OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 11:46:42 AM *
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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Patriarch accepts pope's apology over Constantinople  (Read 8047 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« on: April 15, 2004, 05:50:49 PM »

"Patriarch accepts pope's apology over Constantinople."


           


From the Cleveland Plain Dealer.




Patriarch accepts pope's apology over Constantinople

04/15/04


Associated Press


Istanbul, Turkey - Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, has accepted an apology from Pope John Paul II for Roman Catholic involvement in the sacking of Constantinople 800 years ago.

During a visit to Greece in 2001, John Paul apologized for the attack on the city, today's Istanbul, which was looted by Catholic Crusaders. The apology had long been sought by Orthodox.

In a speech Tuesday - the 800th anniversary of the city's capture - Bartholomew formally accepted the apology.

"The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred," Bartholomew said during a liturgy, attended by Philippe Barbarin, the Archbishop of Lyon, France. "We receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic events of the Fourth Crusade."

Bartholomew said his acceptance came in the spirit of Easter.

"The spirit of reconciliation of the resurrection . . . incites us toward reconciliation of our churches," the patriarch said.

Bartholomew and John Paul have both emphasized reconciliation between the two churches, split since 1054.

"It is a fact that a crime was committed here in the city 800 years ago," Barbarin said.

In his 2001 apology, John Paul said he would ask for God's forgiveness for "sins of action and omission" by Roman Catholics against Orthodox Christians, including "painful memories" of the Crusades - such as the April 13, 1204, sacking of Constantinople.

The city was subject to three days of looting, in which many of its treasures were taken or destroyed.




-¬ 2004 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. -+


 
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2004, 08:31:57 PM »

RB,

It is good to read that a couple of Patriarchs can discuss pass transgressions etc, but I fear that things of this sort are laughed about by many. Church politics and secular politics have very much in common, and we all know how that goes.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2004, 08:41:15 PM »

Well, it can't hurt things. Thanks, JP2.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2004, 01:25:47 PM »

I'm glad that the Pope apologized, and even more glad that the Patriarch accepted the apology.

Now let's have an ecumenical counsel, and stop this ridiculous wrangling.
Logged

NULL
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2004, 03:42:40 PM »

such an Oecumenical council is theoretically possible, if and when Rome abandons all its post-schism heresies.  Sorry to sound so black and white, but grey really doesnt' compute with me.  

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2004, 04:44:55 PM »

such an Oecumenical council is theoretically possible, if and when Rome abandons all its post-schism heresies.  Sorry to sound so black and white, but grey really doesnt' compute with me.  

Joe Zollars

Well, Joe, you're not really being black and white.  Actually, your argument seems to me to be a bit circular.  You are saying we can have an ecumenical council once everyone agrees.  But if everyone agrees, we won't need an ecumenical council.
Logged

NULL
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2004, 04:54:07 PM »

I am saying an Oecumenical Council will only succeed if it results in the Roman Church repenting of its errors and submitting in authority to Christ's Church.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2004, 04:56:28 PM »

when rome is ready to abandon her falsehoods, an Oecumenical council could be called.  What is obvious from JP2's attempts over the past so many years is that neither he nor rome are wiling to repent lock stock and barrel but rather wish to remake the Eastern Churches in their image.  One need look no further than the nearest Uniate Church to see this.

Overall I like JP2.  He is a sincere man and an honest man, however in this matter he is all wrong.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2004, 06:33:56 PM »

when rome is ready to abandon her falsehoods, an Oecumenical council could be called.  What is obvious from JP2's attempts over the past so many years is that neither he nor rome are wiling to repent lock stock and barrel but rather wish to remake the Eastern Churches in their image.  One need look no further than the nearest Uniate Church to see this.

Overall I like JP2.  He is a sincere man and an honest man, however in this matter he is all wrong.

Joe Zollars

But, Joe, aren't you taking the same attitude?  I agree that the eastern churches shouldn't simply be made over into Rome's image.  But you say that the two sides shouldn't even talk until Rome agrees that it has been wrong about everything.
Logged

NULL
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2004, 07:35:42 PM »

that is because it is Rome which is in error.  It is Rome which has seperated itself from the Church--not the other way around.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2004, 07:55:32 PM »

that is because it is Rome which is in error.  It is Rome which has seperated itself from the Church--not the other way around.

Joe Zollars

But that's merely an assertion.  From where I sit, it looks like the eastern churches have cut the 16th chapter of Matthew out of their Bibles.  Peter is the rock on which the Church is built.  Therefore, to separate from Peter is to separate from the Church.  But I'm sure you don't agree with that, and so, you see, it does no good to for each side to hurl assertions at each other.

To take an example of what I'm driving at, the filioque clause does not contradict anything in the Councils of Nicea or Constantinople I.  To say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father does not necessarily imply that he does not also proceed from the Son.  Neither council addressed what creed should be recited in the liturgy.  There has been no ecumenical council condemning the filioque clause.  Now to resolve this dispute an ecumenical council would be necessary.  But if one side was to say to the other, 'We won't meet with you until you agree that we're right and you're wrong,' is to negate the idea of meeting at all.  What's the point of a meeting if a precondition of meeting is that one side fully submit to the other?

And I must add this point.  The complaint I have heard from the Orthodox side is that the Pope keeps trying to make everyone submit to him.  But who's really trying to make someone submit?
Logged

NULL
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2004, 11:31:05 PM »

History prooves that it is indeed Orthodoxy which has not changed its beliefs or structure from that of the original Church.  

Actually, it is the Papists who take Mathew 18 and turn it into the holy grail of all scripture and ignore the patristic commentary on those verses.

It is only being honest to say there is a real difference between Papism and Orthodoxy.  One is true, one is the original Church.  One, and I repeat only one, has maintained the apostolic faith intact.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2004, 11:59:34 PM »

History prooves that it is indeed Orthodoxy which has not changed its beliefs or structure from that of the original Church.  

Actually, it is the Papists who take Mathew 18 and turn it into the holy grail of all scripture and ignore the patristic commentary on those verses.

It is only being honest to say there is a real difference between Papism and Orthodoxy.  One is true, one is the original Church.  One, and I repeat only one, has maintained the apostolic faith intact.

Joe Zollars

what commentary do  the " papist( this is so protestant)" ignore? please provide them to us. Do you mean like this one.

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:Cool.

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).




What about this one:


Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).



And this one:


Synod of Ambrose

"We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you" (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).



Also, What about this one:


Council of Chalcedon

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).


« Last Edit: April 17, 2004, 12:01:59 AM by romanbyzantium » Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2004, 12:11:00 AM »

such has already been discussed at great lenght in diverse threads in this section of the forum.  So as not to clutter I will not repeat what I and others have already said.  Do a quick scan of the threads in this section.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2004, 05:54:55 AM »

I'm glad that the Pope apologized, and even more glad that the Patriarch accepted the apology.

Now let's have an ecumenical counsel, and stop this ridiculous wrangling.

I am glad as well, but can you define "ridiculous wrangling" a bit better? I think you are being more than simplistic, certainly optimistic at best.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2004, 06:51:04 PM »

I am glad as well, but can you define "ridiculous wrangling" a bit better? I think you are being more than simplistic, certainly optimistic at best.

Demetri

Truth is simple.  Faith is optimistic.  Why are we divided among ourselves?  It is because one claims knowledge that the other does not have.  Both sides are intractably convinced of the rightness of their position.  Of course, "'Knowledge' puffs up, but love builds up." (I Corinthians 8:1)  So it is love, faith, and truth that must guide us, not what seems possible in a political sense.

Coming back together can only happen through the power of the Holy Spirit.  It can be done, and, yes, that is very simplistic.
Logged

NULL
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 532


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2004, 03:39:50 PM »

I personally don't care to see any Orthodox "union" with Rome, at least not until Rome gets its own house in order.  It doesn't seem to me that having a Monarchial form of church gov't (the Papacy) has helped Rome any.  The hideous innovations of the Second Vatican Council have given the venerable Roman Mass an almost Protestant-like ethos and feel to it.  I think that alone, combined with the unfortunate experiement of Uniatism in 16th century Europe, will serve to keep Orthodoxy apart from Rome forever.
Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2004, 06:40:55 PM »

I personally don't care to see any Orthodox "union" with Rome, at least not until Rome gets its own house in order.  It doesn't seem to me that having a Monarchial form of church gov't (the Papacy) has helped Rome any.  The hideous innovations of the Second Vatican Council have given the venerable Roman Mass an almost Protestant-like ethos and feel to it.  I think that alone, combined with the unfortunate experiement of Uniatism in 16th century Europe, will serve to keep Orthodoxy apart from Rome forever.

If we have to wait until both sides are perfect, you're right: it will take forever.  But even assuming you are right on every point of dispute, "if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (I Corinthians 13:2.)
Logged

NULL
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2004, 06:54:23 PM »

Truth is simple.  Faith is optimistic.  Why are we divided among ourselves?  It is because one claims knowledge that the other does not have.  Both sides are intractably convinced of the rightness of their position.  Of course, "'Knowledge' puffs up, but love builds up." (I Corinthians 8:1)  So it is love, faith, and truth that must guide us, not what seems possible in a political sense.

Coming back together can only happen through the power of the Holy Spirit.  It can be done, and, yes, that is very simplistic.

Jack,
I appreciate your taking my "simplistic" remark in the spirit that was meant and your not taking offense. I do not mean to belittle your noble wishes but Tikhon29605 gives some valid, if not harsh, reasoning which glosses over much.
The chasm separating our communions has grown much deeper and wider in the last 950 years - much more than a calendar issue or even the first two (the role of the papacy and the filioque).
Indeed, the recent work on the Filioque Question makes a good point here: The EP put his best foot forward in appointing Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh to the Orthodox chair. The metropolitan, like the EP himself, was educated at the Vatican (our Halkidi seminary being closed by the Turks). If anyone on our side could bring a perspective to reach an agreement better than he, I don't know whom it would have been. No real agreement was made.
Since 1054, no less than 27 more Latin innovations have been introduced in the west which are foreign to Orthodoxy. Some are minor, some workable, many major.
We both cannot get beyond the first orignal two.
I post this so you may understand my definition of a complex situation that is far from simplistic.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2004, 08:02:05 PM »

Jack,
I appreciate your taking my "simplistic" remark in the spirit that was meant and your not taking offense. I do not mean to belittle your noble wishes but Tikhon29605 gives some valid, if not harsh, reasoning which glosses over much.
The chasm separating our communions has grown much deeper and wider in the last 950 years - much more than a calendar issue or even the first two (the role of the papacy and the filioque).
Indeed, the recent work on the Filioque Question makes a good point here: The EP put his best foot forward in appointing Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh to the Orthodox chair. The metropolitan, like the EP himself, was educated at the Vatican (our Halkidi seminary being closed by the Turks). If anyone on our side could bring a perspective to reach an agreement better than he, I don't know whom it would have been. No real agreement was made.
Since 1054, no less than 27 more Latin innovations have been introduced in the west which are foreign to Orthodoxy. Some are minor, some workable, many major.
We both cannot get beyond the first orignal two.
I post this so you may understand my definition of a complex situation that is far from simplistic.

Demetri

I understand that there are a lot of issues that are complicated from a human point of view.  But both sides have at their disposal the means to see it another way.  The Holy Spirit can solve this problem, if we will let him.  On the other hand, we can make priests wearing beards a basis for division if we're determined enough.
Logged

NULL
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2004, 08:14:08 PM »

OK, Jack.
However, I did not have facial hair listed among the innovations many of which are basic to the faith and not merely 'human'.

This should give you a better perspective of our views:

http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/R9.html

Demetri
« Last Edit: April 18, 2004, 08:15:39 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 532


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2004, 11:41:51 PM »

The most frustrating thing I have encountered as an Eastern Orthodox Christian in our relationship with the Church of Rome is this:  99% of all Roman Catholic confidently tell me that ALL our differences are "just ethnic stuff".  I am told that, in truth, Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on EVERYTHING, and that the only reason we are not in communion with each other is because of Orthodox "stubborness" or "refusal to submit to Rome."  Personally, I think there are some major theological differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, and until these differences are honestly admitted by both sides, ecumenical dialog is in vain.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2004, 12:46:26 AM »

The most frustrating thing I have encountered as an Eastern Orthodox Christian in our relationship with the Church of Rome is this:  99% of all Roman Catholic confidently tell me that ALL our differences are "just ethnic stuff".  I am told that, in truth, Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on EVERYTHING, and that the only reason we are not in communion with each other is because of Orthodox "stubborness" or "refusal to submit to Rome."  Personally, I think there are some major theological differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, and until these differences are honestly admitted by both sides, ecumenical dialog is in vain.

well, I believe that we express the same faith but differently. you know that the early unified church was very diverse in its understanding of the faith. Why can't there be diversity now?

we catholics are open to the diversity of the faith but you guys are not. you guys want us to abandon our traditions and replace them with yours.
Logged
Historynut
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


OC.net


« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2004, 01:04:28 AM »

Quote
well, I believe that we express the same faith but differently. you know that the early unified church was very diverse in its understanding of the faith. Why can't there be diversity now?

we catholics are open to the diversity of the faith but you guys are not. you guys want us to abandon our traditions and replace them with yours.
.

I on the other hand feel that we express our faiths differently because in many ways they are fundamentally different. Thats not to say they both are not christian but I see little Romaness in anything in the EO church except for our shared heritage of sacramental litugical worship our theology is radically different on many things such as the nature of grace, purgatory or lack there of and on and on. And as to anyone abandoning anyones tradition the last thing I would want in my church is anyone who would abandon their traditions for "unity". And a combination of my feelings and yours RB are what will likely keep our churches divided for the forseeable future. I mean no one wants to compromise their faith just to say hey look we have a unified church but we disagree on basically everything and no one is happy with the comprimises.
Logged

NULL
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 532


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2004, 01:53:54 AM »

Therein lies the difference. I don't think Rome is of the same faith as the Orthodox Church.  I think that is the simplest way to state it.  While the Church of Rome is indeed Christian, I cannot see it as having the SAME faith as the Orthodox Church.  There are simply too many real theological differences between us to pretend that we are the same.  I cannot pretend that the Papacy's claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility, the filioque (merely an extension of papal power applied to the Symbol of Faith), purgatory, the treasury of merit, indulgences, inherited guilt in the Augustinian sense, notions of "created grace", the unnecessary dogma of the immaculate conception of the BVM (which as St. John Maximovitch says, actually robs the Theotokos of all her virtues), and the hideous innovations of the Second Vatican Council (including having the priest stand behind the altar and face the people like a Zwinglian preacher, and having lay people distribute the Eucharist, effectively destroying any sense of Eucharistic discipline) - I cannot see how any of these things can be reconciled with Orthodoxy.   All it would take is simply one visit to a typical Novus Ordo Mass to convince most Orthodox that Rome can never be reconciled to Orthodoxy.
Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2004, 12:06:19 PM »

Quote
Therein lies the difference. I don't think Rome is of the same faith as the Orthodox Church.  I think that is the simplest way to state it.  While the Church of Rome is indeed Christian, I cannot see it as having the SAME faith as the Orthodox Church.  There are simply too many real theological differences between us to pretend that we are the same.  I cannot pretend that the Papacy's claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility, the filioque (merely an extension of papal power applied to the Symbol of Faith), purgatory, the treasury of merit, indulgences, inherited guilt in the Augustinian sense, notions of "created grace", the unnecessary dogma of the immaculate conception of the BVM (which as St. John Maximovitch says, actually robs the Theotokos of all her virtues), and the hideous innovations of the Second Vatican Council (including having the priest stand behind the altar and face the people like a Zwinglian preacher, and having lay people distribute the Eucharist, effectively destroying any sense of Eucharistic discipline) - I cannot see how any of these things can be reconciled with Orthodoxy.  All it would take is simply one visit to a typical Novus Ordo Mass to convince most Orthodox that Rome can never be reconciled to Orthodoxy.

I'm also in agreement with you on the "new" mass of the RC Church. At one point I was thinking of becoming RC after I left protestantism, but couldn't bring myself to do it. I agree there are many "great" & inspiring things about the Roman Church, but thier mass is not one of them. If anyone is thinking of being Roman Catholic, all they will need to do is visit an RC and see the most unimpressive liturgical service out there. I find much more beauty & integretity in a high anglo - catholic liturgy than an RC mass. I think the RC's need to do away with Vatican 2 & restore the previous liturgical traditions. From my observations, I can see that the liturgical changes has had an affect on the average catholic church goer also. Most of them seem apethetic about the new mass & most of them have become "social" catholics.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2004, 12:30:41 PM »

well, I believe that we express the same faith but differently. you know that the early unified church was very diverse in its understanding of the faith. Why can't there be diversity now?

we catholics are open to the diversity of the faith but you guys are not. you guys want us to abandon our traditions and replace them with yours.

I'm not so sure about that, RB.  Although we are being asked by the Vatican to define the primacy in pragmatic terms to best serve the age, we are also being asked to sign on to the ideas of Vatican 1 relating to the supreme universal jurisdiction and (even limited) infallibility of the Pope as a matter of dogma ... certainly not a part of our Orthodox tradition.

We are also being asked to agree that there can be two forms of the Creed (not a part of our tradition nor, we would argue, a part of yours either in light of what First Millenium Popes had to say about the interpolation of the Filioque in the years before the Franks essentially began to monopolise the Papal throne).

I think you have to be careful when you discuss what we are being asked to give up as a part of the union that seems so acceptable to Roman Catholic eyes.

Also, I think that while it is fine to point out the difficulties with the Roman liturgy, we Orthodox, with our own liturgy, also have numerous people who are Orthodox in name only, or who are "ethnically Orthodox" the way that many Italian or Irish Americans are "ethnically Catholic".  We have a similar problem, it's just that many of our own lackadaisical types don't even bother showing up at church at all other than on Pascha and maybe Christmas.

Brendan
Logged

B
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2004, 03:51:57 PM »

I'm also in agreement with you on the "new" mass of the RC Church. At one point I was thinking of becoming RC after I left protestantism, but couldn't bring myself to do it. I agree there are many "great" & inspiring things about the Roman Church, but thier mass is not one of them. If anyone is thinking of being Roman Catholic, all they will need to do is visit an RC and see the most unimpressive liturgical service out there. I find much more beauty & integretity in a high anglo - catholic liturgy than an RC mass. I think the RC's need to do away with Vatican 2 & restore the previous liturgical traditions. From my observations, I can see that the liturgical changes has had an affect on the average catholic church goer also. Most of them seem apethetic about the new mass & most of them have become "social" catholics.    

Is that why you go to mass,  to be impressed? I thought that it was to recieve jesus.

I guess that you haven't seen a tridentine mass, which is the one I go to. and the new mass is very fine and inspiring when done as prescribed not with all the additions and deletions that many parishes take liberty in.

Also, you are forgetting that we not only have the new roman mass but we also have a half a dozen other liturgies to go to. such as the eastern byzantine catholics.

Logged
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2004, 04:08:23 PM »


Also, you are forgetting that we not only have the new roman mass but we also have a half a dozen other liturgies to go to. such as the eastern byzantine catholics.


What are the other liturgies from your half dozen?  Are they in addition to the Novus Ordo, the Tridentine Mass and the Eastern rite?
Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2004, 04:17:11 PM »

OK, Jack.
However, I did not have facial hair listed among the innovations many of which are basic to the faith and not merely 'human'.

This should give you a better perspective of our views:

http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/R9.html

Demetri

Thanks, Demetri.  I'm sorry about the tasteless humor.  The anonymity of this method of communication made me temporarily forget that I was talking to someone who doesn't know me.

Thanks also for the link.  I've only skimmed it, but I can tell you that there is much that I don't understand in it.  I don't have a PhD in Theology (I am a mere lawyer), but I have to believe that most of the Orthodox faithful don't understand those issues either.  I know the Catholics sure don't.  It really looks to me like we are being divided over metaphysical disputes, and that can't be right.
Logged

NULL
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2004, 07:19:41 PM »

Quote
Is that why you go to mass,  to be impressed? I thought that it was to recieve jesus.

I guess that you haven't seen a tridentine mass, which is the one I go to. and the new mass is very fine and inspiring when done as prescribed not with all the additions and deletions that many parishes take liberty in.

Also, you are forgetting that we not only have the new roman mass but we also have a half a dozen other liturgies to go to. such as the eastern byzantine catholics.

I was just saying that what they have done to the mass was dismantle it's beauty and traditional relevance. The RC mass to me feels very protestant and foriegn to how the church has always worshipped. The new mass doesn't "organically" connect to how christians have liturgically worshipped. There are just too many changes that were uncalled for. I can maybe understand changing the vernacular of the liturgy, but changing the liturgical actions was unjustified and changed the way things have been done for centuries. You talk about as long as they follow Vatican 2, there should be no problems. Well, the problem is Vatican 2 itself. It seems that no one knows how to interpret it properly because everyone is doing thier own thing.

I have been to a tridentine mass a few times. The only problem is that many dioceses don't allow for this, so many that would prefer the tridentine mass are left in the dark. Some of the other "liturgies" the RC has are very rare also.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,745


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2004, 07:44:00 PM »

Quote
Are they in addition to the Novus Ordo, the Tridentine Mass and the Eastern rite?

Well, in theory there are two other Latin rites, the Ambrosian or Milanese from the archdiocese of Milan and the Mozarabic in Toledo, Spain, and Eastern rites, plural, not only that used by the Eastern Orthodox but also the Maronite Church and those of the Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syrian and Malankara (Indian) churches.
Logged

Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2004, 08:07:09 PM »

I'm also in agreement with you on the "new" mass of the RC Church. At one point I was thinking of becoming RC after I left protestantism, but couldn't bring myself to do it. I agree there are many "great" & inspiring things about the Roman Church, but thier mass is not one of them. If anyone is thinking of being Roman Catholic, all they will need to do is visit an RC and see the most unimpressive liturgical service out there. I find much more beauty & integretity in a high anglo - catholic liturgy than an RC mass. I think the RC's need to do away with Vatican 2 & restore the previous liturgical traditions. From my observations, I can see that the liturgical changes has had an affect on the average catholic church goer also. Most of them seem apethetic about the new mass & most of them have become "social" catholics.    

Nacho...did you take the time to visit a Traditional Latin Mass Roman Catholic chapel, where the old mass is celebrated (usually the missal of 1962)?

As a Roman Catholic, I agree that the Novus Ordo Mass is a horrid innovation that is a betrayal of the rich litrugical history of the Roman Catholic Church, however, this isn't a reason not to be Catholic.

The Tridentine Latin Mass is celebrated in almost every diocese by Roman Catholic priests in union with Rome. And let us not forgett the breadth of Eastern rite litrugies that are celebrated within the Catholic Church.

There is more to the Catholic Church, than the Novus Ordo Mass.

St. Joseph, patron of the univeral Church, pray for the restoration of the Tridentine Mass!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2004, 08:15:00 PM »

Therein lies the difference. I don't think Rome is of the same faith as the Orthodox Church.  I think that is the simplest way to state it.  While the Church of Rome is indeed Christian, I cannot see it as having the SAME faith as the Orthodox Church.  There are simply too many real theological differences between us to pretend that we are the same.  I cannot pretend that the Papacy's claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility, the filioque (merely an extension of papal power applied to the Symbol of Faith), purgatory, the treasury of merit, indulgences, inherited guilt in the Augustinian sense, notions of "created grace", the unnecessary dogma of the immaculate conception of the BVM (which as St. John Maximovitch says, actually robs the Theotokos of all her virtues), and the hideous innovations of the Second Vatican Council (including having the priest stand behind the altar and face the people like a Zwinglian preacher, and having lay people distribute the Eucharist, effectively destroying any sense of Eucharistic discipline) - I cannot see how any of these things can be reconciled with Orthodoxy.   All it would take is simply one visit to a typical Novus Ordo Mass to convince most Orthodox that Rome can never be reconciled to Orthodoxy.

The Patriarch of Moscow can't possibly agree that we are not of the same faith.  If we weren't of the same faith, then there would no reason to be upset about "uniate" churches, or the alleged proselytizing.  It would simply be a matter of another religion practising its faith.  But he is upset at what he sees as encroachments by Rome, because, at bottom, he realizes we are all part of the same Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2004, 08:35:47 PM »

I may be wrong, Jack, but I think you're wrong.

I have been at a struggle between east and west for some time now. And though I remain Roman Catholic, and have a great love for the east, and contemplate a conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy every day.

Through my study, and prayer, I have found profound theological differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, most of which have already been mentioned in this thread.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both Christian faiths, but they aren't the same faith, this is obvious to anyone who truly goes beyond the facade of the ecumenical movement and truly studies the rich litrugical and theological traditions of both east and west.

The Patriarch of Mosocow, in my humble opinion, does see the profound differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and is upset about the proselytizing of the Roman Catholic faith, because he believes Orthodoxy to be the one true Church.

I don't see how any educated Christian can believe that two Churches, or three, or four, or however many, are all apart of the same Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is only ONE true Catholic and Apostolic Church, and considering the profound theological differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy I do not see how both make up this one true Church.

"Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!"
-Saint Philaret the Confessor

« Last Edit: April 19, 2004, 08:39:58 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Historynut
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


OC.net


« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2004, 09:37:52 PM »

Although I dont think the Catholic and Orthodox church are one in faith any longer I am not all that hopeless as to there being some kind of long term reconciliation between the two churches at least to the point of being back in communion but not necessarily being completely unified. The churches for the most part hold the same truths about the sacraments particularly communion and hold many things in common like showing due reverence to the saints so i really dont see anything keep the two from at least being able to worship together and share in the sacrements. But this might be my former protestant liberalism showing so i will hush now  Shocked
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2004, 09:56:25 PM »

Historynut...

To share in the sacraments and have full liturgical communion the two Churches must hold the same faith.

It seems, to me, a fundamental foundation to the sacraments in both East and West, that for such communion to exsist there must be the profession of the same faith. It would seem absurd to me, for the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church to share in the sacraments if they didn't profess the same faith.

I am sorry but the Immaculate Conception, Papal supremacy and Infallibility,the filioque, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc. can not be, in my opinion, pushed aside for the sake of sharing in the sacraments.

I think everyone can agree that before any union is possible, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches must address their profound theological differences.

There is only one true Church, the other is in schism, we can not ignore this reality for the sake of ecumenism.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2004, 10:01:37 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2004, 01:28:23 AM »

I appreciate your candor, Historynut, and I'll respond in kind.  If your looking for the one, true, visible Church, look no further; you're already there.  Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, and his successor is the Bishop of Rome.  The reason why the sacraments remain valid in the eastern churches is because they are apostolic, and the power to dispense the sacraments were given to all the apostles.

You see, it's quite a struggle trying to figure out who's right.  Nobody knows everything, and most of us know substantially less than that.  The Orthodox Church makes some compelling points, and is probably right about some things.  But the Lord has given us a sure sign of where his Church is, and that is the rock that is Peter.  The papacy has lasted all this time, and will continue to last, for just this reason, so that those who seek Christ's Church can find it.  Yes, that's very simple, but most people don't have the time or the wherewithal to argue about such things as whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or both the Father and the Son, and, if both, is it from both in the same way.  "I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to babes."

True, there are popes who have behaved badly, and are probably responsible for the rifts within Christendom.  But Christ keeps it going anyway, so that seekers of truth can see the ensign on the hill.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2004, 01:31:56 AM »

One more point.  The sharing of communion amongst all the Apostolic churches would be legitimate, in that both have valid sacraments.  Unfortunately, men are deciding what divides them.
Logged

NULL
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2004, 02:22:34 AM »

Well, Jack, I see you have come full circle in what I call the Roman Catholic Logic of Denial.
I posted above a link to a lengthy monologue detailing the innovations introduced in the Latin church that are not found in Orthodoxy. Either you did not read it, or did read it and dismissed it without comment, or chose to ignore it. In any case, you have fallen back to the usual papal definition of the Church using Matthew as your basis. Everytime I see this argument the image of Christ washing the feet of the apostles leaps into my mind in answer. And then I wonder, how is it that the Vaticanites cannot see their error?
The link above shows in 29 or so points where your church has gone - what it has BECOME. You are asking us Orthodox Catholics to accept what you have BECOME. We ask you to RETURN to what you were which is what we ARE. If you cannot discern a difference there, there is no reason to discuss anything further.
I, well-known anti-ecumenist here, did welcome and accept the apology of the bishop of Rome. And the Orthodox are not without fault in the schism - we should have pressed harder to prevent the loss of the See of Rome to the Church. I am sure the apology was genuine. However, apology or no, please do not expect us to change on that basis.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2004, 06:49:17 AM »

Well, in theory there are two other Latin rites, the Ambrosian or Milanese from the archdiocese of Milan and the Mozarabic in Toledo, Spain, and Eastern rites, plural, not only that used by the Eastern Orthodox but also the Maronite Church and those of the Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syrian and Malankara (Indian) churches.


Thanks very much, Serge. If RB is able to access all of these rites he's most fortunate. Would a Catholic be able to attend the other eastern rites which you mention?  Here in Ireland anyone who is not attending the Novus Ordo in English is regarded with suspicion and ostracized. I used to attend the NO in Latin but the priest admitted that it was offered as a sop to older parishoners and would be discontinued when they passed on. I then went to the Tridentine Mass which could only be offered on alternate months and where every possible obstruction was put in our path from the begruding permission of the bishop, through the fact that no official source would advertise it, to the constant problems with finding a church willing to allow its celebration. I think many people thought that Ireland would be some last great bastion of the old ways, they couldn't be more wrong.

Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2004, 07:10:17 AM »

Well, Jack, I see you have come full circle in what I call the Roman Catholic Logic of Denial.
I posted above a link to a lengthy monologue detailing the innovations introduced in the Latin church that are not found in Orthodoxy. Either you did not read it, or did read it and dismissed it without comment, or chose to ignore it. In any case, you have fallen back to the usual papal definition of the Church using Matthew as your basis. Everytime I see this argument the image of Christ washing the feet of the apostles leaps into my mind in answer. And then I wonder, how is it that the Vaticanites cannot see their error?
The link above shows in 29 or so points where your church has gone - what it has BECOME. You are asking us Orthodox Catholics to accept what you have BECOME. We ask you to RETURN to what you were which is what we ARE. If you cannot discern a difference there, there is no reason to discuss anything further.
I, well-known anti-ecumenist here, did welcome and accept the apology of the bishop of Rome. And the Orthodox are not without fault in the schism - we should have pressed harder to prevent the loss of the See of Rome to the Church. I am sure the apology was genuine. However, apology or no, please do not expect us to change on that basis.

Demetri

what are you talkimg about? we kept you out of heresies for centuries. the east,  time and time again fell into one heresy after another and who's job was to get you out of it?  The west.

LOL "we should have pressed harder to prevent the loss of the See of Rome to the Church"

Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2004, 07:30:50 AM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

we kept you out of heresies for centuries. the east,  time and time again fell into one heresy after another and who's job was to get you out of it?  The west.

So how exactly did the West do this? Can you give a few specific examples with some details as to how Rome acheived this?

John.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2004, 09:02:13 AM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!
Quote

{from RB}what are you talkimg about? we kept you out of heresies for centuries. the east,  time and time again fell into one heresy after another and who's job was to get you out of it?  The west.

LOL "we should have pressed harder to prevent the loss of the See of Rome to the Church"

So how exactly did the West do this? Can you give a few specific examples with some details as to how Rome acheived this?

John.

John, don't fret our Latin mascot. I won't. He professes to want to know us, then continually contributes nothing but jingoisms without any substance. He is a troll; yes, he was invited here, but he's a troll nonetheless.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2004, 09:08:12 AM »

I think his stay here will eventually lead him to the truth because usually the uninterested people leave after awhile, whereas RB keeps asking questions.  Sure sometimes he has creative statements but don't we all Smiley?
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2004, 09:11:39 AM »

I think his stay here will eventually lead him to the truth because usually the uninterested people leave after awhile, whereas RB keeps asking questions.  Sure sometimes he has creative statements but don't we all Smiley?

Ah, the patience of a cleric! Your beard must be growing longer, young seminarian! Point conceded, sort of...

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2004, 09:53:04 AM »

Demetri,

No, patience was my first trip to India where I roomed for five weeks with a militant gay*, Wicca-practicing, sociology major, African-Americans-are-completely-oppressed man who ended up being a nice guy and a friend Wink

anastasios

* I.e. the rare gay person who tries to convince other people that they are really gay too.  The whole time, I was encouraged to "find my feminine side."  I usually responded, "she's back in the United States." Wink
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,745


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2004, 10:20:03 AM »

Brigid,

You're welcome!

Quote
If RB is able to access all of these rites he's most fortunate. Would a Catholic be able to attend the other eastern rites which you mention?


In theory yes. Chances are in the US, especially in the big cities such as New York, Chicago and LA, you can find several of the Eastern rites I named.

Quote
Here in Ireland anyone who is not attending the Novus Ordo in English is regarded with suspicion and ostracized. I used to attend the NO in Latin but the priest admitted that it was offered as a sop to older parishoners and would be discontinued when they passed on. I then went to the Tridentine Mass which could only be offered on alternate months and where every possible obstruction was put in our path from the begruding permission of the bishop, through the fact that no official source would advertise it, to the constant problems with finding a church willing to allow its celebration. I think many people thought that Ireland would be some last great bastion of the old ways, they couldn't be more wrong.


Almost nothing surprises me any more. That this is the situation in a country whose name is virtually synonymous with 'Catholic'* is, in one word, perverse.

*True in the States because of 19th-century immigration. Fun fact: in spite of that immigrant presence and influence, most Americans who claim Irish ancestry are... Protestants, owing perhaps both to the presence of the Protestant Irish (Ulster Scots and even southern Irish Presbyterians) in America since the 1700s and assimilation. Another fun fact: Barry Fitzgerald, who played a priest in 'Going My Way' because of his southern Irish accent, was a born and lifelong Presby.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2004, 10:25:17 AM by Serge » Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 20, 2004, 10:51:03 AM »

RomanByzantium,

Quote
well, I believe that we express the same faith but differently. you know that the early unified church was very diverse in its understanding of the faith. Why can't there be diversity now?

Diversity in some things is fine - however when that diversity touches fundamentals, then it is a problem...this is why so much of that early "diversity" you speak of ended in heresies and schisms, many of which were never healed.

As for Orthodoxy and Catholicism having the "same faith" but simply with a different expression, I beg to differ.  Catholicism has come to define itself solely in judicial terms, to the point that it has invented doctrines alien to both Western and Eastern Fathers.  One could not begin to speak with any seriousness of "indulgences" without first having a concept of salvation which would have been just as foreign to St.Gregory the Great or St.Vincent of Lerins as it would have been to St.Athanasios or St.Photios the Great.

Quote
we catholics are open to the diversity of the faith but you guys are not. you guys want us to abandon our traditions and replace them with yours.

What the Orthodox world would like, is for the Latins to return to their own, Orthodox traditions, both in terms of faith and praxis.  Orthodoxy does not have a problem with the Church of St.Gregory the Great - but that is not what the RCC is, and it hasn't been this for centuries.

Of course, it's impossible to go into a time machine and just set everything back - thus the only real option would be some kind of revision of Latin practices (perhaps starting with a return to pre-Vatican II RC usages, which at least still exist within the living memory of the RCC...these in turn could be corrected so as to expunge from them doctrinal errors which crept into Latin liturgical services).

Quote
Is that why you go to mass,  to be impressed? I thought that it was to recieve jesus.

If I went to a family gathering where my grandmother was present, only to find everyone was treating her contemptuously (indulging in riotous behaviour in front of her, making light of what she had to say, etc.), I would be as guilty as they if I just sat there and played along.  Sure I could try and sneak in a kind conversation, and perhaps not myself say anything rude to her, but this would not undue the harm of my own indifference to their awful behaviour.

Frankly, the "new mass" and the "new attitude" of the RC's is borish, and not too seldom, sacreligious.  It's more appropriate to a secularized protestantism that doesn't pretend to hold it's possessions as being anything sacred, than it is to a church which says it offers the holy oblation upon it's altars.  The whole approach in most RC temples is not simply too casual as far as most Orthodox are concerned, but downright inappropriate.  God is not mocked - a very simple Biblical maxim that many forget...the idea that He will continue to dwell amongst blasphemers is neither Biblical, nor sensible.

Quote
I guess that you haven't seen a tridentine mass, which is the one I go to. and the new mass is very fine and inspiring when done as prescribed not with all the additions and deletions that many parishes take liberty in.

With some important revisions (mainly removal of certain troubling post-schism additions), the Tridentine Missal could (in the case of a hypothetical reunion of Rome with Orthodoxy) become a viable Orthodox service.  I think people here are refering to the "New Mass", which is the rule in the RCC (and not the Tridentine Missal, which you either have to get special permission for, or be a "renegade" to avail yourself of, in the RCC).  While I've heard plenty of apologies for the New Mass (typically "it can be said with great solemnity), these ring hollow - the reality is that it lends itself to a type of "worship" (if it can be called that) which is more humanistic than Theocentric.  And that is what you see in most Latin parishes now days - self help and perhaps a little political activism dressed up as the good news of salvation.

Seraphim
Logged

Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2004, 12:19:28 PM »

Well, Jack, I see you have come full circle in what I call the Roman Catholic Logic of Denial.
I posted above a link to a lengthy monologue detailing the innovations introduced in the Latin church that are not found in Orthodoxy. Either you did not read it, or did read it and dismissed it without comment, or chose to ignore it. In any case, you have fallen back to the usual papal definition of the Church using Matthew as your basis. Everytime I see this argument the image of Christ washing the feet of the apostles leaps into my mind in answer. And then I wonder, how is it that the Vaticanites cannot see their error?
The link above shows in 29 or so points where your church has gone - what it has BECOME. You are asking us Orthodox Catholics to accept what you have BECOME. We ask you to RETURN to what you were which is what we ARE. If you cannot discern a difference there, there is no reason to discuss anything further.
I, well-known anti-ecumenist here, did welcome and accept the apology of the bishop of Rome. And the Orthodox are not without fault in the schism - we should have pressed harder to prevent the loss of the See of Rome to the Church. I am sure the apology was genuine. However, apology or no, please do not expect us to change on that basis.

Demetri

Well, Demetri, I wasn't responding directly to you in the posting you are referring to.   I obviously didn't expect you to be persuaded by it.

You're right, I haven't finished reading the material in the link you provided me.  It will take me awhile to do so.  There is a lot of material.  When I finish, I will be happy to discuss it with you.
Logged

NULL
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2004, 12:32:29 PM »

That's great, Jack.
I know the linked site is difficult reading, very much so for me at least, but it does cut to the quick. I look forward to your reactions.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Tags: fourth crusade 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.153 seconds with 78 queries.