OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 17, 2014, 07:20:06 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?  (Read 13038 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« on: June 12, 2011, 09:40:02 AM »

To rescue them from the likes of Frank Schaeffer and Alexey Young!

What happened to Franky Schaeffer?

Not, of course, that Schaeffer and Young would see it that way. In fact ...

Quote
He [Young] issues this warning to his fellow believers: "Orthodox patriarchs, bishops, priests, and theologians--all you who actively pursue a policy of rapprochement with Rome: Beware. You are trying to bring the Orthodox Church into a lion's den of unbelievable malignancy. You cannot save the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church can and will contaminate and then destroy you."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2011, 10:22:38 AM »

Dear Peter J,

While the words of Fr Alexei Young (now an elderly hiero schema monk named Ambrose and a spiritual father to many people in a small Ohio monastery) may appear dreadful and extreme, we have to remember that they are not a peripheral stream of opinion within the Church.  In fact they are probably tending to the majority.  But in the West people tend to meet with much more ecumenical-friendly Orthodox but......

Nobody who is reasonably acquainted with the history of the contact between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy will doubt that the desire of Catholicism for centuries past has been the extinction of Orthodoxy.   You have had a mere 40 years since Vatican II when you have adopted a different tack, but is 40 years enough to convince the Orthodox that the leopard has changed its spots?  It did not convince Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London, 30 years after Vatican II..

Yes, we partake of the doubt and suspicion described by Metropolitan Anthony in his summation of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.   What he said is worth noting since he was a Russian hierarch who had actively participated for decades in the ecumenical dialogue in Western Europe between the Orthodox and Catholics.  

He was unable to attend the annual Synod in Moscow in 1997 and he made a written report to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and in part his report reads:

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.


What you will find is that what Metropolitan Anthony and Fr Ambrose Young write is the "default position" for many Orthodox but in actual intercourse with Catholics they will present a much more friendly and polite position.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 10:25:09 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2011, 11:46:31 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2011, 12:40:30 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy. 

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!
Logged

Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2011, 04:40:43 PM »

Sorry Peter, but are you saying that the Orthodox need Rome, to save us from people who dislike Rome?

I think talks would be a lot more fruitful if Catholics decided what their perspective on these issues is, and allowed us to decide what our perspective is. It certainly doesn't help when Catholics go out of their way to demonize certain individuals and then tell us to listen to another individual.

The majority position in Orthodoxy is that we do not need Rome. If Rome wishes to return to the fold, that is theirs to do, we shall leave the door open, but we have no need to search for you.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2011, 04:50:37 PM »

Nobody who is reasonably acquainted with the history of the contact between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy will doubt that the desire of Catholicism for centuries past has been the extinction of Orthodoxy.   You have had a mere 40 years since Vatican II when you have adopted a different tack, but is 40 years enough to convince the Orthodox that the leopard has changed its spots?  It did not convince Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London, 30 years after Vatican II..

Let me preface my response by saying that I think the phrase "extinction of Orthodoxy" is unnecessarily bleak, but I quite agree with you that 40 years is a very short time -- also, I'm not unaware of the fact that the Balamand Agreement "Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion" wasn't even 20 years ago.

But to get to the heart of the paragraph quoted above, I think the question of whether "the leopard has changed its spots" ought to be broken down further (not withstanding the tendency of many neo-conservative Catholics to present their view as the only Catholic view on the matter): If, indeed, changes are/were called for (and I believe they are/were) then it doesn't necessarily follow that there can only be one view about what those changes should be.

I recently commented (as you may have seen) that I am in no way opposed to every single change that has happened in the last century, but I certainly find it troubling that many of the things that were discarded were the very things that Catholics and Orthodox agreed on.

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion of Vatican II or a "neo-conservative vs. traditionalist" debate, so I'll just say that ultimately I can't blame you for being skeptical of whether "the leopard has changed its spots".
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 04:53:18 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,975



« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2011, 04:54:56 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that while both the Apostolic Church, and the Church of Rome received wounds during the Great Schism, it is only the Church of Rome whose wounds still fester and decay. She has tried to nurse those wounds, and even cover them up with all sorts of sweet smelling ointments. But her wounds cannot, and will not ever heal unless she reunites herself to the Body of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been the father waiting for his prodigal son to return. But as of yet, that prodigal son still lays in the pig pen, delusional and enjoying his voracious life.

Ecumenism, when probably done, is intended to show the Church of Rome the error of her ways, and to light the way back home. We will continue calling, showing the way home like a lighthouse calling ships home. But we will not, cannot ever go out to join the Church of Rome outside of the walls of our sacred and holy Church.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romophobe. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is probably the only church other than the EO or OO that can help defeat many of the evils of today. I also enjoy learning about the Roman Catholic Church, and seeing how she still retains some bit of orthodoxy within her. But that still doesn't mean we are ever going to compromise our own faith to meet the Church of Rome halfway. We cannot, and will not ever compromise on our faith. We will talk, we will discuss, we will learn, but we cannot compromise or change.

The answer the OP... We don't need the Roman Catholic Church. We are simply calling out to a long-lost brother who has been living in the world, as a part of the world for a long time.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 04:59:08 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2011, 05:22:56 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that while both the Apostolic Church, and the Church of Rome received wounds during the Great Schism, it is only the Church of Rome whose wounds still fester and decay. She has tried to nurse those wounds, and even cover them up with all sorts of sweet smelling ointments. But her wounds cannot, and will not ever heal unless she reunites herself to the Body of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been the father waiting for his prodigal son to return. But as of yet, that prodigal son still lays in the pig pen, delusional and enjoying his voracious life.

Ecumenism, when probably done, is intended to show the Church of Rome the error of her ways, and to light the way back home. We will continue calling, showing the way home like a lighthouse calling ships home. But we will not, cannot ever go out to join the Church of Rome outside of the walls of our sacred and holy Church.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romophobe. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is probably the only church other than the EO or OO that can help defeat many of the evils of today. I also enjoy learning about the Roman Catholic Church, and seeing how she still retains some bit of orthodoxy within her. But that still doesn't mean we are ever going to compromise our own faith to meet the Church of Rome halfway. We cannot, and will not ever compromise on our faith. We will talk, we will discuss, we will learn, but we cannot compromise or change.

The answer the OP... We don't need the Roman Catholic Church. We are simply calling out to a long-lost brother who has been living in the world, as a part of the world for a long time.



BRAVO!  Well said my Orthodox Catholic brother in Christ!

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2011, 05:27:48 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me...

I don't know how you can see much at all with that plank in your eye.
Logged

Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2011, 05:48:16 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that while both the Apostolic Church, and the Church of Rome received wounds during the Great Schism, it is only the Church of Rome whose wounds still fester and decay. She has tried to nurse those wounds, and even cover them up with all sorts of sweet smelling ointments. But her wounds cannot, and will not ever heal unless she reunites herself to the Body of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been the father waiting for his prodigal son to return. But as of yet, that prodigal son still lays in the pig pen, delusional and enjoying his voracious life.

Ecumenism, when probably done, is intended to show the Church of Rome the error of her ways, and to light the way back home. We will continue calling, showing the way home like a lighthouse calling ships home. But we will not, cannot ever go out to join the Church of Rome outside of the walls of our sacred and holy Church.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romophobe. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is probably the only church other than the EO or OO that can help defeat many of the evils of today. I also enjoy learning about the Roman Catholic Church, and seeing how she still retains some bit of orthodoxy within her. But that still doesn't mean we are ever going to compromise our own faith to meet the Church of Rome halfway. We cannot, and will not ever compromise on our faith. We will talk, we will discuss, we will learn, but we cannot compromise or change.

The answer the OP... We don't need the Roman Catholic Church. We are simply calling out to a long-lost brother who has been living in the world, as a part of the world for a long time.



BRAVO!  Well said my Orthodox Catholic brother in Christ!

Orthodoc

Yes.  One of the best written confessions of the Truth that I have seen in a while.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2011, 06:15:29 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me...

I don't know how you can see much at all with that plank in your eye.

If there is any plank, it is certainly looming large in the eye of Fr Ambrose Young.  What he is quoted as saying in the OP would bring any dialogue to a halt.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2011, 07:54:09 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!
We, who confess the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church.

Out East, where Pentecost occured and the Spirit came down, the Eastern Orthodox figured that out about 1990 years ago, and so have remained in communion with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, successor of St. James the Brother of God, who sits on the Throne of David in the City of Sion, where the Spirit came down.

The Orthodox having held fast to that Catholic Faith, what help could the Vatican, who has wandered from it, offer to Christ's Body to ward off any alleged errors of Schaeffer, Fr. Young or anyone else?

Quote
Young makes other mistakes. One example: He misunderstands what Pope Gregory the Great was saying whe n he rejected the title "Universal Bishop." Young thinks he meant that a pope is no more than the patriarch of the West, equal in all ways to the other patriarchs, while what Gregory really meant was that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome does not eviscerate the real episcopal powers and authority of the bishops scattered throughout the world.
Yeah, it does.  Or would, if it were true.  What was the name of the Melkite Patriarch at Vatican I?
Btw
Quote
Speaking of papal infallibility, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has affirmed that the Church's teaching that ordination is reserved to males is an infallible teaching. The confirmation, which refers to the teaching contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, states:

"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium], 25:2).

"Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of faith.

"The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith], and ordered it to be published."

The document was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, who is the Secretary of the Congregation.

So what does this mean? It means that the doctrine that women cannot be ordained is infallible and unchangeable. The doctrine "has been set forth infallibly in the ordinary and universal magisterium," as that is explained in Lumen Gentium.
And why couldn't his supreme pontiff John Paul II say this?  Would his successor as "supreme pontiff" Benedict XVI say this now?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 08:25:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2011, 08:01:07 PM »

To rescue them from the likes of Frank Schaeffer and Alexey Young!

What happened to Franky Schaeffer?

Not, of course, that Schaeffer and Young would see it that way. In fact ...

Quote
He [Young] issues this warning to his fellow believers: "Orthodox patriarchs, bishops, priests, and theologians--all you who actively pursue a policy of rapprochement with Rome: Beware. You are trying to bring the Orthodox Church into a lion's den of unbelievable malignancy. You cannot save the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church can and will contaminate and then destroy you."

Correct me if I am wrong, but that article is hardly new news, it is well over ten years old.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2011, 08:40:54 PM »

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2011, 08:44:14 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.
Quote
That folks like Frank Schaeffer and Father Alexey Young do not follow the lead of a trailblazer hardly puts them at the fringe of Orthodoxy, and This Rock was wrong so to dismiss them.



Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e#ixzz288DxGImS
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 08:44:44 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 752



« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2011, 09:06:43 PM »

ialmisry said:

"Out East, where Pentecost occured and the Spirit came down, the Eastern Orthodox figured that out about 1990 years ago, and so have remained in communion with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, successor of St. James the Brother of God, who sits on the Throne of David in the City of Sion, where the Spirit came down."

Great post!!!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2011, 02:08:49 AM »

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve. 

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2011, 02:36:44 AM »

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve. 

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2011, 02:41:46 AM »

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve. 

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   laugh

Please take a look at the signature on it.   Grin
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2011, 04:44:04 AM »

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   laugh

Please take a look at the signature on it.   Grin

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 04:46:04 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2011, 05:09:27 AM »

And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 05:11:47 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2011, 05:24:59 AM »

The Spirit has descended!
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.

They didn't: it was widely reported here when HAH said it at Georgetown.  In fact, one of these recent threads which cited some Orthodox enthusiast whose name escapes me (it was in some collection of essays.  IIRC Father you noted that he seemed to have swallowed a thesaurus) quotes the speech.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2011, 05:42:52 AM »

And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.


So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum, and did so without even bothering to check whether the links in it still work (and they didn't, which kind of suggests the post is not timeless wisdom and should have been reviewed before reposting). Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   laugh

Please take a look at the signature on it.   Grin

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 05:47:19 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2011, 05:58:28 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.


So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum, and did so without even bothering to check whether the links in it still work (and they didn't, which kind of suggests the post is not timeless wisdom and should have been reviewed before reposting). Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   laugh

Please take a look at the signature on it.   Grin

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
btw, the whole speech is here (as of June 13, 2011 the link works)
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2011, 06:05:12 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.


So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum, and did so without even bothering to check whether the links in it still work (and they didn't, which kind of suggests the post is not timeless wisdom and should have been reviewed before reposting). Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   laugh

Please take a look at the signature on it.   Grin

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
btw, the whole speech is here (as of June 13, 2011 the link works)
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
Fabulous. At least you didn't copy and paste a three year old post of yours to provide that.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 06:06:06 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
mwoerl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Church Abroad
Posts: 49


« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2011, 06:05:46 AM »

"Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10)."
Encyclical of the Eastern [Orthodox] Patriarchs, 1848

"the Orthodox Church has never ceased to intimate to the Papal Church, having clearly and explicitly set forth that so long as the latter perseveres in her innovations, and the orthodox Church adheres to the divine and apostolic traditions of Christianity, during which the Western Churches were of the same mind and were united with the Churches of the East, so long is it a vain and empty thing to talk of union."
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 [of Constantinople]

"to any sound-thinking Orthodox person the idea could not occur to receive communion in a Protestant or Catholic church, and this because with all his being, organically, he knows with an inner intelligible knowledge that there is no holy Communion anywhere but in the Church of Christ ... . There is God, there is His One, only Holy, Apostolic Church, and there is the whole human race, all called to God through His holy Church. All other religions, so-called Christian, monotheistic or pagan, all without the slightest exception, whether it be Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam or Buddhism—all are obstacles placed by the devil as his traps between the Church of Christ and the whole human race."
Ecumenism
A Report to the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada
1967

"We believe that our holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which possesses the fulness of grace and truth and, in consequence thereof, unbroken apostolic succession.
On the contrary, the "churches" and "confessions" of the West, having in many ways perverted the Faith of the Gospel, the apostles and the fathers, are deprived of sanctifying grace, of real mysteries and apostolic succession.
The Holy Mountain is convinced, not without great anxiety, that although the Orthodox are making many concessions and compromises to the Roman Catholics, the latter antithetically continue to adhere to their own errors which have served as the cause of their schism from the Orthodox Church and later led to the Protestant split. Thus, the Pope, during his visit to the center of Orthodoxy in the patriarchal cathedral, did not in the least hesitate to proclaim that he was coming to Constantinople as the successor of Peter, "who as the ultimate authority has the responsibility of superintending the unity of all, to guarantee the agreement of the Church of God in fidelity and in the 'faith which was once delivered unto the saints' (Jude 3)" (Episkepsis, ibid., p. 9). In other words, the Pope defended (papal) infallibility and primacy; and there are many other actions and manifestations which the Pope has effected on behalf of uniatism. We remember the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Greek Government and the Vatican which, even though it may justify papism, is unjust and strikes out at the Mother and Nourisher of our [Greek] nation, the Orthodox Church."
The Announcement of the Extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community of the Holy Mount Athos
1980

" ... the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”. Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer. And all of this, when the papist institution has not budged at all from its heretical teachings and its policy; on the contrary, the Pope is in fact visibly promoting and trying to reinforce Unia along with the Papist dogmas on primacy and infallibility, and is going even further, with inter-faith common prayers and the pan-religious hegemony of the Pope of Rome that is discerned therein."
The Official Statement from Mt. Athos on the Pope's Visit to the Phanar (2006)

The Orthodox don't 'need'
 the Catholics ... Catholics need Orthodoxy!





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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2011, 06:10:03 AM »

So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.

Thank heavens you noticed the link was out of date and I had the opportunity to provide another site where it is archived.  It's a significant speech by the Patriarch.  I'll archive it myself as a Word.doc in case it disappears from all websites.

Quote
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum,


I see that it first appears on the Forum in rudimentary form (it's a work in process)  on 1st December 2007
See message 3
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13626.msg190516.html#msg190516

Quote
Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

I have to say I have never celebrated anniversaries of my posts on the Forum, but if we did it would be the 1st December.    Smiley
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2011, 06:15:26 AM »

Fabulous. At least you didn't copy and paste a three year old post of yours to provide that.

What's the beef with three years?!!

This entire thread is based on the posting  by Peter of something from 1995 - that's sixteen years!   laugh
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2011, 06:21:10 AM »

So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.

Thank heavens you noticed the link was out of date and I had the opportunity to provide another site where it is archived.  It's a significant speech by the Patriarch.  I'll archive it myself as a Word.doc in case it disappears from all websites.

Quote
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum,


I see that it first appears on the Forum in rudimentary form (it's a work in process)  on 1st December 2007
See message 3
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13626.msg190516.html#msg190516

Quote
Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

I have to say I have never celebrated anniversaries of my posts on the Forum, but if we did it would be the 1st December.    Smiley
Ah but the post you copied and pasted to this thread (without telling us it was a copy and paste) is your 17th June 2009 post on Irenikon where you had your fantastic idea of completing the development of your thoughts by adding yet another inane "title" to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Perhaps the birth of that ingenious thought is the anniversary you are celebrating?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2011, 06:21:50 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.


So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum, and did so without even bothering to check whether the links in it still work (and they didn't, which kind of suggests the post is not timeless wisdom and should have been reviewed before reposting). Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

There was a very even-handed article in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   laugh

Please take a look at the signature on it.   Grin

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
btw, the whole speech is here (as of June 13, 2011 the link works)
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
Fabulous. At least you didn't copy and paste a three year old post of yours to provide that.
Too much work. the search function here doesn't work like it used to.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2011, 06:32:44 AM »

I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #31 on: June 13, 2011, 06:33:27 AM »

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power.

That I think does something of an injustice to the situation.

Rome was faced with many social and cultural problems bought about by the invasions of the Franks.  From my understanding of the history, it was the various waring kings (small 'k') that resulted in an unstable social and economic situation across the West.  Rome under Papal leadership became engrossed in surviving in a sea of barbarian invaders. The Pope and the Western Church was the only universal social order with a bureaucracy that could actually manage the changing situation.  It was almost as if the Pope was thrown into taking over running the place.

I am not necessarily on the side of Rome here - just adding some balance to the discussion.

What I am suggesting is that the Western Church was faced with a situation that did not have to be face by Constantinople - well not at this period.  

The situation deteriorated over time but there many any number of attempts to restore relationships.

There were other 'incidents' which did not harbour well for any reconciliation and the final nail went into the coffin when Rome sent the Crusaders into Constantinople.      

Quote
I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that while both the Apostolic Church, and the Church of Rome received wounds during the Great Schism, it is only the Church of Rome whose wounds still fester and decay. She has tried to nurse those wounds, and even cover them up with all sorts of sweet smelling ointments. But her wounds cannot, and will not ever heal unless she reunites herself to the Body of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been the father waiting for his prodigal son to return. But as of yet, that prodigal son still lays in the pig pen, delusional and enjoying his voracious life.

Colourfully put - but I take your point.

Quote
Ecumenism, when probably done, is intended to show the Church of Rome the error of her ways, and to light the way back home. We will continue calling, showing the way home like a lighthouse calling ships home. But we will not, cannot ever go out to join the Church of Rome outside of the walls of our sacred and holy Church.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romophobe. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is probably the only church other than the EO or OO that can help defeat many of the evils of today. I also enjoy learning about the Roman Catholic Church, and seeing how she still retains some bit of orthodoxy within her. But that still doesn't mean we are ever going to compromise our own faith to meet the Church of Rome halfway. We cannot, and will not ever compromise on our faith. We will talk, we will discuss, we will learn, but we cannot compromise or change.

Again I tend to agree.

Quote
The answer the OP... We don't need the Roman Catholic Church. We are simply calling out to a long-lost brother who has been living in the world, as a part of the world for a long time.

Yes, but in the attempt I suggest one needs to mindful that one does not fall into the trap of the 'other' brother.  It was the 'other' brother who got into something of a tizzy fit claiming that he was the one who carried the weight of working the farm in his brother's absence.  
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2011, 06:34:58 AM »

I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.


I have the pounds - thank you.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2011, 06:40:24 AM »

I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.


I have the pounds - thank you.
Disclaimer- I meant Irish Hermit's next post.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2011, 07:02:12 AM »


I would be interested in any insights into Fr Alexey (Ambrose) Young's comments in the article referenced by the OP.

In 1990 Fr Alexey left the Russian Church Abroad and entered the Antiochian Church in order to work as a Western Rite priest. Later he returned to the Russian Church but later again he has become a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.    Interesting to know if he wrote what he wrote as a Greek Orthodox priest?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2011, 07:08:07 AM »

Patriarch Bartholomew:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Does anybody here agree with the Patriarch that it is our ontological difference which makes unity impossible?   How do you understand the meaning of ontology in the context of His Holiness' speech?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2011, 08:34:37 AM »

"to any sound-thinking Orthodox person the idea could not occur to receive communion in a Protestant or Catholic church, and this because with all his being, organically, he knows with an inner intelligible knowledge that there is no holy Communion anywhere but in the Church of Christ ... . There is God, there is His One, only Holy, Apostolic Church, and there is the whole human race, all called to God through His holy Church. All other religions, so-called Christian, monotheistic or pagan, all without the slightest exception, whether it be Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam or Buddhism—all are obstacles placed by the devil as his traps between the Church of Christ and the whole human race."
Ecumenism
A Report to the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada
1967

Two things: 1. Yikes! 2. I notice the report says that "All other religions ... are obstacles placed by the devil ... ", and then in the list of examples it mentions Catholicism and Protestantism but not Oriental Orthodoxy. Should I take it that Oriental Orthodoxy is included anyhow, since it says "all other religions"?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2011, 08:42:29 AM »

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.

Interesting ... I've often thought much of the same thing regarding Pope John Paul II.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 08:43:36 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mwoerl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Church Abroad
Posts: 49


« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2011, 04:20:19 PM »

I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.



I put up a buck .. thats 'one hundred english pounds' you owe me ... and, uh, no 'disclaimers' after the bet ... where i comes from, that could get you a couple ounces of lead ...
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2011, 07:10:18 PM »

I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.



I put up a buck .. thats 'one hundred english pounds' you owe me ... and, uh, no 'disclaimers' after the bet ... where i comes from, that could get you a couple ounces of lead ...


The atmosphere here is starting to make me nervous. I expect John Wayne to walk in any time.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2011, 07:27:33 PM »

I put up a buck .. thats 'one hundred english pounds' you owe me ...
You really need to check the exchange rates. In fact, you should be asking for Australian Dollars if you have any sense. Smiley

The atmosphere here is starting to make me nervous. I expect John Wayne to walk in any time.
LOL!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2011, 07:47:30 PM »

Patriarch Bartholomew:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Does anybody here agree with the Patriarch that it is our ontological difference which makes unity impossible?

Yes.  Reality is a social construct and that construct is culturally informed.

Quote
How do you understand the meaning of ontology in the context of His Holiness' speech?

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

Would love the reference for his speech.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #42 on: June 13, 2011, 08:13:15 PM »

Would love the reference for his speech.

http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16

Btw, nice to see another non-Orthodox.  Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2011, 09:19:48 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
Patriarch Bartholomew:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Does anybody here agree with the Patriarch that it is our ontological difference which makes unity impossible?

Yes.  Reality is a social construct and that construct is culturally informed.
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.

Quote
How do you understand the meaning of ontology in the context of His Holiness' speech?

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

Would love the reference for his speech.
The Spirit is descended!
btw, the whole speech is here (as of June 13, 2011 the link works)
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2011, 09:48:35 PM »

The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #45 on: June 13, 2011, 10:57:09 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.
Indeed!  And I believe that you, I, Father Ambrose and the Ecumenical Patriarch are agreed on the correct identity of which Church is Christ, which is based on the Rock, not social constructs (which it does, however, incorporate).
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2011, 11:45:34 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Patriarch Bartholomew:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

 How do you understand the meaning of ontology in the context of His Holiness' speech?

I think Ontology is a better description than Theology or Christology, as essentially we have all been arguing the same points in differing languages and terms.  Just as the 5th century Fathers interpreted "Nature" in more elaborate terms than the 4th century Fathers, so to are there these ontological differences between Rome and Orthodox.  Vatican II may very well have made the breach more irreparable as any other time, because now we literally live different lives.  The Orthodox is a fasting, liturgical, calendar driven culture where as Rome is more political, celebratory, and popular reform oriented culture. The day to day lives in a Roman Catholic parish are radically different and unrecognizable as that of an Orthodox parish.  Our theology and Christology could be reconciled easily through dialogue, as we share far more than we diverge on, and realistically in these regards we have been more so misunderstanding each other then genuinely disagreeing.  However, the ontological, that is reality based differences are many.  We share different histories, different political ideologies, different geopolitical viewpoints, different calendars and even and entirely different approach to the calendar (for example not just the obvious New vs Old shift,  Rome has also been frequently moving holidays officially rather then trying to reanimate the original days which reflects a more flexible mindset then is usual in Orthodox in regards to the calendar, it seems that in Orthodox the calendar moves us, whereas in Rome the people move around the calendar), different styles of chanting and liturgical prayer, different views in regards to morality etc etc etc..This does not even begin to delve into the deeper aspects of Ontology such as metaphysical and existentialist philosophical differences.

These differences manifest an almost entirely separate understanding of how reality exists and operates between Orthodox and Rome.  This should not necessarily belittle or disregard Rome, rather just to point out we have differences.  I would not want to assess any kind of value judgment to these differences, because in truth there are some ontological aspects of the Catholic Church I agree with and some within Orthodox that I disagree with.  This may not necessarily be what His Holiness had in mind, this is just how I personally interpret the idea of ontological differences between Orthodox and Rome. I drew this especially from this aspect

Quote
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance,

In Orthodox we have different models of being and living our day to day realities from Rome, both in form and substance.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2011, 07:41:00 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.
Indeed!  And I believe that you, I, Father Ambrose and the Ecumenical Patriarch are agreed on the correct identity of which Church is Christ,

Is that like an error-loves-company kind of thing?

 angel
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2011, 10:49:33 AM »

The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.

OR that TWO of those ONE really ARE ONE and refuse to accept it.

Everyone always leaves that one out but it is still a possibility and it is the very possibility that drives Orthodox/Catholic dialogue.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2011, 10:53:57 AM »

  Vatican II may very well have made the breach more irreparable as any other time, because now we literally live different lives.  The Orthodox is a fasting, liturgical, calendar driven culture where as Rome is more political, celebratory, and popular reform oriented culture. The day to day lives in a Roman Catholic parish are radically different and unrecognizable as that of an Orthodox parish. 

You are right that there are different cultures of piety and practice, but I really don't think you know much about the daily spiritual lives of Catholics...many of them...many more of them than are in Orthodoxy, simply because there are more of us.   But you cannot tell me that each and every Orthodox person or family lives the life.   I have spent too much time in parishes on both sides to accept any such claim as true.  You really cannot know us until you have lived with and around us, any more than I could have come to know you without spending years among you to the best of my ability, living the life, if not the sacraments.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2011, 10:59:47 AM »


It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

It is an extreme error to presume that "the west" includes the Catholic Church.  In most cases, and in this one also, that is not the case.  This kind of sloppy analysis comes from all kinds of folks...clergy and hierarchs as well as scholars and laypeople.   It does a great deal of damage to Orthodox-Catholic relations.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2011, 11:56:13 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.
Indeed!  And I believe that you, I, Father Ambrose and the Ecumenical Patriarch are agreed on the correct identity of which Church is Christ,

Is that like an error-loves-company kind of thing?

 angel
No, that "when two or three are gathered in My Name lo! There I am in the midst of them" thing.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2011, 12:21:57 PM »

The Spirit is descended!

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

It is an extreme error to presume that "the west" includes the Catholic Church.  In most cases, and in this one also, that is not the case.  This kind of sloppy analysis comes from all kinds of folks...clergy and hierarchs as well as scholars and laypeople.   It does a great deal of damage to Orthodox-Catholic relations.

M.
Of course the Catholic Church includes the West.  Catholic means "according to the whole."  He is a bishop in the West in the Orthdodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.
As for "the west" including the Vatican, Augustinianism does seem to be a common patrimony of the west.  Not moderated by Orthodoxy, it can yield some pretty extreme stuff.  This one, total depravity, also being the case, developed in its most extreme form perhaps by John Calvin, whose father raised him for the Vatican's priesthood. Wasn't the Council of Orange in the West?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2011, 12:29:17 PM »

The Spirit is descended!

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

It is an extreme error to presume that "the west" includes the Catholic Church.  In most cases, and in this one also, that is not the case.  This kind of sloppy analysis comes from all kinds of folks...clergy and hierarchs as well as scholars and laypeople.   It does a great deal of damage to Orthodox-Catholic relations.

M.
Of course the Catholic Church includes the West. 

When one speaks of the so-called "errors" of the west, it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, and here I am not making reference to your co-religionists at all...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2011, 12:46:41 PM »

The Spirit is descended!

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

It is an extreme error to presume that "the west" includes the Catholic Church.  In most cases, and in this one also, that is not the case.  This kind of sloppy analysis comes from all kinds of folks...clergy and hierarchs as well as scholars and laypeople.   It does a great deal of damage to Orthodox-Catholic relations.

M.
Of course the Catholic Church includes the West. 

When one speaks of the so-called "errors" of the west, it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church,
Of course it doesn't, something I remind Orthodox occidentophobes.
and here I am not making reference to your co-religionists at all
You said "the Catholic Church." That is my co-religionists.
...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not.
Since neither force nor duplicity has been used in the Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions, they don't qualify as a "Unia."
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2011, 01:09:12 PM »


...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not.
Since neither force nor duplicity has been used in the Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions, they don't qualify as a "Unia."
[/quote]

I agree, but I pray that regardless of how the Western Rite came into being, that we treat it with the respect that Rome never afforded the peoples under the Unias. Many of us here are well aware of that from the oral histories of our parents and grandparents!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2011, 01:15:51 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not
Since neither force nor duplicity has been used in the Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions, they don't qualify as a "Unia."

I agree, but I pray that regardless of how the Western Rite came into being, that we treat it with the respect that Rome never afforded the peoples under the Unias. Many of us here are well aware of that from the oral histories of our parents and grandparents!
Indeed!  New Rome has too often been keen on repeating the errors of Old Rome.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2011, 01:19:27 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not
Since neither force nor duplicity has been used in the Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions, they don't qualify as a "Unia."

I agree, but I pray that regardless of how the Western Rite came into being, that we treat it with the respect that Rome never afforded the peoples under the Unias. Many of us here are well aware of that from the oral histories of our parents and grandparents!
Indeed!  New Rome has too often been keen on repeating the errors of Old Rome.

All of the cities and their religious leaders proclaimed to be a New Rome seem to suffer from this affliction from time to time!
Logged
vasily
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2011, 08:38:05 AM »

Glory to Jesus Christ,

 It is the Roman Church that needs the Orthodox.  While the Orthodox Church humbly confesses what it received from Christ and the Apostles, the Roman Church dares to add or change it. Metropolitan Athanasios of Cyprus has stated," He (the Pope) has been outside of the church for ten centuries now, he is not a canonical bishop, and he has no relation whatsoever to the reality of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. It is one thing to receive him as a canonical bishop and quite another to speak to him as being a heterodox in order to reveal to him the truth of the Orthodox Faith and Tradition. Dialogue is not a bad thing when it is carried out based on correct presuppositions. However, it is wrong to say to these people that we recognize the Pope as a bishop, as our brother in Christ in the priesthood and in the faith. I cannot accept this, because we are lying when we say this, since all of the Holy Fathers teach exactly the opposite. Papism is a heresy and the source of many other heresies that trouble the entire world today."

 The Latin Church, along with all the other branches that have separated from Rome, the Anglicans and Protestants, have departed from the early Church, separated themselves from the True Faith and Orthodoxy.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2011, 06:32:06 PM »


All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 23, 2011, 07:20:42 PM »


All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

Not only that but there has always been de facto communion, somewhere in the world, between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics throughout the history of the schism.  There have always been unionists and anti-unionists in both Churches throughout the time of the schism.

These things alone should signify that we are wrong to keep the schism going as we do.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: June 23, 2011, 07:35:04 PM »


All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

Not only that but there has always been de facto communion, somewhere in the world, between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics throughout the history of the schism.  There have always been unionists and anti-unionists in both Churches throughout the time of the schism.

These things alone should signify that we are wrong to keep the schism going as we do.

We look at the way the Pope and the Vatican treat the Eastern Catholic Churches and we pray:  Dear Lord, may the schism last forever!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 23, 2011, 07:41:17 PM »


All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

Not only that but there has always been de facto communion, somewhere in the world, between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics throughout the history of the schism.  There have always been unionists and anti-unionists in both Churches throughout the time of the schism.

These things alone should signify that we are wrong to keep the schism going as we do.

We look at the way the Pope and the Vatican treat the Eastern Catholic Churches and we pray:  Dear Lord, may the schism last forever!

Oh don't be so silly!!...Things are getting better there and frankly, they carry a great deal of responsibility for their own fates.  Some are doing much better than others.

Besides there will never be that kind of "union" again.

That's why the focus on primatial power now...

And you had better not pray for schism...But then again you cannot imagine anything but heaven for everyone.

What a shock it may be to find out you were a tad "off" in your estimations...not for yourself but for those who genuinely do pray for evil.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: June 23, 2011, 07:47:35 PM »

...But then again you cannot imagine anything but heaven for everyone.

What a shock it may be to find out you were a tad "off" in your estimations...not for yourself but for those who genuinely do pray for evil.

Tell me, is there even a single soul which Catholics believe and proclaim to be in hell?  Names...?  Nero?  Hitler?  Saddam?  Father Marcial Maciel?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: June 23, 2011, 07:53:38 PM »


Oh don't be so silly!!...Things are getting better there and frankly, they carry a great deal of responsibility for their own fates.  Some are doing much better than others.



Hrrmm... which Catholic Church (clue... headquarters on the Hill of Sorcerers :-) has recently banned married clergy in Italy to serve the needs of Eastern Catholic Ukrainians?  And in Poland?

So, what's changed?  You and your Eastern brethren are still second class citizens in Rome's eyes.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #65 on: June 23, 2011, 07:57:46 PM »


And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2011, 09:12:16 PM »


And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.  We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.  Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.   

You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.

However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,590


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #67 on: June 23, 2011, 09:21:03 PM »

Quote
However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.

This is simply delusional.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 23, 2011, 09:27:47 PM »

Quote
However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.

This is simply delusional.

Not at all.  As I said, it is a fact of our existence that somewhere in the world, through out the years of schism, there have always been times and places of shared communion between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.

I think you are deluding yourself for not recognizing the full import of this fact.

Also your respective Churches continue dialogue in good faith, and if you were correct, they really ought to be proselytizing, and clearly they are not.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #69 on: June 23, 2011, 09:32:32 PM »


And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.  We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.  Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.   

You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.


When it all boils down, the Orthodox Church views herself as the Una Sancta and free to make whatever demands she thinks are God-pleasing on any other Christian body entering into union with her.  As we know there will be minimal demands on the Pope and Roman Catholics and I would expect that everything will be smothered in lavish amounts of ekonomia.     The concept of "papacy" will have to be demolished and this will be the hardest thing for Rome.  But as someone was explaining yesterday there is a solid and healthy understanding of suffering as a synergistic process which is ultimately most beneficial.  Rome will gain far far more than she looses.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 23, 2011, 10:11:26 PM »


And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.  We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.  Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.   

You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.


When it all boils down, the Orthodox Church views herself as the Una Sancta and free to make whatever demands she thinks are God-pleasing on any other Christian body entering into union with her.  As we know there will be minimal demands on the Pope and Roman Catholics and I would expect that everything will be smothered in lavish amounts of ekonomia.     The concept of "papacy" will have to be demolished and this will be the hardest thing for Rome.  But as someone was explaining yesterday there is a solid and healthy understanding of suffering as a synergistic process which is ultimately most beneficial.  Rome will gain far far more than she looses.

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.  There will be time for the forging of mutual understanding.  There will be no change in teaching concerning the papacy.  It will be adjusted for primatial power/jurisdiction of particular primatial Churches, and that will be that.

All the rest of it Father has not even been placed on the table for discussion.  I believe the dialogue is being held in good faith, so there will be no sucker punches in the end.

M.

Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,590


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #71 on: June 23, 2011, 10:52:02 PM »

Quote
The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 


Relinquishing erroneous teachings by the RCC is a non-negotiable criterion for the Orthodox Church to accept Rome. Get used to it.

Quote
There will be no change in teaching concerning the papacy.  It will be adjusted for primatial power/jurisdiction of particular primatial Churches, and that will be that.

The Pope of Rome in a unified Church can only be on an equal level to his brother patriarchs, not as a supreme leader over all. And, given a thousand years of separation, cannot automatically reclaim the "first among equals" place the office once had.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #72 on: June 23, 2011, 11:40:44 PM »

I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

Is not.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #73 on: June 23, 2011, 11:52:55 PM »


And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.  We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.  Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.  

You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.


When it all boils down, the Orthodox Church views herself as the Una Sancta and free to make whatever demands she thinks are God-pleasing on any other Christian body entering into union with her.  As we know there will be minimal demands on the Pope and Roman Catholics and I would expect that everything will be smothered in lavish amounts of ekonomia.     The concept of "papacy" will have to be demolished and this will be the hardest thing for Rome.  But as someone was explaining yesterday there is a solid and healthy understanding of suffering as a synergistic process which is ultimately most beneficial.  Rome will gain far far more than she looses.

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.
 
No, we will not.
Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.
 
Yes, when it comes to their heretical teachings, we will.
There will be time for the forging of mutual understanding.  There will be no change in teaching concerning the papacy.
No, there won't: we will condemn the Ultramontanist teaching of the Vatican.
It will be adjusted for primatial power/jurisdiction of particular primatial Churches, and that will be that.
Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest


All the rest of it Father has not even been placed on the table for discussion.

That's right, because repudiating the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church is not on the table nor in the cards.

I believe the dialogue is being held in good faith, so there will be no sucker punches in the end.
That's right. Gehen wir nicht nach Canossa.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 11:53:41 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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


« Reply #74 on: June 23, 2011, 11:58:00 PM »

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings. 
I don't think that this is true.
The Catholic Church has relinquished her preVatican II teaching that very strict conditions are necessary before a marriage annulment can take place.
The Catholic Church has relinquished her teaching on the use of profane music, clapping, dancing, swaying to and fro, hugging and kissing at Catholic Masses. Before Vatican II, the teaching was that only music of a sacred nature, such as the Gregorian chant, could take place at Mass.
The Catholic Church has relinquished her teaching on altar girls.
etc.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #75 on: June 24, 2011, 12:07:36 AM »


All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

Not only that but there has always been de facto communion, somewhere in the world, between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics throughout the history of the schism.  There have always been unionists and anti-unionists in both Churches throughout the time of the schism.

These things alone should signify that we are wrong to keep the schism going as we do.

We should all follow the excellent example of the Holy Synod of Romania.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #76 on: June 24, 2011, 12:28:24 AM »


And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.
You seem very good at hearing what you want, even if it means hearing things.

We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.
Then you are not listening. Remember a few meetings back when we refused to state that the Vatican had a "valid" baptism?

Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.
You mean your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI?  No, he is not because he is not: in contrast to Pope Theodore of Alexandria, he is not commemorated in the diptychs, nor invited to concelebrate much less preside, and especially he is not given communion.

Don't get so happy if someone calls him Pope of Rome.  They call Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury.  In fact, the Vatican calls him that too, though it believes he is a layman.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.
   
The Truth of Christ demands it.
You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.
What fellowship does Christ have with Belial?  The standards of Truth are not on a par with the demands of falsehood.

However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.
The Homoiousians said the same thing: what's in an "i"?  Athanasius contra mundi.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #77 on: June 24, 2011, 12:36:45 AM »

Quote
However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.

This is simply delusional.

Not at all.  As I said, it is a fact of our existence that somewhere in the world, through out the years of schism, there have always been times and places of shared communion between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.
Yeah, and murders have been occuring since Cain, but that doesn't void the Sixth Commandment.

I think you are deluding yourself for not recognizing the full import of this fact.
...Eateth and drinketh unto damnation...

Also your respective Churches continue dialogue in good faith, and if you were correct, they really ought to be proselytizing, and clearly they are not.
Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are.  They need not take up the sword.  Given your ecclesiastical community's history, I can see why you find that so novel.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #78 on: June 24, 2011, 12:37:05 AM »


You seem very good at hearing what you want, even if it means hearing things.


My "hearing" is fine.   Better than your distortions of history to suit.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 24, 2011, 12:41:34 AM »

Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are. 

Then they dialogue in bad faith.  Would not be the first time.

Or perhaps your own "hearing" isn't all that you think it is.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #80 on: June 24, 2011, 04:54:41 AM »

Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are. 

Then they dialogue in bad faith.  Would not be the first time.

Or perhaps your own "hearing" isn't all that you think it is.
Dialogue doesn't mean babbling senselessly. which is what refusing to tell it like it is entails.  It is not bad faith to witness to the True Faith, but hiding it under a bushel would be.

And the Orthodox never spoke in bad faith: the emperors dragged them into talks by force, just as the Vatican (ever selective in its condemnation of Caesaropapism) wanted.  You can't complain when you get what you ask for.

I do seem to rememeber hearing about the more "ecumenically" minded being talked to recently.  They should listen.  You should listen.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #81 on: June 24, 2011, 08:05:30 AM »

Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are. 

Then they dialogue in bad faith.  Would not be the first time.

Or perhaps your own "hearing" isn't all that you think it is.
Dialogue doesn't mean babbling senselessly. which is what refusing to tell it like it is entails.  It is not bad faith to witness to the True Faith, but hiding it under a bushel would be.

And the Orthodox never spoke in bad faith: the emperors dragged them into talks by force, just as the Vatican (ever selective in its condemnation of Caesaropapism) wanted.  You can't complain when you get what you ask for.

I do seem to rememeber hearing about the more "ecumenically" minded being talked to recently.  They should listen.  You should listen.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2011, 08:18:32 AM »

Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are. 

Then they dialogue in bad faith.  Would not be the first time.

Or perhaps your own "hearing" isn't all that you think it is.
Dialogue doesn't mean babbling senselessly. which is what refusing to tell it like it is entails.  It is not bad faith to witness to the True Faith, but hiding it under a bushel would be.

And the Orthodox never spoke in bad faith: the emperors dragged them into talks by force, just as the Vatican (ever selective in its condemnation of Caesaropapism) wanted.  You can't complain when you get what you ask for.

I do seem to rememeber hearing about the more "ecumenically" minded being talked to recently.  They should listen.  You should listen.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Yes.  There is too much open access to lines of near-instant communication any more to have it be anything else.  If some of the anti-unionists on this forum are indeed correct then all papal Catholic bishops need to be notified that there is no bilateral dialogue any longer and that they need to give up their heresy and go home or face a formal excommunication from Orthodoxy.  That would be honest, according to what I hear from the anti-unionists.   Short of that they are playing games with the faith.

IF we were operating in a venue such as the WCC competing in a global market for souls...then it might be a different sort of situation, but the bilateral dialogue is more intimate and more personal...and ought to be conducted with the utmost honesty.

But if a cluster of related Churches cannot even figure out the diptychs...then I am not sure how honest one can actually be at the table of dialogue.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2011, 08:43:48 AM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

4.1. The Russian Orthodox Church has carried on theological dialogue with non-Orthodox Christians for over two centuries. This dialogue has been characterised by the combination of a principled dogmatic approach and a fraternal love. This principle was formulated in the “Response to the Letter of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate” [?] (1903) as a method of theological dialogue with the Anglicans and the Old Catholics. With regard to non-Orthodox confessions, it was said, ]“there must be fraternal readiness to help them by explanations, normal consideration for their best wishes, all possible forbearance towards their natural perplexities, given the age-old division, but at the same time the firm confession of the truth of our Universal Church as a sole guardian of Christ’s heritage and a sole saving ark of divine grace: Our task with regard to them should be: without putting before them unnecessary obstacle for union by being inappropriately intolerant and suspicious: to interpret for them our faith and unchangeable conviction that it is only our Eastern Orthodox Church, which has preserved intact the entire pledge of Christ, that is at present the Universal Church, and thus to show them in fact what they should consider and decide upon if they really believe that salvation is bound up with life in the Church and sincerely wish to be united with her:”

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 08:59:01 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #84 on: June 24, 2011, 09:04:43 AM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

There are statements from various Orthodox Churches going back decades, laying out the ground rules and understanding of the Orthodox in the ecumenical encounter.  In all these statements it is stressed that the Orthodox are not there to engage in a bilateral dialogue of equals hoping to create theological points of agreement which will permit eventual union.  They state plainly that they are dialoguing in order to give voice to the orthodox faith, to help others to understand it and to eventually accept it and come into the fullness of the Church.

The Orthodox engagement in ecumenical dialogue has never had any other basis nor any other purpose.

There has been no deceit nor any bad-faith dealing.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #85 on: June 24, 2011, 09:31:32 AM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them

Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2011, 09:43:03 AM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

There are statements from various Orthodox Churches going back decades, laying out the ground rules and understanding of the Orthodox in the ecumenical encounter.  In all these statements it is stressed that the Orthodox are not there to engage in a bilateral dialogue of equals hoping to create theological points of agreement which will permit eventual union.  They state plainly that they are dialoguing in order to give voice to the orthodox faith, to help others to understand it and to eventually accept it and come into the fullness of the Church.

The Orthodox engagement in ecumenical dialogue has never had any other basis nor any other purpose.

There has been no deceit nor any bad-faith dealing.

Hi Father Ambrose.

First, regarding my last post, I want to make clear that the This Rock article didn't bring up (much less answer) the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question. I was just speculating on where their assertions might lead one.

Having gotten that out of the way, I don't understand why you and everyone else seem to assume that the Vatican does not take a similar view to what you just described (but in reverse of course). (Does that make me "one of those traditionalist Catholics"?)

Perhaps you'll quote me this:

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.

or something similar from This Rock, Dave Armstrong, etc?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 09:47:01 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2011, 09:50:46 AM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

There are statements from various Orthodox Churches going back decades, laying out the ground rules and understanding of the Orthodox in the ecumenical encounter.  In all these statements it is stressed that the Orthodox are not there to engage in a bilateral dialogue of equals hoping to create theological points of agreement which will permit eventual union.  They state plainly that they are dialoguing in order to give voice to the orthodox faith, to help others to understand it and to eventually accept it and come into the fullness of the Church.

The Orthodox engagement in ecumenical dialogue has never had any other basis nor any other purpose.

There has been no deceit nor any bad-faith dealing.

Hi Father Ambrose.

First, regarding my last post, I want to make clear that the This Rock article didn't bring up (much less answer) the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question. I was just speculating on where their assertions might lead one.

Having gotten that out of the way, I don't understand why you and everyone else seem to assume that the Vatican does not take a similar view to what you just described (but in reverse of course). (Does that make me "one of those traditionalist Catholics"?)

Perhaps you'll quote me this:

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.

or something similar from This Rock, Dave Armstrong, etc?

Maybe you and Mary could expatiate on what you had in mind by the Orthodox dialoguing in bad faith?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2011, 10:26:01 AM »

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 

Are you saying that she won't demand that as a condition for full communion?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #89 on: June 24, 2011, 10:32:34 AM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

There are statements from various Orthodox Churches going back decades, laying out the ground rules and understanding of the Orthodox in the ecumenical encounter.  In all these statements it is stressed that the Orthodox are not there to engage in a bilateral dialogue of equals hoping to create theological points of agreement which will permit eventual union.  They state plainly that they are dialoguing in order to give voice to the orthodox faith, to help others to understand it and to eventually accept it and come into the fullness of the Church.

The Orthodox engagement in ecumenical dialogue has never had any other basis nor any other purpose.

There has been no deceit nor any bad-faith dealing.

Hi Father Ambrose.

First, regarding my last post, I want to make clear that the This Rock article didn't bring up (much less answer) the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question. I was just speculating on where their assertions might lead one.

Having gotten that out of the way, I don't understand why you and everyone else seem to assume that the Vatican does not take a similar view to what you just described (but in reverse of course). (Does that make me "one of those traditionalist Catholics"?)

Perhaps you'll quote me this:

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.

or something similar from This Rock, Dave Armstrong, etc?

Maybe you and Mary could expatiate on what you had in mind by the Orthodox dialoguing in bad faith?

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2011, 10:38:29 AM »

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 

Are you saying that she won't demand that as a condition for full communion?

What "that" are you referring to...if "that" is a long history of schism?...well that would have to be relinquished.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 24, 2011, 10:40:46 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 24, 2011, 10:47:18 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 24, 2011, 10:55:11 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 24, 2011, 11:03:55 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 24, 2011, 11:18:34 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #96 on: June 24, 2011, 11:23:22 AM »

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 

Are you saying that she won't demand that as a condition for full communion?

What "that" are you referring to...if "that" is a long history of schism?...well that would have to be relinquished.

What I mean is, when you say "Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own" are you saying that the Catholic Church will not require others to relinquish their own (teachings) as a condition for full communion?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #97 on: June 24, 2011, 11:27:02 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto

can be said to represent the thinking of many-but-not-all Catholics.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #98 on: June 24, 2011, 11:28:48 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 24, 2011, 11:48:20 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

LOL...that seems to me to be the Ultimate in Bad Faith/Walking Out...
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 24, 2011, 11:50:22 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:



I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 24, 2011, 11:56:39 AM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.


And you're missing my point.  What do you expect from the Orthodox Church when the Roman Catholic Church basically says, "YEs, yes, that's nice.  Now be a good little boy and let daddy tell you what we're going to do..."?

I know a futile conversation when I'm a part of one and I do my best to extricate myself from the situation before I get upset and say things I don't really mean.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 24, 2011, 12:02:13 PM »


And you're missing my point.  What do you expect from the Orthodox Church when the Roman Catholic Church basically says, "YEs, yes, that's nice.  Now be a good little boy and let daddy tell you what we're going to do..."?

I know a futile conversation when I'm a part of one and I do my best to extricate myself from the situation before I get upset and say things I don't really mean.


I see what you mean.  Clarity and honesty are tough stands to take on both sides.  I pray we do well these next few rounds and perhaps we'll be able to see more clearly in a couple more cycles.  I really don't see that either side is operating in bad faith yet...could happen based on a number of factors, but I hope and pray not.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2011, 12:13:13 PM »

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

I'll admit that I'm a little bit prone to seeing This Rock, Catholic Answers, and the like as being a bit more significant than they really are.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop" etc.

What's more, I think my comment about different Catholics having "different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory" also applies to Catholic bishops -- albeit to a lesser degree.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2011, 12:22:59 PM »

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

I'll admit that I'm a little bit prone to seeing This Rock, Catholic Answers, and the like as being a bit more significant than they really are.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop" etc.

What's more, I think my comment about different Catholics having "different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory" also applies to Catholic bishops -- albeit to a lesser degree.

There are, at least initially, pretty tight channels for our formal engagement with Orthodoxy, and their's with the Catholic Church.

I don't disagree with what you are saying to a point,  but none of the layers of people who are watching the process are in any kind of real position to make the call of "good faith" or not.  Only those who are agreeing formally to and through the dialogue with respect to why they are there and what they hope to accomplish can do that fairly.  There is a line of authority in all of it.

After that we are dependent on what they tell us.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #105 on: June 24, 2011, 12:25:35 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #106 on: June 24, 2011, 01:00:26 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 24, 2011, 01:12:14 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #108 on: June 24, 2011, 01:25:32 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 24, 2011, 01:33:16 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?

For the past couple of years the problems all seem to be coming from intra-Orthodox difficulties.  Nothing has come out indicating that the goals are different on the Orthodox side from the ones we hear on the Catholic side.  So if you are all busy trying to recruit us, there's no memo to be found for it....

Unless you have a link to the memo....
Logged

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #110 on: June 24, 2011, 02:04:49 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Not only was it shut down but Orthodox Catholics like Fr Ambrose and myself, as well as others who post here, were banned for life and all our previous posts were deleted which counted in the thousands!

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 24, 2011, 02:52:28 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Not only was it shut down but Orthodox Catholics like Fr Ambrose and myself, as well as others who post here, were banned for life and all our previous posts were deleted which counted in the thousands!

Orthodoc

That was a terrible waste and it was wrong to do...very wrong.  But these are not the dialogues that will resolve the schism.  Some of the most bitter words are Orthodox against Orthodox, Catholic against Catholic.  We dare not predicate the unity of the Church on the frailty of mankind.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 24, 2011, 02:57:49 PM »

Knowing Metropolitan Maximos and other members of the Orthodox representatives on the North American Dialog as I do, I can assure you that they would be grievously insulted if you were to claim that they were acting in bad faith. The Catholic representatives on that commission would be the first and the loudest to defend their Orthodox colleagues from such nonsensical rhetoric.  Sad
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 24, 2011, 03:02:29 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

For many good reasons, most having to do with the geopolitics of the 15th century, we would be well advised to forget much of that ill-fated 'council.'

As I have said over and over again, to no response I might add, the world in which we live in precludes a 'sneak' attack reunion agreed upon by either 'side' in any hypothetical council of reunion. Any such council would NEVER be convened in our modern age of Facebook, Twitter, 24 hour cable news, blogs, etc... UNLESS the terms of union were preagreed upon after years of public scrutiny. The Bishops of neither of our churches are crazy men who act out of emotion and they would assure the outcome before they tried. That's why there has been fifty years of dialog and probably fifty or more to come before we approach that point.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #114 on: June 24, 2011, 03:06:14 PM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them


This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #115 on: June 24, 2011, 04:05:38 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?

For the past couple of years the problems all seem to be coming from intra-Orthodox difficulties.  Nothing has come out indicating that the goals are different on the Orthodox side from the ones we hear on the Catholic side.  So if you are all busy trying to recruit us, there's no memo to be found for it....

Unless you have a link to the memo....
http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 24, 2011, 04:08:36 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 04:15:49 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #117 on: June 24, 2011, 04:13:48 PM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them


This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?
It's a silly question which you have asked before and have received the answer:
The bishops of the Episcopal Council in 2000, about 220 of them

I notice some statues in the background? I thought that the Orthodox Church did not allow statues as according to Orthodox teaching this would be against the Commandment forbidding  *graven* or 3D images? Why would these Orthodox bishops choose to ignore this commandment ?

No problem with secular statues outside of a liturgical setting.   Russia is awash in statues of many important and historical personages.

These statues run around all four sides of the newly rebuild Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.  The statues depict important historical figures in Russian history, both laymen and bishops.  They are not intended for veneration.


They are also the only original part of the building: Stalin housed them in a museum and IIRC a subway station instead of destroying them like the icons.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 24, 2011, 04:14:16 PM »

Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them


This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?

They are probably 'bas relief' rather than true statues.  Besides, we're not like the Romans, everything with us isn't always what it seems!  Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #119 on: June 24, 2011, 04:15:07 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.


What I don't have is a retraction.

IIRC, the council of Ravenna didn't go off well, and that was only a few years ago.

The last time they met was in Vienna, no?  Didn't go anywhere
http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/09/27/news27010/
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 04:25:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #120 on: June 24, 2011, 04:17:55 PM »

Here's a much more recent memo and I don't see anything here that talks about proselytizing papal Catholics:


Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky

http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=186&SID=12

"The Orthodox Church" News Magazine
Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007
Volume 43

In the aftermath of a high-level and official Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue held in Ravenna, Italy, October 8-14, 2007, news reports and commentaries described the results of the meeting as a common agreement that the bishop of Rome has primacy in the universal Church, both East and West. This led some to conclude that the Orthodox participants in the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had agreed that the Orthodox Churches had submitted to the rule of the Pope.

The reality is different - at the same time simpler and more complicated. There is, and always has been, an Orthodox consensus that the bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among all the patriarchs and bishops of the Christian West and the Christian East - when there is no schism between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. When the unity of the Christian West and the Christian East was lost (approximately in the 11th century), the primacy of honor among the Orthodox Churches passed on to Constantinople, where it remains.

Thus, from the Orthodox point of view, the primacy which the bishop of Rome has depends on the full unity of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, unity comes before primacy.

Another dimension of the discussion of primacy is the understanding and definition of the nature of primacy. During the centuries preceding the separation of the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches, there was not much clarity about the nature and content of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This lack of definition and clarity was evident both in the Christian East and in the Christian West. One of the causes of the separation between Rome and the Eastern Churches was the emergence of in-creasingly precise claims and teachings about the authority of the bishop of Rome. The more definite the claims for papal authority became, the less inclined were the Eastern Churches to accept these claims. The depth and extent of the claims of papal powers and authority continued to increase after the schism of the 11th century, making the restoration of unity more and more difficult.

The title of the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission's statement at Ravenna is "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority." It is a good and meaningful development that theologians representing the Catholic and Orthodox churches are reflecting together on the nature of the Church. Two points have been rightly made about the Ravenna meeting. The first point - it is a good and hopeful sign that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are able today to affirm together the principle of universal primacy. The second point - the Ravenna statement is a modest step, and much remains to be done.

At Ravenna, a dispute between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow led to the withdrawal of the Moscow delegation from the Ravenna meeting. The occasion for the dispute was the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is associated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is a larger Orthodox Church in Estonia which is associated with the Patriarchate of Moscow. Before the Russian Revolution and after the end of World War II, the Orthodox Church in Estonia was fully within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The acute dispute over Orthodoxy in Estonia emerged in the 1990s, when part of the Orthodox community in Estonia was accepted by Constantinople. For a relatively short time, the Patriarchate of Moscow stopped commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch, signaling a temporary break in communion. What emerged eventually was a tacit peace, with two Orthodox Churches in Estonia existing in parallel. From the Moscow point of view, Constantinople's invitation to one of the Churches in Estonia transgressed against the status quo.

The withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Catholic-Orthodox meeting in Ravenna causes awkward complications for the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue process. On the one hand, the procedures of this dialogue have acknowledged that the absence of one or several Orthodox Churches does not stop the process or invalidate its results. On the other hand, the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate - the largest Orthodox Church, with many millions of adherents - puts into question the effectiveness and practical results of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Another dimension of the withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Ravenna meeting - ironically - shows again that there are significant unresolved questions within the Orthodox Church. Even as the Catholic-Orthodox statement on "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority" was being composed at Ravenna, the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow demonstrated that the balance between conciliarity and primacy articulated in the Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church is not easily found in practice.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 24, 2011, 04:30:26 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.


What I don't have is a retraction.


You don't have a reiteration either, nor do you have a contradiction and there was plenty of opportunity to contradict this:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=37156

    * 6/29/2010
    * Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Benedict XVI met with the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Rome for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. He affirmed his hopes for continuation on the path undertaken in ongoing work of the Joint Commission that is addressing the crucial topic of the 'Role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church during the first millennium'.

VATICAN CITY (AsiaNews) - Relations between Catholics and Orthodox are " characterized by sentiments of mutual trust, esteem and fraternity", an essential foundation for dialogue to reach "significant progress".

In meeting with the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, in Rome on the occasion of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Benedict XVI reaffirmed the importance that the Catholic Church gives to the work of the Joint Commission for Dialogue and the trust that he places in the fruits of said commitment.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #122 on: June 24, 2011, 04:37:21 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.

Here's a much more recent memo and I don't see anything here that talks about proselytizing papal Catholics:
His "Very Rev." doesn't outrank His Eminence.

Your eyes must be dim.  Let me help you.

Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky

http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=186&SID=12

"The Orthodox Church" News Magazine
Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007
Volume 43

In the aftermath of a high-level and official Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue held in Ravenna, Italy, October 8-14, 2007, news reports and commentaries described the results of the meeting as a common agreement that the bishop of Rome has primacy in the universal Church, both East and West. This led some to conclude that the Orthodox participants in the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had agreed that the Orthodox Churches had submitted to the rule of the Pope.

The reality is different - at the same time simpler and more complicated. There is, and always has been, an Orthodox consensus that the bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among all the patriarchs and bishops of the Christian West and the Christian East - when there is no schism between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. When the unity of the Christian West and the Christian East was lost (approximately in the 11th century), the primacy of honor among the Orthodox Churches passed on to Constantinople, where it remains.

Thus, from the Orthodox point of view, the primacy which the bishop of Rome has depends on the full unity of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  For the Orthodox, unity comes before primacy.

Another dimension of the discussion of primacy is the understanding and definition of the nature of primacy. During the centuries preceding the separation of the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches, there was not much clarity about the nature and content of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This lack of definition and clarity was evident both in the Christian East and in the Christian West. One of the causes of the separation between Rome and the Eastern Churches was the emergence of in-creasingly precise claims and teachings about the authority of the bishop of Rome. The more definite the claims for papal authority became, the less inclined were the Eastern Churches to accept these claims. The depth and extent of the claims of papal powers and authority continued to increase after the schism of the 11th century, making the restoration of unity more and more difficult.

The title of the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission's statement at Ravenna is "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority." It is a good and meaningful development that theologians representing the Catholic and Orthodox churches are reflecting together on the nature of the Church. Two points have been rightly made about the Ravenna meeting. The first point - it is a good and hopeful sign that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are able today to affirm together the principle of universal primacy. The second point - the Ravenna statement is a modest step, and much remains to be done.

At Ravenna, a dispute between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow led to the withdrawal of the Moscow delegation from the Ravenna meeting. The occasion for the dispute was the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is associated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is a larger Orthodox Church in Estonia which is associated with the Patriarchate of Moscow. Before the Russian Revolution and after the end of World War II, the Orthodox Church in Estonia was fully within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The acute dispute over Orthodoxy in Estonia emerged in the 1990s, when part of the Orthodox community in Estonia was accepted by Constantinople. For a relatively short time, the Patriarchate of Moscow stopped commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch, signaling a temporary break in communion. What emerged eventually was a tacit peace, with two Orthodox Churches in Estonia existing in parallel. From the Moscow point of view, Constantinople's invitation to one of the Churches in Estonia transgressed against the status quo.

The withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Catholic-Orthodox meeting in Ravenna causes awkward complications for the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue process. On the one hand, the procedures of this dialogue have acknowledged that the absence of one or several Orthodox Churches does not stop the process or invalidate its results. On the other hand, the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate - the largest Orthodox Church, with many millions of adherents - puts into question the effectiveness and practical results of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Another dimension of the withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Ravenna meeting - ironically - shows again that there are significant unresolved questions within the Orthodox Church. Even as the Catholic-Orthodox statement on "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority" was being composed at Ravenna, the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow demonstrated that the balance between conciliarity and primacy articulated in the Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church is not easily found in practice.
btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.  and contrary to the spin here, Moscow was just demonstrating that primacy is a privelege, not a right, and it does not come with the authority to act outside conciliarity. The Churches had fashioned a solution to the situation in Estonia, and the Phanar has decided to renig on it, although it lacks the authority.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #123 on: June 24, 2011, 05:16:20 PM »

btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #124 on: June 24, 2011, 06:46:45 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,300



« Reply #125 on: June 24, 2011, 06:49:10 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.
High Petrine? Did Marduk climb into your brain? :p

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: June 24, 2011, 06:59:18 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie. [/size

The Orthodox are dialoguing in accordance with the principles which you are able to study in message 83
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590493.html#msg590493

Other Orthodox Churches have made more or less identical statements.

You will note that the position of the Russian Church in its 2000 statement is in fact simply a re-presentation of the Church of Constaninople's.  This evidences that Orthodoxy's two most influential Churches are in agreement and presenting  their position openly.  You may all read it freely.

Accusations from Roman Catholics, openly or by implication, that the Orthodox may be acting deceitfully will be sure to kill the dialogue.  Your choice.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: June 24, 2011, 07:07:56 PM »

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

LOL...that seems to me to be the Ultimate in Bad Faith/Walking Out...


Mary,

Since I know you are aware of the events at Florence, I would say your statement is a great example of disinformation and bad faith. Angry

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

"However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 07:34:50 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #128 on: June 24, 2011, 07:12:34 PM »


I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:



I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

To that the response of any Orthodox Christian would be:  Remember Saint Maximus the Confessor.

Will you be dismissive of him?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: June 24, 2011, 07:19:21 PM »

But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Read all about it!

catholic answers forum bars orthodox dicussion

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13287.0.html
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #130 on: June 24, 2011, 07:27:03 PM »


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.



Before we fall under the spell of Mary's spin doctoring let us look at what in
fact the Orthodox hierarchs have been saying during the 50 years of ecumenism.

I want to present a few official examples which show the consistency and
ultra-conservatism of the official Orthodox viewpoint throughout the years of
ecumenism... the unbending and inflexible insistence that Orthodoxy alone
constitutes the One Church. The Orthodox have not strayed from their own
reality and have not failed to present the authentic Orthodox point of view at
ecumenical meetings and in official statements with both Catholics and Protestants.



1. 1957.... The Statement of the Representatives of the Greek Orthodox
Church in the USA at the North American Faith and Order Study
Conference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 1957. This is quite unequivocal
about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as the Church.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/gocamerica_faith_order_sept_1957.htm



2. 1980s.... The contretemps in the 1980s at the International Roman
Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue which saw a walk-out of the
Catholic participants when the Orthodox delegates declared that they
were unable to accept Catholic baptism per se. These were not fringy
palaeohiemerologhites but the most ecumenically minded bishops and
theologians of the canonical Orthodox Churches. This question has
never been revisited in the international dialogue but one day it will
need to be faced head on.


3. 1986.... Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar (WCC)
Conference, Chambesy, 1986:

"The Orthodox Church, however, faithful to her ecclesiology, to the
identity of her internal structure and to the teaching of the
undivided Church, while participating in the WCC, does not accept the
idea of the "equality of confessions" and cannot consider Church
unity as an inter-confessional adjustment. In this spirit, the unity
which is sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product of
theological agreements alone. God calls every Christian to the unity
of faith which is lived in the sacraments and the tradition, as
experienced in the Orthodox Church."

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,
1986

Section III, Paragraph 6
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/ecumenical-movement/chambesy-1986


4. 1997..... Even the most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


The Jesuits declared morosely that Patr. Bartholomew had set the
dialogue back 10 years.  Nobody else made a comment since they did
not have a clue what the Patriarch was talking about.   


5. 2000..... The important Statement on Orthodoxy and its ecumenical
relationships with non-Orthodox Churches issued by the 2000
Millennial Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions"

It basically repeats what the Greeks said at Oberlin Ohio in 1957
and even more emphatically - the boundaries of the Church are
the Orthodox Church herself.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
and
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/roc_other_christian_confessions.htm



6. 2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2


Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #131 on: June 24, 2011, 08:09:32 PM »

btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Not readily available.  Fr. Ambrose IIRC posted the link a couple times. On Moscow, yes, it rejected it too, if any other Orthodox accepted it.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #132 on: June 24, 2011, 08:18:09 PM »

btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Not readily available.  Fr. Ambrose IIRC posted the link a couple times. On Moscow, yes, it rejected it too, if any other Orthodox accepted it.

I recall a Zenit message which says it was rejected by the Vatican for promoting ecclesiology unacceptable to the Catholic Church.

This rejection is politely presented in the Vatican's introduction to the document, probable out of deference to Cardinal Kasper.

See
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: June 24, 2011, 09:38:30 PM »

The issue is or was till the Doctor took over:  Is Orthodoxy only engaged in the current bilateral dialogue with Catholics so that they can proselytize the Catholic Church.

I have said and I believe that Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in the current rounds of dialogue in order to proselytize and that they are actually discussing the issue of primatial primacy and petrine primacy in good faith, in order to seek a path to the ending of the schism.

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table and content themselves with the WCC.

Mary


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.



Before we fall under the spell of Mary's spin doctoring let us look at what in
fact the Orthodox hierarchs have been saying during the 50 years of ecumenism.

I want to present a few official examples which show the consistency and
ultra-conservatism of the official Orthodox viewpoint throughout the years of
ecumenism... the unbending and inflexible insistence that Orthodoxy alone
constitutes the One Church. The Orthodox have not strayed from their own
reality and have not failed to present the authentic Orthodox point of view at
ecumenical meetings and in official statements with both Catholics and Protestants.



1. 1957.... The Statement of the Representatives of the Greek Orthodox
Church in the USA at the North American Faith and Order Study
Conference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 1957. This is quite unequivocal
about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as the Church.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/gocamerica_faith_order_sept_1957.htm



2. 1980s.... The contretemps in the 1980s at the International Roman
Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue which saw a walk-out of the
Catholic participants when the Orthodox delegates declared that they
were unable to accept Catholic baptism per se. These were not fringy
palaeohiemerologhites but the most ecumenically minded bishops and
theologians of the canonical Orthodox Churches. This question has
never been revisited in the international dialogue but one day it will
need to be faced head on.


3. 1986.... Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar (WCC)
Conference, Chambesy, 1986:

"The Orthodox Church, however, faithful to her ecclesiology, to the
identity of her internal structure and to the teaching of the
undivided Church, while participating in the WCC, does not accept the
idea of the "equality of confessions" and cannot consider Church
unity as an inter-confessional adjustment. In this spirit, the unity
which is sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product of
theological agreements alone. God calls every Christian to the unity
of faith which is lived in the sacraments and the tradition, as
experienced in the Orthodox Church."

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,
1986

Section III, Paragraph 6
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/ecumenical-movement/chambesy-1986


4. 1997..... Even the most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


The Jesuits declared morosely that Patr. Bartholomew had set the
dialogue back 10 years.  Nobody else made a comment since they did
not have a clue what the Patriarch was talking about.   


5. 2000..... The important Statement on Orthodoxy and its ecumenical
relationships with non-Orthodox Churches issued by the 2000
Millennial Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions"

It basically repeats what the Greeks said at Oberlin Ohio in 1957
and even more emphatically - the boundaries of the Church are
the Orthodox Church herself.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
and
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/roc_other_christian_confessions.htm



6. 2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2


Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #134 on: June 24, 2011, 10:43:14 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.

What you have to understand is that all of that is okay because it's This Rock. It wouldn't be all right, of course, if a traditional Catholic had said those things, because it would mean that he/she was un-ecumenical and maybe even intolerant.

Sorry if my bias is showing.   Grin
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #135 on: June 24, 2011, 11:02:34 PM »


The issue is or was till the Doctor took over:  Is Orthodoxy only engaged in the current bilateral dialogue with Catholics so that they can proselytize the Catholic Church.



In some sense, yes.  For the Orthodox the prequisite for union is that the faith of the other Church coincides with the Orthodox faith.

Therefore dialogue is about coming to a mutual understanding of one another's faith and the search by the Orthodox to see how they may be drawn closer.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #136 on: June 24, 2011, 11:16:10 PM »


I have said and I believe that Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in the current rounds of dialogue in order to proselytize and that they are actually discussing the issue of primatial primacy and petrine primacy in good faith, in order to seek a path to the ending of the schism

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....


The Russian delegates to the International Meetings have stated unequivocally and with 100% clarity that there is not and never will be a global primacy in the Church.  We have not been leading the Catholics astray.

There are many statements on this from our bishops and theologians in the Forum's archives.

Try a search with   primacy hilarion

Because of your repeated insistence on this "bad faith" issue I am starting to think you have a mental block about the Orthodox statements which perturb you.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #137 on: June 24, 2011, 11:23:39 PM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....


What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #138 on: June 25, 2011, 05:34:13 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #139 on: June 25, 2011, 07:59:05 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

We're picking up the pieces of this:

Humpty Dumpty isn't together again yet.

I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 08:05:02 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #140 on: June 25, 2011, 08:12:04 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #141 on: June 25, 2011, 08:15:48 PM »

Ialmisry sure does love maps.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #142 on: June 25, 2011, 08:17:29 PM »


I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?


Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #143 on: June 25, 2011, 08:19:58 PM »


I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?



You should message one of the mods for access to it. It's a jolly good time in there.  Grin
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #144 on: June 25, 2011, 09:25:40 PM »

Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 09:26:14 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,670



WWW
« Reply #145 on: June 25, 2011, 11:03:44 PM »

Ialmisry sure does love maps.

Oh, yeah  Shocked
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #146 on: June 26, 2011, 01:30:50 AM »

Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.


I think what you have described here is just the atmosphere of forums across the board. People go around and around and debate for the sake of debating but nothing ever really gets solved. This has been my experience with any forum I have ever been a member of. On any given forum, there is usually a member or a group of members that like to argue just because.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 01:31:24 AM by Wyatt » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #147 on: June 26, 2011, 02:30:29 AM »

Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.


I think what you have described here is just the atmosphere of forums across the board. People go around and around and debate for the sake of debating but nothing ever really gets solved. This has been my experience with any forum I have ever been a member of. On any given forum, there is usually a member or a group of members that like to argue just because.
Although, from time to time, I find that I actually learn something that I did not know before.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #148 on: June 26, 2011, 09:47:39 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #149 on: June 26, 2011, 10:14:51 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: June 26, 2011, 10:15:22 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

I get it now.  The bishop of Rome and the Pope of Rome are two different men.  But I think this is some modern big-O idiocy.

Is Bishop Siluan installed as Bishop of Rome or not?  If he is not then this is a cheval mort.  laugh
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #151 on: June 26, 2011, 10:22:13 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

FYI:  Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879:

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #152 on: June 26, 2011, 11:14:00 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

I get it now.  The bishop of Rome and the Pope of Rome are two different men.
 
No, Father.  The former office has been rived and the latter office, at least for the Orthodox, is defunct.

But I think this is some modern big-O idiocy.
It would have to be modern: until the Papal States fell in 1870, it would be impossible to have an Orthodox bishop in Rome. That is, btw, the source of the dispute on whether the EP or Romania would have jurisdiction in Italy: the Patriarch of Karlovci had the only Orthodox jurisdiction in what is now Italy, but I'm not sure what happened between 1866 (when part of the territories he had jurisdiction were annexed to Italy) and 1870 (when Italy annexed Rome).  Then there is what happened between 1870 and 1873 (when the Patriarch of Karlovci's jurisdiction in Italy was translated to the Metropolitanate of Bukowina/Bucovina).

Is Bishop Siluan installed as Bishop of Rome or not? 
Ever since 2009 (he was enthroned the previous year at Luca. When the statut for the Episcopate was approved in 2009, it mandated his see at Rome, a cathedral was set up and his grace was translated to it at Rome).
http://episcopia-italiei.it/media/hotarare_statut.pdf
http://episcopia-italiei.it/media/statut_eori.pdf
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #153 on: June 26, 2011, 11:22:04 PM »


No, Father.  The former office has been rived and the latter office, at least for the Orthodox, is defunct.


OK, I am impressed!  I had to look up "rive."   laugh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #154 on: June 26, 2011, 11:25:03 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

FYI:  Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879:

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.


Father, do you have the text of the original: it not being in the Pedalion, and IIRC the Syntagma (I don't have my copy readily to check). Btw, where did you get the translation?

since, however, the Vatican abandoned this council and embraced its antithesis, proclaiming it as its Eighth Ecumenical Council, including its anathematization of St. Photios and his deposition, amongst other problems, it would be another example of how the papacy of Rome self destructed and hence now is defunct, if not disestablished.

Btw, Bishop Siluan AFAIK doesn't have a claim to the supreme pontiff title:since the Emperor gave that pagan title and office to the Pope of Rome, not the Church, it has no connection to the see of Rome as far as the Church is concerned.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #155 on: June 26, 2011, 11:54:07 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #156 on: June 26, 2011, 11:56:16 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #157 on: June 27, 2011, 12:01:47 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #158 on: June 27, 2011, 08:42:22 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #159 on: June 27, 2011, 09:03:14 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
Or to confuse them, as to the identity of which Church Patriarch St. Ignatius, the Creed and the Fathers of the rest of the Councils meant.
Logged

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

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #160 on: June 27, 2011, 09:06:59 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.

So do I.  Not only because the word is rightfully ours, but because it counteracts the papal Catholics from misleading it's people by teaching that we broke away from the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  Remember there is only one piece of pie from the ORIGINAL pie that stands alone outside the pan,  and it isn't the Orthodox.  FatherHLL I'm with you.  I'm amazed that some of our own people cannot understand the importance of this issue.  They seem as brain washed as some papal Catholics when it comes to this.  I don't deny Rome it's right to the word Catholic.  I do deny it's claims to have exclusive rights to the ident to mislead people where Church history is concerned.

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #161 on: June 27, 2011, 09:08:12 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.
The Fathers speak of the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church, i.e. us. We are only following their usage.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #162 on: June 27, 2011, 09:47:44 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.

So do I.  Not only because the word is rightfully ours, but because it counteracts the papal Catholics from misleading it's people by teaching that we broke away from the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  Remember there is only one piece of pie from the ORIGINAL pie that stands alone outside the pan,  and it isn't the Orthodox.  FatherHLL I'm with you.  I'm amazed that some of our own people cannot understand the importance of this issue.  They seem as brain washed as some papal Catholics when it comes to this.  I don't deny Rome it's right to the word Catholic.  I do deny it's claims to have exclusive rights to the ident to mislead people where Church history is concerned.

Orthodoc

Expressed in this way the Catholic Church would agree with you.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #163 on: June 27, 2011, 09:53:41 AM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.  The Pope is not dealing fairly with the Orthodox on what position and authority he wants to hold in a reunited East and West.   Hmmm... 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #164 on: June 27, 2011, 10:21:47 AM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW