OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 01:46:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bishop of Rome Returns Kazan Icon  (Read 10645 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« on: July 10, 2004, 03:52:43 PM »

I'm curious as to why the Vatican did not mention that the Vatican and the Bishop of Rome used to predicate the return of the icon on the occassion of being with it. From what I understand Moscow said no because the return of a icon and the its arrival only with the Bishop of Rome should not be tired together. He saw it as being used for Papal publicity and refused. Moscow followed up with a expert team being sent to the Vatican to verify authenticity. Suffice it to say it was deemed to be a copy and not the original icon. Either way why did it take 11 years to return something that should have been immediately returned whether it was the original or not. This icon is very important to the Orthodox Church I'm glad to see that the Vatican now finds its return agreeable.

VATICAN CITY : Pope John Paul II will next month return the priceless 'Our Lady of Kazan' icon, stolen from St Petersburg in the early years of the last century, to the head of the Russian Orthodox church, Alexy II, the Vatican revealed.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the icon, which the pope had previously hoped to return in person, would be presented to Patriarch Alexy on August 28.

The icon has become something of a symbol of John Paul II's long-cherished intention to visit Russia, an event which has been blocked by strains between the Orthodox church and the Vatican.

After it was stolen from Saint Petersburg, the icon is understood to have been bought from a dealer by a Catholic organisation and presented to the pope in 1993
« Last Edit: July 10, 2004, 04:13:42 PM by MatthewPanchisin » 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 #1 on: July 10, 2004, 08:42:45 PM »

[Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the icon, which the pope had previously hoped to return in person, would be presented to Patriarch Alexy on August 28.]

Since the Pope spent eleven years trying to use it as a bribe to enter Russia, does anyone know WHERE and HOW this copy will be returned?

Orthoodc

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.
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2004, 11:05:19 PM »

Here is the latest news I've seen.


Pope John Paul II has decided to return to Russia a revered icon painting from his private apartments at the Vatican.
The Pope says he is making the gesture as a gift to the Russian people.

He had hoped to return the painting - a copy of a famous Russian icon of the Virgin and child dating back about 300 years - to Russia in person.

But the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church made it clear the Pope would not be welcome because of persisting tension between the two churches.

John Paul, who is holidaying in the Italian Alps, has evidently been pondering the current poor state of relations between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Gesture of friendship

The Russian Church belongs to the Eastern branch of Christianity which separated from the Western branch - then centred in Rome - a thousand years ago.

Last month however, the Pope made a gesture of friendship towards the Orthodox by inviting to Rome Patriarch Bartholomew, the head of all the Eastern Churches.

The 84-year-old pontiff would like to be remembered as the pope that finally ended the millennial rift between the two branches of Christianity.

This icon, which he has personally revered in Rome for two decades, is a powerful symbol for Russian believers.

The painting will be carried to Russia by a Vatican delegation next month.

But a papal visit to Moscow still remains highly unlikely.

The icon has hung in the Vatican for three decades

« Last Edit: July 10, 2004, 11:06:19 PM by MatthewPanchisin » 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 #3 on: July 11, 2004, 11:30:55 PM »

The Kazan Icon of the Mother of God
  22 October / 4 November

The celebration of the Most-holy Theotokos, in honor of her Icon known as the Kazan Icon, was established in thanks for the saving of Moscow and all Russia from the attack of the Poles in 1612. The late 16th and early 17th Centuries are known in Russian history as the Time of Troubles.  The nation was attacked by Polish armies, who mocked the Orthodox Faith, and who looted and burned churches, towns and villages. By means of deceit, they succeeded in seizing Moscow. In response to the appeal of His Holiness Patriarch Hermogenes (commemorated on May 12) the Russian people rose up in defense of the homeland. The miraculous Icon of the Most-holy Theotokos was sent from Kazan to join the militia led by Prince Dimitry Mikhailovitch Pozharsky.  
In his “Homily on the day of the appearance of the Icon of the Mother of God in Kazan” (celebrated July Cool, Holy Hierarch Dimitry of Rostov (commemorated September 21) said: The Mother of God saves from great misfortunes and evils not only the righteous, but also the sinful, but what manner of sinners?  Those, who like the prodigal son, return to their Heavenly Father; who lament [over their sins]; who, like the publican, beat their breasts; who are like the sinful woman that wept at the feet of Christ and washed His feet with her tears; those who, like the thief on the cross, confess Him.  The Mother of God looks after such sinners and rushes to help them, and saves them from great misfortunes and evils.  

Recognizing that the misfortune had been permitted because of their sins, the entire people and militia observed 3-day fast, and turned to the Lord and His most-pure mother for divine help. Their prayers were heeded. Holy Hierarch Arseny  (later to become bishop of Suzdal), who was a prisoner of the Poles, sent word that he had had a vision revealing by the intercession of the Most-holy Virgin, God’s judgment been had turned to mercy.  Inspired by this news, the armies on October 22, 1612 liberated Moscow from the Polish occupiers. The celebration in honor of the Kazan Icon of the Most-holy Theotokos was established in 1649.  To this day, that Icon is highly venerated by the Russian Orthodox people.

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.
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2004, 01:16:41 AM »

Wow, I hadn't heard any of this until now!

Hopefully this goes through and the icon will be returned without strings attached.

If it does (God willing) then I will be very happy for the Orthodox Christians in Russia (and the world over!) for having two icons returned this year!

How GREAT would that be?!?  

:clapper:  :cwm12:  :bounce:  :cwm30:

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2004, 01:32:17 PM »

Just some clarifications:

The icon of Our Lady of Kazan disappeared during the Russian Revolution in 1917, probably stolen (not by the Vatican), and ended up in the possession of a British collector.

The icon was in public auction and  the Blue Army (Our Lady of Fatima lay organization) purchased it and gave it as a gift to Pope John Paul only in 1993.

The icon has been at the Pope's apartment since then, about 11 years (not since 3 decades ago).

Without any strings attached, His Holiness is "returning" (I think the right word should be "repatriating" as the Vatican did not purloin the icon) the icon to the Russian Orthodox Church, which "claims" rightful ownership.


Amado



Logged
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2004, 03:32:06 PM »

Dear Amado,

Do you think that the Russian Orthodox Church that "claims" rightful ownership is correct in their reasoning that the Icon should be returned to whom it was stolen from in the first place?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
Logged
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2004, 03:41:28 PM »

Matthew:

Yes, but it was "rescued" by a Catholic lay organization, with its own money.

The Pope's  possession came as a consequence of a gift from the Our Lady of Fatima group in the U.S., the Blue Army.

What I am driving at is: neither the Vatican nor the Pope "stole" the icon from the Soviets or from the Russian Orthodox Church.

Or, are your trying to tell me that it was stolen by the Catholic Church?

Amado
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 #8 on: July 12, 2004, 03:52:09 PM »


You allmay find the following website interesting regarding some Roman Catholics take on the Kazan Icon and it's reurn home from whence it was stolen.  read the whole article.  You won't know whether to laugh or cry -

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/a011rpKazan.htm

Excerpt:

2. Kazan and the Fatima Message

The Blue Army built a small chapel in Fatima for the icon’s safekeeping, and it remained there until 1993, when it was given to John Paul II, who transferred it to his private apartments in Rome and announced his intention to hand-deliver it to Russia as soon as possible. That is to say, the icon would be returned to Russia based on the false notion that Russia had converted and the promises of Fatima were fulfilled. (4)
(4) For a full account of the Blue Army’s betrayal of their custodianship, see my article “Handing Over the Symbolic Icon of Our Lady of Kazan: A Confirmation of a Great Crisis in the Church,” The Remnant, January 31, 2001.
Thus, the return of the Kazanskaya to the Schismatic patriarch Alexis II would signify that Russia does not need conversion and that the Russian Schismatic Church is not in error. Instead of being a confirmation of the conversion of Russia, as it was initially planned, this return would close the door on the realization of the Fatima message. It would signify that Fatima no longer has relevance for our times.
An important part of the Fatima message, one that the present day Vatican seems determined to discount or revise at all account, are the words of the Virgin Mary about Russia. In her July 13 appearance to the three children, Our Lady said she would come to ask “for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation of the first Saturdays. If my requests are listened to, Russia will be converted and there will be peaceGǪ If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world.”

=========

And then they wonder why so many of us are so defensive of our Holy Orthodox Catholic faith!

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.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,378



« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2004, 03:57:43 PM »

Orthodoc, I don't what your problem with this is. Some Fatima-connected group gave him the icon, and he returned it without any strings attached, angering the Fatima crazy-types. Who cares if they're angry? THe pope doesn't answer to them!
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 #10 on: July 12, 2004, 04:09:04 PM »

[Orthodoc, I don't what your problem with this is. Some Fatima-connected group gave him the icon, and he returned it without any strings attached, angering the Fatima crazy-types. Who cares if they're angry? THe pope doesn't answer to them!]

The problem is Keble, is that he held it hostage for eleven years and tried to use it as a bribe to enter Russia knowing full well about the history of the Icon and how it tied into the Polish invasion of Russia.

He is supposed to be the 'Vicar of Christ On Earth' Yet he holds one of the sacred objects in Orthodox Catholicity as a pawn!

That is the problem.  Besides he's gotten all the PR he can out of it.

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.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2004, 04:53:33 PM »

I'm not buying the idea that the Pope didnt know of the significance of this Icon.  Wasnt his grandmother Orthodox?  As to its "rescue" heh, yeah I guess it was "rescued' for keeping in perpetuity.  I dont believe there was any intent on giving it back unless there was a Quid-pro-quo involved.  I cant help thinking of all the treasure that is being held in St. Mark's Venice just so it would have a "good" home.

JoeS   Tongue

Matthew:

Yes, but it was "rescued" by a Catholic lay organization, with its own money.

The Pope's  possession came as a consequence of a gift from the Our Lady of Fatima group in the U.S., the Blue Army.

What I am driving at is: neither the Vatican nor the Pope "stole" the icon from the Soviets or from the Russian Orthodox Church.

Or, are your trying to tell me that it was stolen by the Catholic Church?

Amado
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,378



« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2004, 05:34:12 PM »

The problem is Keble, is that he held it hostage for eleven years and tried to use it as a bribe to enter Russia knowing full well about the history of the Icon and how it tied into the Polish invasion of Russia.

Sorry, don't believe it.
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 #13 on: July 12, 2004, 06:49:31 PM »

Sorry, don't believe it.


You don't read very much do you?  The archives are full of stories regarding the Popes plans to personally take the Icon back to Russia.  As far as the history, it's hard to find any article regarding it's history that doesn't tie it into the invasion of Russia by the Poles.

Notice once the Church on Red Square was rebuilt where it was kept for centuries and dedicated to the 'Victory of the Russians over the Polish invasion' the Pope tried to return it persoanlly to Kazan.

See -

The Kazansky Cathedral


The Cathedral of the Kazan Icon of the Holy Virgin was built to commemorate the victory of the Russian army over Polish invaders in 1612. The consecration of the cathedral in honor of the Kazan Icon of the Holy Virgin reflected the people’s gratitude to the heavenly Intercessor for liberating the city from the invaders. In addition, it testified to the link between two national victories: the liberation of Moscow by a militia headed by Minin and Pozharsky and the seizure of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible. The idea of constructing a monumental structure to glorify the independence of the Russian state and the military feats of its warriors was vividly reflected in the architecture of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, and further implemented in the overall design of Red Square. It seems as if the two monumental cathedrals on opposite ends of the square have engaged in a dialogue.

Construction began in the 1620s and the cathedral was consecrated in 1637. The Kazan Icon of the Holy Virgin, with which Prince Pozharsky went off to battle in 1612, was kept there. For many centuries, every year on October 22 there was a religious procession to the Kazansky Cathedral with the tsar and the patriarch participating.  

Of particular artistic importance was the crowning part of the cathedral, an elegant pyramid of keel-shaped kokoshniki (decorative elements reminiscent of a traditional Russian women’s headdress of the same name), topped with an unexpectedly massive dome on an elegant drum.

 

The Kazansky Cathedral was restored in 1753 under the supervision of architect Dmitry Ukhtomsky. In 1865, a bell tower for the cathedral was built on the basis of a design by architect Kozlovsky. The massive pillar of the tall three-tiered bell tower was in perfect harmony with the eastern side of Red Square.

 

In the early 1930s, the Kazansky Cathedral was demolished and a public lavatory built in its place.

 

The cathedral was rebuilt in 1993.

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.
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 #14 on: July 12, 2004, 06:57:24 PM »


Picture of the newly rebuilt Kazan Cathedral on Red Square where the Icon was vererated for centuries can be seen at -

http://www.moscow-taxi.com/churches/kazan-cathedral.html

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.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2004, 09:36:16 PM »

Orthodoc,

It is dishonest to present the views of "ultra" Catholics as the views of "some Roman Catholics" as if they are a normal representation of the faithful of the Catholic Church, just as it would be dishonest to represent the  "ultra" Orthodox fringe as representative of Orthodox views.

I also see that even as the Pope returns the Icon with no strings attached just like you wanted he is given no credit.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #16 on: July 12, 2004, 10:07:21 PM »

[I also see that even as the Pope returns the Icon with no strings attached just like you wanted he is given no credit.]

Deacon Lance:

Oh he's given credit alright.  But the fact of the matter is that he would have been given even more credit if he had given it back eleven years ago because 'it was the right thing to do' rather than trying to use it as a bribe and bargaining  tool and putting conditions regarding it's return.

By the way, what you call the views of the 'ultra Catholics'  were exactly the same views I heard from my Roman Catholic friends in the fifties.

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.
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2004, 12:48:58 AM »

O, come on.  He was given the icon.  He hoped to return it personally, combining the generosity of the gesture with the symbolism of a physical visit, as a sign of steps toward a rapprochement between the RO and RC churches.  His hopes for a physical visit have not been, and will not be, fulfilled in his lifetime, but he's returning the icon, anyway.

I'm no fan of the Roman papacy, but it's pathetic and unchristian to interpret every single gesture in the worst possible terms.
Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2004, 01:57:34 AM »

Wait, I have read in several places, and a few Orthodox priests have told me that the Kazan Icon that the Pope has is not the original Kazan Icon, rather a reproduction. Can anyone help me out and clarify the information I have been given? If it is the original, I am very glad the the Holy Father has returned the Icon, and this should be a time to rejoice on the part of the Orthodox, not a time to complain, and critize the Pope. The Holy Father didn't have to give it back, but he did with absolutely no strings attached.
Logged

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

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2004, 02:33:26 AM »

Dear Ambrosemzv,

I don't think you are being accurate in your last post and judgment "but it's pathetic and unchristian to interpret every single gesture in the worst possible terms."

I say this because every single gesture is not being interpreted here in the worst possible terms. As such it is understandable that you have wrongly identified anyone or the opinions rendered so far as pathetic and unchristian to interpret every single gesture in the worst possible terms. If a Christian confesses our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, then he is a Christian and it is his responsibility to understand his state whether it is pathetic or perhaps one is struggling with some passions. If a person is interpreting every single gesture in the worst possible terms that doesn't necessarily mean that one is pathetic or unchristian. Perhaps he is impaired by his judgment. Nevertheless, your attention to the matter is understood.  

Here is some information from the United Press International.

(" When Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi offered his services in advancing the cause of a visit to Russia by the pope, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk snapped back, "The Russian Orthodox church and the Roman church are not two states in conflict."

The fact is, Kirill went on, "we have channels of communication that function very well, but when it comes to fulfilling reciprocal obligations, unfortunately we find that the Catholic side plays a double game -- it says one thing and does another in practice."

Another recent dispute between Rome and Moscow concerned the decision of the Catholic primate in Ukraine to break with tradition and move his residence from Lvov to Kiev. For centuries, the Ukrainian capital had been the seat of the Ukrainian Orthodox patriarch. But work recently was completed on the construction of a Catholic cathedral in Kiev, with an adjoining residence for the primate. The Moscow patriarch joined his Ukrainian counterpart in protesting to Rome against what they see as a blatant encroachment.)

I might add that when the Byzantine Catholics sought to create a Patriachate, Rome postponed the matter after receiving unanimous opposition from all of the Orthodox Patriarchs who supported Moscow's understanding.

The fact of the matter remains that in the past the return of the Kazan icon had been joined together with a Papal visit to Russia. Hence, Moscow declined and has articulated quite frankly it's dismay that the Icons return had been predicated on the Pope himself returning it. The Orthodox hierarchs whom we are to listen to determined that such a action was inappropriate.

The Pope has sought to visit Russia and has been denied such a visit because of many reasons.  The return of the Icon was being used as leverage for a Papal visit. If it was not as perceived as so by Moscow which communicated with the Vatican for the return of the Icon, then they are not capable of understanding the terms for the return of the Icon that had been discussed. Why do you think it took 11 years to return it. It has been reported that the Pope has expressed a profound desire to return the icon for the last 11 years. He has also expressed a desire to visit Russia for quite sometime. Why wasn't it returned 10 years ago? Surely, Rome is aware of the importance of the Icon to the Russian people, as such one would think it should be returned immediately. But there is a difference between Judging and discerment or understanding, which perhaps I still lack. That's been and remains quite a struggle for me.

I'm sure we would all agree that it is good that the Bishop of Rome returns the Kazan Icon to the Russian people.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: July 13, 2004, 09:21:31 AM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2004, 08:58:57 AM »

The Vatican is also smart enough to know that any papal visit to Russia would present a massive media opportunity event that would more than likely benefit the Roman church as opposed to the Orthodox Church.  Why, because most of the world is familiar with the western church and as such would get better press.  So, its not to difficult to understand why this visit would be so important to the Vatican.  

My personal feeling is that if the Pope wanted so dearly to return the Icon that they could have presented it at the Russian Embassy in downtown Rome. It could have been performed with a lot of dignity and respect for both sides.  

JoeS   Cool
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 #21 on: July 13, 2004, 09:41:23 AM »

[My personal feeling is that if the Pope wanted so dearly to return the Icon that they could have presented it at the Russian Embassy in downtown Rome. It could have been performed with a lot of dignity and respect for both sides.]

Exactly!  Or he could have presented it to Putin a few months ago when Putin visited him.  Instead of having the Icon brought down from his private chambers for Putin to venerate before taking it back upstairs!  Guess there wasn't enough press around.

If the Pope had been sincere in returning the Icon in the first place, he wouldn't have spent eleven years in negiotation.  Moscow now has both FedEx and UPS if worse came to worse.  

As I stated before, the return is appreciated but the eleven years of bribery & negiotations will not be forgotten.  

"By their deeds they shall be known."

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.
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 #22 on: July 13, 2004, 10:07:33 AM »

[Wait, I have read in several places, and a few Orthodox priests have told me that the Kazan Icon that the Pope has is not the original Kazan Icon, rather a reproduction. Can anyone help me out and clarify the information I have been given? ]

Art experts were sent from Russia and determined it was not the original Icon (which was porbably destroyed) but one of the many miraculous copies of the Icon. Measurements indicate it is not the same size as the original.  Many of these miraculous copies still are in Russia.

The Russians recognize it as a copy that was stolen from Russia after the revolution but not as the original.  The Russians never requested it back.  In fact the Vatican was told to keep the Icon when the Pope started to put stipulations on its return and manipulate the western news media regarding its return.

The Pope has finally realized he's gotten about all the PR out of this he can, and the Russians aren't about to bow down to his demands.  So the return is just another attempt of the pope to manipulate the western press on see how 'good' the 'RCC' is while how bad the 'ROC' is.

Negiotations between the RCC and the OCC are not now, nor have they ever been tied into the return of thsi Icon.  there are too many other more serious matters to discuss.  Matters that have been put on the agenda more than once regarding a scheduled meeting between  the Pope and Patriarch and suddenly taken off by the Pope just prior to the meeting forcing the ROC to back out.  And thus, once again, manipulate the western press into publishing just how sincere the RCC is towards unity and how insincere the ROC is.

This Pope is a master manipulator of the western press.  As a Pole he knows the history behind the two churches and plays it to the hilt to get the best weffects.

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.
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2004, 10:12:11 AM »

It looks to me that they are scrambling more & more to hang on to the Fatima prophecies.
Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2004, 06:05:34 PM »

Dear all,

I just don't understand it, we the Orthodox are told during talks with the Latin's that they interested in promoting Christian unity and not in removing souls from the Orthodox faith. Yet on an international scale via EWTN and Marcus Grodi's coming home Network they actively seek to help Orthodox Christians "come home to the Catholic faith." It is an insult to our intelligence and hypocritical to say one thing and do that which you claim you are not doing namely seeking to remove  Orthodox Christians  from Orthodoxy Christianity and subject them to those who have fallen into the error of heresy.

Here is some recent News;
 
Russian Orthodox leader opposes pope's visit
MOSCOW (AP) — The leader of the Russian Orthodox Church emphasized Friday that Pope John Paul II is not welcome in Russia, reiterating that an icon the pontiff once hoped to return personally in a conciliatory gesture is a copy of a revered 16th-century work.
Patriarch Alexy II told President Vladimir Putin that the icon — known as the Mother of God of Kazan — will be turned over to the Russian Orthodox Church at the Cathedral of the Assumption in the Kremlin later this month, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

But Alexy noted that the icon, now at the Vatican, previously was determined to be "one of many copies" of the original.

"For that reason there is no need for the pope himself to bring it," ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying.

John Paul had once hoped to return the icon himself and become the first Roman Catholic pontiff to visit Russia, but sour relations with the Russian Orthodox Church have prevented such a trip.

The aging pope's desire for a historic visit to Russia is part of his efforts to promote greater Christian unity a millennium after Christianity split into eastern and western branches. But Russian Orthodox leaders strongly oppose a visit, accusing the Catholic church of seeking converts in Russia and other traditionally Orthodox lands.

The icon, which first appeared in the city of Kazan in 1579, is revered by Russian believers for its purported ability to work miracles, including the rout of Polish invaders from Russia in the early 17th century. It was taken to the West after the 1917 Russian Revolution and disappeared.

The Russian Orthodox Church said last year the icon obtained by the Vatican in the 1970s was a copy and could "under no circumstances be considered a reason" for a visit by John Paul.

Orthodox leaders did agree for papal representatives to bring the icon to Russia on Aug. 28, but Alexy's statement underlined the persistent animosity between his church and the Vatican.

"There is nothing new in negotiations with the Roman Catholic Church, except that on the Day of the Assumption, August 28th, the icon of the Mother of God of Kazan, which was stored in the Vatican, will be returned," ITAR-Tass quoted Alexy as telling Putin.

But he added, "It is one of many copies, not the original miracle-working image that disappeared at the beginning of the 20th century."

Alexy noted a commission that included representatives of the Vatican, the Orthodox church and the Russian Culture Ministry had opened the metal plating on the icon at the Vatican and determined it was an 18th-century copy, the report said.
 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2004, 06:22:41 PM by MatthewPanchisin » 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 #25 on: August 14, 2004, 06:28:21 PM »



Matthew:

For well over a year, probably more like two, the Pope tried to use the Icon as a bribe to enter Russia.

He played on the ignorance of the western press regarding the history of the Icon and the part it played in repelling the POLISH invasion of Russia. And its being credited by the Russian people as stopping the Polish troops as they advanced towards Moscow.  For he knew damn well that not one Russian would agree to have a POLISH Pope triumphally enter Moscow carrying the Icon.  The whole thing had a double meaning and the Pope knew the western press would be too lazy to do their home work (as they usually are) and he would come out looking good while once again, the ROC would come out looking bad.  And, once again, it worked.

But he over played his hand.  Especially since it has been determined it is not the original Icon and the return of the Tikhvin Icon  taht was returned by the OCA with no strings attached, over shadowed it.
So, most probably, August the 28th will come and go and the only hoopla you will hear about it will be in the Vatican news.

In fact, the Patriarch has told the Pope on more than one occassion to keep the Icon.  There are plenty of miraculous copies of the Icon already in Russia.

I just read a post by a Roman Catholic crying about the ungrateful ROC and suggesting the Pope give the Icon to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics to be spiteful.  At this point,  if he does, no one would really care either.

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.
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2004, 07:14:02 PM »

Dear Orthodoc,

It's hard for me to believe. Firstly, even since the Icon is a copy and if it wasn't it should have gone back to the Orthodox Church fast with no strings attached. I understand that it was originally stolen and through a series of events ended up at the Vatican for several years. My point being that I agree with you, if they want to make some sort of political pawn of a Icon it is better to let them keep it then to participate in that sort of thing.  I hope that someone mentioned that to the RC who you mentioned above that Icons are not rendered to be used for spiteful purposes. If not send me the url, I'll certainly mention it.  Once again, very sad situation that was not necessary in my opinion.

I'm getting tired of scratching my head.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: August 14, 2004, 07:15:54 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2004, 07:45:28 PM »

Matthew,

I quit scratching my head regarding this months ago, Church politics at this level is above my knowledge and patience.

Also, there is a underlining problem with one being Russian and the other Polish, and being the leader of their particular Church.

Like Orthodoc has said many times, this could of been resolved years ago.

Politics are not just reserved for goverments.

james
Logged

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

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2004, 08:07:23 PM »


You allmay find the following website interesting regarding some Roman Catholics take on the Kazan Icon and it's reurn home from whence it was stolen.  read the whole article.  You won't know whether to laugh or cry -

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/a011rpKazan.htm

Excerpt:

2. Kazan and the Fatima Message

The Blue Army built a small chapel in Fatima for the icon’s safekeeping, and it remained there until 1993, when it was given to John Paul II, who transferred it to his private apartments in Rome and announced his intention to hand-deliver it to Russia as soon as possible. That is to say, the icon would be returned to Russia based on the false notion that Russia had converted and the promises of Fatima were fulfilled. (4)
(4) For a full account of the Blue Army’s betrayal of their custodianship, see my article “Handing Over the Symbolic Icon of Our Lady of Kazan: A Confirmation of a Great Crisis in the Church,” The Remnant, January 31, 2001.
Thus, the return of the Kazanskaya to the Schismatic patriarch Alexis II would signify that Russia does not need conversion and that the Russian Schismatic Church is not in error. Instead of being a confirmation of the conversion of Russia, as it was initially planned, this return would close the door on the realization of the Fatima message. It would signify that Fatima no longer has relevance for our times.
An important part of the Fatima message, one that the present day Vatican seems determined to discount or revise at all account, are the words of the Virgin Mary about Russia. In her July 13 appearance to the three children, Our Lady said she would come to ask “for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation of the first Saturdays. If my requests are listened to, Russia will be converted and there will be peaceGǪ If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world.”

=========

And then they wonder why so many of us are so defensive of our Holy Orthodox Catholic faith!

Orthodoc

Russia needed to be converted from communism, not Orthodoxy.  I honestly don't remember if the Fatima incident was before or after 1917, but it doesn't matter, since Mary would certainly know of the coming of communism before it happened.  So, don't be so defensive.   Smiley
Logged

NULL
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2004, 08:37:48 PM »

Russia needed to be converted from communism, not Orthodoxy.  I honestly don't remember if the Fatima incident was before or after 1917, but it doesn't matter, since Mary would certainly know of the coming of communism before it happened.  So, don't be so defensive.   Smiley

.... just as a point of information, the Fatima apparitons occured from May 13th through October 13th of 1917, if I am not mistaken, on the 13th of each month...

An interesting point, considering the raging tides of World War One, as well as the "revolutions" in Russia at the time (Bolshevik ascendency not being complete until November N.S. / October O.S. -  hence, "October Revolution"...);

Still, I have never been able to determine how "the conversion of Russia", in the words relayed by the three Fatima children of the 1917 visions, could be extrapolated to explicitly mean conversion from Russian Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism - unless one chooses to interpret the "message" so, which [perhaps I am mistaken?] is far more common since the end of the Soviet Union.

By the bye, as a long-ago teenage Blue Army "fan", who then became interested in Orthodoxy, I telephoned the Blue Army offices in the early 1980s to ask if there were any plans to return the icon, then in their keeping, to the Russian Orthodox Church. I was informed that all of the Russian Orthodox Church was under communist captivity.

When I mentioned that there was a "free" part of the ROC with headquarters in the US (R.O.C.A.), the secretary or whomever I spoke to seemed to have no knowledge of such a strange thing.

Not long after, I moved away from my Blue Army fascination, when the group's official magazine attributed an explosion in the Soviet Union in which many scientists were killed to an act of God (a Compassionate, Loving God? ... I think not).

Strange, to me, some couple o' decades from then, how the dialectics seem to have changed...

although, perhaps, human contentions and "politickin' " have not....


 Wink
« Last Edit: August 15, 2004, 08:40:46 PM by Rustaveli » Logged
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2004, 10:34:28 AM »

"read the whole article.  You won't know whether to laugh or cry."

I ended up scratching my head again. I know this might sound uncharitable, but it isn't. There must be some sort of a mental block for normal reasoning that is issued when a person believes and accepts the incorrect things that the Latin's teach. It is far to consistant to be accidental. I guess if you you accept the Latin theology you can manufacture an answer for anything that is not Orthodox.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
Logged
Edwin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2004, 11:19:06 AM »

I'm left scratching my head trying to figure out how you interpret the "traditioninaction" article _criticizing_ the Pope for returning the icon as somehow justifying the paranoid and cynical way you guys have been interpreting the Pope's actions. On the contrary, it's clear that the Pope's returning the icon is important as a clear gesture that he does _not_ think the Russian Orthodox Church needs to be "converted." He would have preferred to have done this as part of a visit to Russia, which is understandable. You're starting from the assumption that a papal visit is some kind of imperialistic act, and so papal diplomacy intended to make such a visit possible is deeply offensive in some way. In other words, you start from the assumption that any move toward reunion is inevitably going to be a sinister attempt by the Pope to subdue the Orthodox Church, and so no matter what he does you will find a way of interpreting it in that paradigm.

Why do I never hear the Orthodox laying out clear conditions for reunion on _their_ side? What kind of reunion would be acceptable to the Orthodox? You claim that the Pope is trying to manipulate the media into giving the impression that he is the one anxious for reconciliation. Well, isn't he? What has Alexei done to bring about the reunion of East and West?

In Christ,

Edwin
Logged

NULL
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #32 on: August 16, 2004, 01:30:28 PM »

Dear Edwin,

Don't you think that history and specifically the doctrine of Papal Infallibility Supremacy presupposes the notion that it is within the context of Latin doctrine for the Pope to subdue the Orthodox Church?

We are not blind, would you not agree that the Roman Catholic practice to this day of removing souls from the Orthodox faith is kind of a imperialistic act, even though the Latin's tell us to our faces that is not what they seek to do while they are in fact doing it? I'm not saying it is sinister, but surely you could agree that such behavior is a violation of the trust that is necessary when entering into dialog. When trust is continually violated, it is not difficult to remain in that dialog?

The Russian Patriarch's position is that he is not going to embrace the Bishop of Rome while such action continues, because that embrace would be insincere.

Since the Latin's consider us the Orthodox to have valid sacraments and renders the notion of a "Sister Church" status to us but somehow lacking mostly because we refuse to be subjected to the Bishop of Rome" and accept the Latin distortions, perhap's you can explain why the Latin's believe that removing Orthodox faith from the Orthodox is so necessary?

Since you have access to a computer here is a simple example which seems to me to at least frimly suggest that indeed the Latin's actively seek to remove the Orthodox Faithful from the Orthodox faith, even when tell us they are not interested in pouching souls from Holy Orthodoxy.

What is the correct ecumenical and theological understanding of the following?

There is a international Roman Catholic Television Station called EWTN it is out there with the blessings of the Roman Catholic Church and is used for ministry purposes. It is  broadcast to many parts of the world. One of the programs that is often watched is called the Journey Home with Marcus Grodi who speaks of conversion stories to the Roman Catholic Church. Marcus Grodi also has a associated Roman Catholic website the front page reads as follows.

The purpose of The Coming Home Network International (CHNetwork) is to provide fellowship, encouragement and support for pastors and laymen of other traditions (Protestant, Orthodox, etc..) who are somewhere along the journey or have already converted to the Catholic Church. The CHNetwork is committed to assisting and standing beside all inquirers, serving as a friend and an advocate

Here is the website link. www.chnetwork.org

They also feature conversion stories from Orthodox who have apostatized to Roman Catholicism, in fact that is what they seek to facilitate.


I don't believe that paranoid and cynical is an accurate description of how us guys have been interpreting the Pope's or the actions and words of the Latin's, I think our interpretation are the reflections and indicative of sincere and reasonable minds.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: August 16, 2004, 02:07:39 PM by MatthewPanchisin » 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 #33 on: August 16, 2004, 04:12:39 PM »

[The Russian Patriarch's position is that he is not going to embrace the Bishop of Rome while such action continues, because that embrace would be insincere.]

Matthew, that is correct.  It seems that everytime an agenda is made and agreed upon for such a meeting the Vatican has waited until the meeting was announced in the western press.  And then suddenly after agreeing on the agenda, changes it and deletes various topics agreed upon.  Of course the ROC reacts by cancelling the meeting.  And the western press never seem to include the reasons for the cancellation.  This Pope plays the western press like a fine tuned fiddle!

[On the contrary, it's clear that the Pope's returning the icon is important as a clear gesture that he does _not_ think the Russian Orthodox Church needs to be "converted." ]

How nice of him!  But we've known that all along.   
   
[In other words, you start from the assumption that any move toward reunion is inevitably going to be a sinister attempt by the Pope to subdue the Orthodox Church, and so no matter what he does you will find a way of interpreting it in that paradigm.]

A thousand  years of aggressive behaviour towards Orthodoxy have taught us this.  "By their deeds they shall be known."

The problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it's current overtures towards Orthodoxy is that the words and actions are not the same.  RC's tell us that we are now a sister church but they still relate to us as if we are the poor wayward dimwitted half sister.  They tell us we are the 'other lung'  but relate to us as if we are the diseased underdevloped lung.
"By their deeds they shall be known."
   
   
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.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2004, 08:20:16 PM »

While the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as sister churches is does not recognize the Orthodox Church as a whole as its sister and sees itself as the one true Church.  It considers the Orthodox Churches to be in imperfect communion with it by way of shared common faith and sacraments, as the Catholic Church sees it.  Because thecatholic Church believes the Orthodox Church is in error regarding the role and power of the Bishop of Rome and remains outside of communion with the Catholic Church, any Orthodox Christian wishing to enter into communion with the Catholic Church cannot and should not be denied.  In this the Catholic Church acts no different than the Orthodox Church, which claims it is the sole true Church and will not prevent anyone from entering it.  

The Catholic Church has renounced Uniatism as a method of reconcilliation and reunification with the Orthodox Churches.  The Pope rejected the request of the Macedonian Orthodox Church for unification.  However, it recognizes the right of existing Eastern Catholic Churches formed by unias to contiue to exist in communion with Rome and rejects the calls of some Orthodox to liquidate them.  This is the agenda that Rome consistently pulls from meetings.  Because the agenda is usually outlined as "concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches" which Moscow continually interprets as "the liqidation of the Uniates" which Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches reject.  So Mosocw is as much to blame as Rome.  This is the same agenda that derailed the North American RC/EO consultation.

Given that Orthodox do not reciprocate the idea that the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches are sister churches I find it useless to continue talks.

I think it is time to recognize that official  relations are going nowhere.  I say forget it.  Each Church should evangelize/proselytize as their beliefs dictate while refraining from strong arm tactics on one another.  I see no other way to go at this point.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #35 on: August 16, 2004, 09:26:30 PM »

[However, it recognizes the right of existing Eastern Catholic Churches formed by unias to contiue to exist in communion with Rome and rejects the calls of some Orthodox to liquidate them. This is the agenda that Rome consistently pulls from meetings. Because the agenda is usually outlined as "concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches" which Moscow continually interprets as "the liqidation of the Uniates" which Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches reject. So Mosocw is as much to blame as Rome. This is the same agenda that derailed the North American RC/EO consultation.]

No Father Deacon Lance:

What is always taken of the agenda is what happened in Ukraine regarding the Uniates turning their backs on the Quadripartite agreement which they had originally agreed to along with their adopted mother church (the Roman Catholic Chuch).  Once again, as in 1596, the people were not given a say on whether they wanted to remain within the Orthodox Church or return to Unia.  The churches were taken by force and the Pope remained silent for two years until the was an accomplished fact.  That is what is always taken off the agenda.  The Pope doesn't want to discuss the fact that once again his church made an agreement with the Orthodox Church and turned their backs on it.

=======

http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/se100671.htm

DECISIONS OF THE HOLY SYNOD
At its session on 10th June1997, chaired by the PATRIARCH, the Holy Synod CONSIDERED:The state of relationships with the Roman Catholic Church at the present stage in view of an opportunity for the primates of the two Churches - His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia and His Holiness John Paul II, the Pope of Rome - to meet in Austria. BACKGROUND: Underlying the differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches are issues of doctrinal nature. It is precisely these issues that constitute the subject of the Pan-Orthodox/Catholic dialogue. A theological dialogue between Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church began in the early 60s, after Vatican II and the Pan-Orthodox Conferences in the Rhodes Island. Already the 1st Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1961 proposed to take up the theme on "Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church" including the issues of Unia and proselytism preventing the establishment of relations characterized by the spirit of Christian love between the two Churches. The 2nd Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1963 suggested that the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches should begin on equal terms. An agreement to start the theological dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches was reached during the visit by Pope John Paul II to Phanar in 1979. It was on 30 November 1979 that John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I of Constantinople announced the creation of a Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, which was done as announced, with the consent of all Local Orthodox Churches. The first meeting of the Commission took place in 1980 on the Pathmos and Rhodes Islands. In the period between the late 80s and the early 90s the interconfessional relations between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches became complicated. This was caused primarily by the growing activity of Greek-Catholic communities which came out of the underground and began to restore their parishes and structures on the local level through force. This process was especially painful for the Orthodox in Western Ukraine (the regions of Lvov, Ternopol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Transcarphathia). There it came to mass disorders, clashes, forcible seizure of churches as Orthodox communities were simply driven out to the street, while the local press launched a campaign to discredit the Orthodox of the Moscow Patriarchate. It took all possible efforts to change the situation. Unfortunately, a direct talk with the Uniates proved to be impossible because the Greek-Catholics withdrew from the so-called Quadripartite Commission which was set up in January 1990 and which was made up of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Roman Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Eastern rite Catholics in Western Ukraine. The Uniates pulled out of the Commission under a strong pressure from radically-minded representatives of the Ukrainian political movement called "Rukh" who declared that in case of their coming to power all the churches would be taken away from the Orthodox and given to the Eastern rite Catholics. In view of this, in their opinion, there was no need whatsoever to conduct a dialogue with the Orthodox Church. All attempts to come into contact with the local and central authorities and to urge them to observe the fundamental human rights and principles of religious freedom proved to be fruitless. As a result of the forcible seizure of churches, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was deprived of most of her parishes in the regions of Lvov and Ivano-Frankovsk where the situation remains very complicated to this day. Thus, the Orthodox in Ivano-Frankovsk has not a single church, and a threat still exists that the ruling bishop will be deprived of his residence. In Lvov there is one small Russian Orthodox church. Yet this church cannot accommodate all the faithful, and the Orthodox Ukrainians who belong to the canonical Church are deprived of an opportunity to worship in the way they have been accustomed to.

==================

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.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2004, 10:10:56 PM »

Orthodoc,

The Quadpartite Agreement is a seperate although inexorably linked issue.  Again Rome agreed to the agreement, the UGCC Synod only agreed under duress and withdrew when it was clear the MP did not intend to allow Catholics to use the churches in the interim and they were wise to do so.  

In Romania where the RGCC did stay true to their agreement with the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate the Greek Catholics got and continue to get the shaft.  When the RGCC was liqiudated by the Communists and the Romanian Patriarchate they had over 1 million members and over a thousand churches.  To date they have received back less than 10 percent of their churches even though estimates put their membership between 600,000 and 1 million.  And aside from Metropoitan Daniel of Transylvania none of the Romanian Orthodox hierarchs are making any moves to retun anymore.

During the Prague Spring of 1968, in Slovakia where parishes actually did vote, of 292 parishes, 205 voted to be Greek Catholic, 5 voted to be Orthodox and the voting was stopped.  It was determined that the rest of parishes would be Orthodox.  The church buildings of the 205 Greek Catholic parisjes where to be turned over to the Greek Catholics but the Soviet Invasion of 1968 halted this and the majority of the buildings remained in Orthodox hands until 1993.  In 1993 only 170 parishes remained, 135 were given to the Greek Catholics who numbered 225,000, 35 parishes remained with the Orthodox who numbered 50,000.  I am unaware of any violence regarding the issue as unfortunately occured in Ukraine.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2004, 10:57:28 PM »

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

Your quote; "Given that Orthodox do not reciprocate the idea that the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches are sister churches I find it useless to continue talks.

I think it is time to recognize that official  relations are going nowhere.  I say forget it.  Each Church should evangelize/proselytize as their beliefs dictate while refraining from strong arm tactics on one another.  I see no other way to go at this point."

The talks are not useless for we can learn much from them, but if ecumenical dialog did stop at least the Latin's wouldn't want to lie to us and tell us they are not interesed in removing souls from the Orthodox faith when they really do in words and actions.

Do you really and truly not see anything wrong with saying one thing and doing another? If you don't, others do.

By the way, your conclusion is not consistant with the position of the Vatican. But then again you could have your own Patriachate.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: August 16, 2004, 11:00:48 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2004, 12:09:15 AM »

Well, everybody...

... so, how 'bout that ole' Kazanskaya icon, eh?

Wink
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2004, 12:24:25 AM »

Matthew,

"Do you really and truly not see anything wrong with saying one thing and doing another? If you don't, others do."

The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as true particular Churches, but sees it self as the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church with whom the Orthodox Churches have an imperfect communion.  The Orthodox Church sees it self as the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church and sees the Catholic Church in schism from it.  Both Churches accept converts from the others Church.  Both have practiced unitatism, the French and Czech Orthodox Churches are the result of this on the Orthodox side.  

Would you rather we drop the term sister churches for you and go back to calling you schismatics and agressively proselytizing in Orthodox territory?  Because the number of Catholics in Orthodox lands can hardly be shown to be the result of the large scale proselytism we are accused of.  In most countries we haven't even got back to pre-Soviet numbers.

The Catholic Church is acting consistently with its teachings as is the Orthodox Church.  The difference is the Orthodox Church wants to have its cake and eat it too.  It wants the Catholic Church to liquidate the Eastern Catholic Churches, remove Latin Churches from Orthodox lands, not accept any converts from Orthodoxy or in Orthodox lands whether the people identify themselves as Orthodox or not, and not evangelize the unbelievers in Orthodox lands. While at the same time the Orthodox have no plans of leaving Catholic lands or stopping to accept Catholic converts.

Are not the Orthodox acting hypocritically by coming to the table asking to be treated as sister Churches when they do not believe in any such thing?  The truth is they are playing on the Vatican's desire for ecumensim and unity in the hopes of getting what they believe to schismatic, heterodox competitors out of their traditonal lands with no intention of reciprocating.

I am saying lets just end the politics and negotiations, they have done nothing to improve relations between our Churches.  Collaborate on feeding the hungry and finding homes for the orphans and let each evangelize whom and where they wish.  

Fr. Deacon Lance


Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2004, 12:31:49 AM »

Deacon Lance,

I hate to admit it but I'm beginning to feel the way you do.

james
Logged

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

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2004, 10:19:18 AM »


 Good morning Deacon Lance,

Firstly, when you continue to say things that are very inaccurate it is not good for both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. You mislead once again by stating that  "both have practiced uniatism" tell us Deacon Lance do we the Orthodox mimic the Latin rite so that the more simple think that we are Latin rite Roman Catholics or Roman Catholic Christians of the Latin rite because we look like them? Uniatism was initiated by Roman and is owned by Roman, to suggest otherwise seems to me to be another distortion.

I think that when something is acquired by means of deception Roman Catholics are taught to return that which was stolen and repent.

The Orthodox go to the table with sincere hearts, I'm sure.  They are not using "Vatican's desire for ecumenism and unity in the hopes of getting what they believe to schismatic, heterodox competitors out of their traditional lands with no intention of reciprocation."

It seems to me that you twist things to write your own version of history or write it as well as reality from your perspective and arsenal.

The relations with between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church seem to be improving one need only read a few of the recent Vatican's statements to regarding it's evaluation of the Orthodox Church for substantiation. The biggest obstacle in the negotiations and set backs have come from the issue of uniatism like the desire for a Patriarchate in traditional Orthodox lands by the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome and the activities that lead Orthodox Christians away from the Orthodox Church.

As you know the Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome are just recovering from the persecution of the communist, these things take some patience to work out.

Why is it that when something is brought to your attention relative to the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome or the Latin's you react by suggesting the Orthodox are no different or worse. I remember speaking with some Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome regarding the sexual abuse scandal within the RC and sadly they accused the Orthodox of the same, even though I'm quite sure that it is not so. This was done by bringing up a few incidents and attempting to blow them up and twist the subject to the degree that Rome has suffered with. Very sad indeed.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin





Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2004, 09:23:39 PM »

I am so,  so very confident in our Holy Orthodox Faith when it comes to seeing where I came from.  I thank the Holy Spirit  for my journey here to the true faith.  

JoeS  Smiley
Logged
Edwin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #43 on: August 18, 2004, 12:02:58 AM »

Matthew,

Of course the goal of RC ecumenism is to reestablish communion between the RCC and the Orthodox, and of course that involves the recognition of papal primacy. Not only is this the RC goal, but the Orthodox themselves admit that if the RCC were to "return to Orthodoxy," Rome would once again take its place as the first among episcopal Sees. You choose to use dramatic language like "subjugate," but that's just clouding the issue. In "Ut Unum Sint" the Pope declared himself open to negotiation on what form papal primacy would take in a reunited Church, and clearly stated that the basis for such primacy would be the first-millenium situation, not the way in which primacy has been exercised in the post-Schism RCC. Show me one piece of evidence that he was insincere in this offer.

You and other anti-ecumenical Orthodox cite the sorry history of papal imperialism in the past. But that is another way of saying that because of past papal actions you refuse to entertain the possibility of reunion. Stop pretending that the Pope's current overtures of peace are themselves intrinsically imperialistic. If you judge Rome irredeemable because of the past, say so.

EWTN is not the official representative of the RCC. Surely you know that. There are many Catholic organizations that represent a wide range of opinions, and the Church usually doesn't condemn them unless they embrace blatant heresy--sometimes not even then. I've watched Grodi a number of times, and have never seen him speak of evangelizing the Orthodox. His main focus is clearly Protestantism. I take your word for it that he also targets the Orthodox, and he is clearly wrong to do so. But you're taking one small part of the activity of one person on one (not officially endorsed) TV network as somehow representative of the official RC attitude. This is not only unjust but ludicrously so.

In Christ,

Edwin
Logged

NULL
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #44 on: August 18, 2004, 01:28:43 AM »

Dear Edwin,

EWTN is a big RC international television station I'm sure we could agree to that. Do you really believe that it is one person running EWTN and it is Marcus who is also busy man running around the country? If his main focus is Protestantism then why did he feature an Eastern Rite Catholic in communion with Rome who ultimately in his journey home ended as such. They seemed to agree that the Orthodox should come home as well. Why bother featuring him for he even claimed to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome." I recall Marcus was shaking his head in agreement when the ex-biker Eastern Rite Catholic explained quite openly that the Orthodox or beloved separated brothers should be in union with Peter or Rome as his church did so many years ago, I don't recall what date he referenced. Nevertheless, what is the point of having him on there other than as being presented as a honorable example being in communion with Rome? Do you further think that there is no oversight relative to what is being broadcast on an international level? Do you think that particular presentation was also done with no planning or a few man mistake as well? It seems not very ludicrous to me to conclude that the program clearly attempts to present people and their stories that have lead them to the Roman Catholic Church.

"In cooperation with the Catholic Bishops, the Coming Home Network International was established to help inquiring clergy as well as laity of other traditions return home and then be at home in the Catholic Church, by providing..."

That seems to be like a mission statement. I don't know perhaps Catholic bishops cooperated in the establishment of EWTN appear on in from time to time but other than that never watch it so they can't object to helping the orthodox come home. How could they for we know that they believe that with Rome there is perfect union? I didn't not read anywhere excluding the Orthodox, but as I mentioned above I did see what appeared to be an Orthodox Priest Monk. As a matter of fact, actually when I first saw it I thought WOW they have an Orthodox Priest on and wanted to hear what he had to say. He did not even look uniated I found that out as he went along speaking.

I don't believe anybody is irredeemable because of the past, that would be something that I can not do nor do I desire to. However we do know that in the past we have been considered schismatic as Deacon Lance has mentioned and Rome has declared the following to be an infallible statement;

Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

To answer Deacon Lances question ;

Would you rather we drop the term sister churches for you and go back to calling you schismatics and agressively proselytizing in Orthodox territory?

If you want to call us schismatics and not part of the Catholic Church and condemn us and the Orthodox Saints that you venerate who died while not being in communion with Rome, you and the Latin's I can assure you will still be prayed for.

I think a return to that position would not only be unjust but ludicrously so.  It is an understatement particularly when you ask those whom you would then consider to be schismatic Saints to intercede for you. Nay?

Maybe I'm being unjust and ludicrously so and don't even know it.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin



« Last Edit: August 18, 2004, 10:08:34 AM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.178 seconds with 72 queries.