced and back to front, based on authority and not on truth.

"Not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne,
but from his Apostolic Throne he seeks to establish his dignity,
and from his dignity, his Confession.  The truth is the other way."

~Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns," §11, 1848
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

Oh yes.  This from Patriarchs who have done so well at standing up the to the modern world, and being a beacon of faith, never compromising, never yielding, never forgetting who is their Master, never forgetting who wields the REAL power in heaven and on earth..heh!!...yes yes....never flinch and NEVER compromise in person or in faith.

Is that how it goes with Orthodox Patriarchs, Father Ambrose from New Zealand?
 
You pound the crap out of an irenic 23 year old and then you chastise him for flinching? 

Well...Go pound some of your bishops and Patriarchs who are still jukin' and jivin' tryin' to stay alivin' with their Master's-of-This-World...

Not even your weakest, most venal patriarchs would treat a 23 year old Catholic young man the way he's been treated on this Forum. 

You present your own views and the views of some of your bishops but only a neophyte would think that you represented universal Orthodoxy, and you certainly display NO mercy...Christian or otherwise, yet you are quick to whine about no respect or mercy from this quarter...heh!  Earn it!!

[ialmisry]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate.

Thomist, your interest in and adherence in Christianity is very insubstantial if just a few days on a forum is able to cause such a loss of interest.  Have you never encountered Orthodoxy's position viz-a-viz Roman Catholicism before?

I was on Catholic Answers Forum for several years and took some very hard knocks from seasoned Catholic apologists but not once did I begin to doubt my interest in Christianity.

Your problem may be contained in the words addressed to Pius IX by the Eastern Patriarchs.  As a Roman Catholic your faith is misplaced and back to front, based on authority and not on truth.

"Not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne,
but from his Apostolic Throne he seeks to establish his dignity,
and from his dignity, his Confession.  The truth is the other way."

~Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns," §11, 1848
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

Oh yes.  This from Patriarchs who have done so well at standing up the to the modern world, and being a beacon of faith, never compromising, never yielding, never forgetting who is their Master, never forgetting who wields the REAL power in heaven and on earth..heh!!...yes yes....never flinch and NEVER compromise in person or in faith.

Is that how it goes with Orthodox Patriarchs, Father Ambrose from New Zealand?
 
You pound the crap out of an irenic 23 year old and then you chastise him for flinching? 

Well...Go pound some of your bishops and Patriarchs who are still jukin' and jivin' tryin' to stay alivin' with their Master's-of-This-World...

Not even your weakest, most venal patriarchs would treat a 23 year old Catholic young man the way he's been treated on this Forum. 

You present your own views and the views of some of your bishops but only a neophyte would think that you represented universal Orthodoxy, and you certainly display NO mercy...Christian or otherwise, yet you are quick to whine about no respect or mercy from this quarter...heh!  Earn it!!

One wonders how the Ultramontanists would fare under real, rather than imaginary, persecusion.

[ialmisry]

To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

Honorius stands condemned, even under Pastor Aeternus.

[elijahmaria]

Given your ordinary tactics, if I had responded like this in some way, you'd accuse me of WHINING....

I wonder if that goes both ways?

Perhaps you should hook up some of those photos on the Internet of contemporary Russian Orthodox priests wearing Swastikas and supporting the neo-Nazi movement in Russia.  It would round out your photo-collection a bit more, don't you think?

Where would we be without Google?

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate.

Thomist, your interest in and adherence in Christianity is very insubstantial if just a few days on a forum is able to cause such a loss of interest.  Have you never encountered Orthodoxy's position viz-a-viz Roman Catholicism before?

I was on Catholic Answers Forum for several years and took some very hard knocks from seasoned Catholic apologists but not once did I begin to doubt my interest in Christianity.

Your problem may be contained in the words addressed to Pius IX by the Eastern Patriarchs.  As a Roman Catholic your faith is misplaced and back to front, based on authority and not on truth.

"Not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne,
but from his Apostolic Throne he seeks to establish his dignity,
and from his dignity, his Confession.  The truth is the other way."

~Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns," §11, 1848
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

Oh yes.  This from Patriarchs who have done so well at standing up the to the modern world, and being a beacon of faith, never compromising, never yielding, never forgetting who is their Master, never forgetting who wields the REAL power in heaven and on earth..heh!!...yes yes....never flinch and NEVER compromise in person or in faith.

Is that how it goes with Orthodox Patriarchs, Father Ambrose from New Zealand?
 
You pound the crap out of an irenic 23 year old and then you chastise him for flinching? 

Well...Go pound some of your bishops and Patriarchs who are still jukin' and jivin' tryin' to stay alivin' with their Master's-of-This-World...

Not even your weakest, most venal patriarchs would treat a 23 year old Catholic young man the way he's been treated on this Forum. 

You present your own views and the views of some of your bishops but only a neophyte would think that you represented universal Orthodoxy, and you certainly display NO mercy...Christian or otherwise, yet you are quick to whine about no respect or mercy from this quarter...heh!  Earn it!!

One wonders how the Ultramontanists would fare under real, rather than imaginary, persecusion.

[Irish Hermit]

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate.

Thomist, your interest in and adherence in Christianity is very insubstantial if just a few days on a forum is able to cause such a loss of interest.  Have you never encountered Orthodoxy's position viz-a-viz Roman Catholicism before?

I was on Catholic Answers Forum for several years and took some very hard knocks from seasoned Catholic apologists but not once did I begin to doubt my interest in Christianity.

Your problem may be contained in the words addressed to Pius IX by the Eastern Patriarchs.  As a Roman Catholic your faith is misplaced and back to front, based on authority and not on truth.

"Not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne,
but from his Apostolic Throne he seeks to establish his dignity,
and from his dignity, his Confession.  The truth is the other way."

~Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns," §11, 1848
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

Oh yes.  This from Patriarchs who have done so well at standing up the to the modern world, and being a beacon of faith, never compromising, never yielding, never forgetting who is their Master, never forgetting who wields the REAL power in heaven and on earth..heh!!...yes yes....never flinch and NEVER compromise in person or in faith.

Is that how it goes with Orthodox Patriarchs, Father Ambrose from New Zealand?
 
You pound the crap out of an irenic 23 year old and then you chastise him for flinching? 

Well...Go pound some of your bishops and Patriarchs who are still jukin' and jivin' tryin' to stay alivin' with their Master's-of-This-World...

Not even your weakest, most venal patriarchs would treat a 23 year old Catholic young man the way he's been treated on this Forum. 

You present your own views and the views of some of your bishops but only a neophyte would think that you represented universal Orthodoxy, and you certainly display NO mercy...Christian or otherwise, yet you are quick to whine about no respect or mercy from this quarter...heh!  Earn it!!

/\  All the above, absolute nonsense.  Thomist, who arrived here with guns blazing and seeming to think that his apologetical expertise would soon bring the Orthodox to the papal heel, has been treated quite civilly.

[ialmisry]

Given your ordinary tactics, if I had responded like this in some way, you'd accuse me of WHINING....

And we see you doing what here?

I wonder if that goes both ways?

Perhaps you should hook up some of those photos on the Internet of contemporary Russian Orthodox priests wearing Swastikas and supporting the neo-Nazi movement in Russia.  It would round out your photo-collection a bit more, don't you think?

Where would we be without Google?

To find out, I googled "contemporary Russian Orthodox priests wearing Swastikas"
This was the first image:

Must be mighty tiny swastikas

Next was this:

Fascist Father Angelo Idi, 51 - who once saw off a charity box thief with a truncheon at his church in Vigevano, Italy - confessed: “I am proud of my right wing beliefs. But people shouldn’t care about my politics, they should care about how good a priest I am.”

In northern Italy where former dictator Benito Mussolini comes from the far right Italian LEGA NORD (Northern League) have their political stronghold - and there have been several instances of priests with far right views that have embarrassed the Catholic Church.

bloodthirstyliberal.com/?cat=383

Next was another image of Pat. Alexius of blessed memory, and then this:

That's not a Russian habit.

In fact, no priest (at least Russian Orthodox. There were Latin ones) and swastika together in an image.

You really should check things out before posting.

[Irish Hermit]

The first pic that turned up for me on google.nz

The Catholic Croatian faithful last November

http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/index.php?paged=2

[ialmisry]

That's not a statement... that's a question...

No. It was a statement.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."

"Disclaimer" is a legal term meaning, here is where I am going to deny what I am doing. 

Sort of like this:

Dan Brown: Fiction and Falsehood
‘Angels & Demons’ Continues Author’s Penchant for Anti-Catholicism

When is a lie not a lie? When it’s fiction. But where does fiction end and falsehood begin?

“This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.”

This standard disclaimer appears in the front matter of Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons. In a paradoxical sense, the disclaimer is itself a sort of fiction. While certain “names” and “places” are certainly “used fictitiously,” any “resemblance” to actual “locales” of such settings in the book as St. Peter’s Square, the Pantheon and the Sistine Chapel is obviously far from “entirely coincidental.” The same could be said of references to Galileo and Copernicus and incidents from their lives. Everyone knows this, and no one pays much attention to such disclaimers.

“References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today. The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual.”

This author’s note, just a few pages from the disclaimer above, has attracted much more attention and is generally regarded as meaning more or less what it says, whether true or false.

Taking both the disclaimer and the author’s note at face value, the two flatly contradict one another — which means that, at face value, at least one must be false, though not that the other must be true. In fact, the author’s note is no more strictly true than the disclaimer, and it looks much more like a blatant falsehood.

The same can be said of Pastor Aeternus

[elijahmaria]

Keep looking fellas...It was an Orthodox priest who sent them to me originally.  So they do exist.

Perhaps you could use those superior research skills to find something you really don't want to find...eh?

The first pic that turned up for me on google.nz

The Catholic Croatian faithful last November

http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/index.php?paged=2

[elijahmaria]

That's not a statement... that's a question...

No. It was a statement.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."

"Disclaimer" is a legal term meaning, here is where I am going to deny what I am doing. 

Sort of like this:

Dan Brown: Fiction and Falsehood
‘Angels & Demons’ Continues Author’s Penchant for Anti-Catholicism

When is a lie not a lie? When it’s fiction. But where does fiction end and falsehood begin?

“This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.”

This standard disclaimer appears in the front matter of Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons. In a paradoxical sense, the disclaimer is itself a sort of fiction. While certain “names” and “places” are certainly “used fictitiously,” any “resemblance” to actual “locales” of such settings in the book as St. Peter’s Square, the Pantheon and the Sistine Chapel is obviously far from “entirely coincidental.” The same could be said of references to Galileo and Copernicus and incidents from their lives. Everyone knows this, and no one pays much attention to such disclaimers.

“References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today. The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual.”

This author’s note, just a few pages from the disclaimer above, has attracted much more attention and is generally regarded as meaning more or less what it says, whether true or false.

Taking both the disclaimer and the author’s note at face value, the two flatly contradict one another — which means that, at face value, at least one must be false, though not that the other must be true. In fact, the author’s note is no more strictly true than the disclaimer, and it looks much more like a blatant falsehood.

The same can be said of Pastor Aeternus

This is where you are arrogating to yourself a power of analysis that is not legitimately your own.

You are wrong here and all that you do to try to demean the papacy flows from here and is tainted by this very arrogance, and I also suspect, ignorance.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

That's not a statement... that's a question...

No. It was a statement.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."

"Disclaimer" is a legal term meaning, here is where I am going to deny what I am doing. 

Sort of like this:

Dan Brown: Fiction and Falsehood
‘Angels & Demons’ Continues Author’s Penchant for Anti-Catholicism

When is a lie not a lie? When it’s fiction. But where does fiction end and falsehood begin?

“This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.”

This standard disclaimer appears in the front matter of Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons. In a paradoxical sense, the disclaimer is itself a sort of fiction. While certain “names” and “places” are certainly “used fictitiously,” any “resemblance” to actual “locales” of such settings in the book as St. Peter’s Square, the Pantheon and the Sistine Chapel is obviously far from “entirely coincidental.” The same could be said of references to Galileo and Copernicus and incidents from their lives. Everyone knows this, and no one pays much attention to such disclaimers.

“References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today. The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual.”

This author’s note, just a few pages from the disclaimer above, has attracted much more attention and is generally regarded as meaning more or less what it says, whether true or false.

Taking both the disclaimer and the author’s note at face value, the two flatly contradict one another — which means that, at face value, at least one must be false, though not that the other must be true. In fact, the author’s note is no more strictly true than the disclaimer, and it looks much more like a blatant falsehood.

The same can be said of Pastor Aeternus

This is where you are arrogating to yourself a power of analysis that is not legitimately your own.

You are wrong here and all that you do to try to demean the papacy flows from here and is tainted by this very arrogance, and I also suspect, ignorance.

M.

Whether the message is delivered with irony or demeaning or arrogance or ignorance, whether with love and care and diplomatic words, it must still be delivered to the Archbishop of Rome.  He will find no way back into the Church if the Holy Papatia is unwilling to dissolve itself, discarding papal primacy and papal infallibility.

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

[Asteriktos]

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

Let's face it, when it came to Orthodoxy, St. Justin was a good theologian, but when it came to anything non-Orthodox he was just your average controversialist. St. Justin being my patron saint, and besides that an engaging writer, I have enjoyed reading his books over and over; but I have to admit that he builds his cases against almost everyone (European man, the Pope, etc.) with accusations rather than evidence. He often assumes that his claims are self-evident. Maybe they are to many approaching these subjects from within an Orthodox framework, but I wish he'd have spent more time explaining why exactly he believed as he did.