Topic: Monk Placide Deseille

[elijahmaria]

http://www.pagesorthodoxes.net/foi-orthodoxe/temoignage-placide-deseille.htm

I did an extremely stupid thing by confusing this French monk, Placide Deseille, with the story of a Spanish or Portuguese monk who converted from the Catholic Church to Orthodoxy.  I don't know how to fix it in the context of the thread where I commented, so I will at least do this.

It is not Father Placide's story that has been disturbing to me but the latter, whose name and location I cannot remember and will need to search for in my bookmarks.

I am sorry for the confusion and thank Father Ambrose, NZ for drawing my attention to the fact that I may have made a serious error in recollection or lack thereof.  

When I went and looked I realized that I not only have no problem with Father Placide and his entry into Orthodoxy but that I have paid very positive attention to him over the years and collected all I could find on his story and his monastic house and his writings.

M.

[John of the North]

Did you mean to refer to Neomartyr Paul??

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paul_(de_Ballester-Convallier)_of_Nazianzus

[elijahmaria]

Did you mean to refer to Neomartyr Paul??

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paul_(de_Ballester-Convallier)_of_Nazianzus

I did, indeed, thank you!  I searched and found the source that I had.

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx

[Irish Hermit]

http://www.pagesorthodoxes.net/foi-orthodoxe/temoignage-placide-deseille.htm

Thank you enormously for this.  I was given a xeroxed copy back in the early 80s when I was a monk in Serbia.  Fr Placide and his monks would stop over at our monastery sometimes, travelling to and from the Holy Mountain.  In those days this piece of writing was not handed around to just anyone - maybe because of the negative reaction to these conversions in some French Catholic circles.  I am so pleased to see that it is on the Internet.

[elijahmaria]

http://www.pagesorthodoxes.net/foi-orthodoxe/temoignage-placide-deseille.htm

Thank you enormously for this.  I was given a xeroxed copy back in the early 80s when I was a monk in Serbia.  Fr Placide and his monks would stop over at our monastery sometimes, travelling to and from the Holy Mountain.  In those days this piece of writing was not handed around to just anyone - maybe because of the negative reaction to these conversions in some French Catholic circles.  I am so pleased to see that it is on the Internet.

As soon as you said the article was in French, the wheels waaay back in the recesses of my memory began to grind and as I muddled around with it I realized that I had goofed, and I went looking in my bookmarks and files of stuff.  So I am happy you are happy!!   

[ignatius]

That is pretty damning, assuming Ultramontanism is the proper view of Catholicism... is that what the Priest/Monk assumed?

[Irish Hermit]

I am very very grateful to jah777 who has sent me the complete account by Father Placide of his journey into Orthodoxy.   It is a much fuller version than what I have in French which I now suspect was some kind of preliminary draft in the early 1980s.

The text reads beautifully in its English translation and every paragraph is a treasury of insight into both Father Placide's personal spiritual journey and his comments on Vatican II and earlier centuries.

[jah777]

Yes.  I am strongly suggesting that in both cases there was more to it than doctrine.  That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Did you mean to refer to Neomartyr Paul??

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paul_(de_Ballester-Convallier)_of_Nazianzus

I did, indeed, thank you!  I searched and found the source that I had.

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx

I just read again the account of the New Martyr Bishop Paul Ballester-Convolier, and I still do not see here support for your assertion that there seems “more to the story”, or that his conversion had to do with something other than Roman Catholic doctrine.  His account centers entirely on the subject of the Pope, his primacy, his infallibility, and the implication of the papal dogmas for the rest of the Church’s teaching.  This Franciscan began to see that the Roman Catholic councils and dogmas were not consistent with the teachings of the Scriptures and the Fathers, and in diligently inquiring into the reason for this, he came to see that the central dogma of Roman Catholicism is submission to, and agreement with, the Pope of Rome.  If the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the entire Tradition of the Church disagree with the Pope; then it is better to reject the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Tradition of the Church than to disagree with the Pope.   

Again, I think his account is very well articulated and explained, and I find no unexplainable bitterness there.  Perhaps the hostility that he received from his papal superiors seems shocking from the perspective of post-Vatican II liberalism (for instance, the threat that Bro./Fr. Paul could have been burned at the stake if he had asked such questions during the period of the Inquisition), but much of this post-Vatican II liberalism can be considered as a general relativism or indifference regarding the actual teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.     

[FrChris]

In that study I had collected all the clauses in the patristic literature of the first four centuries, which directly or indirectly refer to the "primacy clauses" (Matt 16 :18-19; John21:  15-17; Luke 22: 31-32). I proved that the teachings about the Pope were absolutely foreign and contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers on the issue. And the interpretation of the Fathers is exactly the rule on which we understand the Holy Bible.

Does anyone have a link to this study?

[elijahmaria]

In that study I had collected all the clauses in the patristic literature of the first four centuries, which directly or indirectly refer to the "primacy clauses" (Matt 16 :18-19; John21:  15-17; Luke 22: 31-32). I proved that the teachings about the Pope were absolutely foreign and contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers on the issue. And the interpretation of the Fathers is exactly the rule on which we understand the Holy Bible.

Does anyone have a link to this study?

Yes.  Since there have been several such studies, I'd love to see this one to see if it is any more convincing than any of the others.

What I would really love to see is a study on the rise of primatial power and authority in the east!! 

Then there could actually be a true comparison.

M.

[FrChris]

In that study I had collected all the clauses in the patristic literature of the first four centuries, which directly or indirectly refer to the "primacy clauses" (Matt 16 :18-19; John21:  15-17; Luke 22: 31-32). I proved that the teachings about the Pope were absolutely foreign and contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers on the issue. And the interpretation of the Fathers is exactly the rule on which we understand the Holy Bible.

Does anyone have a link to this study?

Yes. 

Would you like to post the link to this study?

[synLeszka]

That is pretty damning, assuming Ultramontanism is the proper view of Catholicism... is that what the Priest/Monk assumed?

What is our Catholicism, then??
It is, that:
1. that the Church must not be relegated to the private sphere of life,
2. that our Church has the right to bindingly teach Faith and Morality,
3. that our Church is governed by the Pope in the College of Bishops,
4. that our Church has the Divine Mandate, to teach all nations,
5. that the Catholic Church is the Immaculate stainless Bride of Christ,
6. that submission to the successor of St.Peter is neccessary for salvation.
Please, go back to your protestant hole if you do not want to accept the fullness of Catholicism.

[elijahmaria]

In that study I had collected all the clauses in the patristic literature of the first four centuries, which directly or indirectly refer to the "primacy clauses" (Matt 16 :18-19; John21:  15-17; Luke 22: 31-32). I proved that the teachings about the Pope were absolutely foreign and contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers on the issue. And the interpretation of the Fathers is exactly the rule on which we understand the Holy Bible.

Does anyone have a link to this study?

Yes. 

Would you like to post the link to this study?

If you are referencing the "Yes" taken out of context from my post above I meant "Yes" it would be interesting to see that study...I am a little confused by your reference but I can only see that it might have come from my post.