OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 07:04:46 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew  (Read 7383 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: November 30, 2011, 02:26:13 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2011, 02:28:04 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2011, 02:40:37 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2011, 02:50:50 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?

A bit old fashioned. English is today's lingua franca of European diplomacy. It replaced French after WWII.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2011, 02:59:08 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?

A bit old fashioned. English is today's lingua franca of European diplomacy. It replaced French after WWII.


Isn't the substance (and the very fact) of the letter, however "trivial", more important than whether it was written in French or English?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2011, 03:53:09 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?

A bit old fashioned. English is today's lingua franca of European diplomacy. It replaced French after WWII.


Isn't the substance (and the very fact) of the letter, however "trivial", more important than whether it was written in French or English?

I was saying the choice of language was of trivial concern. Simply perplexed at its selection.

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2011, 04:12:54 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


Trivial to be sure, but why French?
The pan-European language of diplomacy?

A bit old fashioned. English is today's lingua franca of European diplomacy. It replaced French after WWII.


Isn't the substance (and the very fact) of the letter, however "trivial", more important than whether it was written in French or English?

I was saying the choice of language was of trivial concern. Simply perplexed at its selection.

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Yes, the choice of language *is* of trivial concern. 
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2011, 04:14:32 PM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2011, 04:25:09 PM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2011, 04:26:27 PM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2011, 04:33:00 PM »

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

No doubt freemason attempt to decrease the position of the chosen by God American nation.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2011, 04:40:30 PM »

Quote
St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world
I thought St. Andrew was the patron saint of the EP not all of Orthodoxy.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2011, 04:43:53 PM »

Quote
St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world
I thought St. Andrew was the patron saint of the EP not all of Orthodoxy.

PP

I though patron Saints of the Orthodox world were Saints Cyrill and Methodius (at least Polish wikipedia says so).
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 04:44:07 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2011, 04:48:49 PM »

I think he should have written it in Russian. 



Too soon?   Wink Grin
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2011, 04:49:35 PM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

An idea of what I'm going on about??  Are you *kidding* me??  Of course I don't  Grin Grin Grin.  Now, would you like that in German, Greek, English, American, or......wait for it...........French?  Or, Esperanto  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Grin Grin??

Again, seriously, is not the fact of the letter and its content more important than the language it was originally written in?  And, if not, why not?

I guess, too, that if you really need to know why it was written in French, you'd have to ask those who wrote it.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2011, 04:51:26 PM »

I think he should have written it in Russian. 



Too soon?   Wink Grin

Maybe the EP will reply in........................Serbian  Grin Grin.

Okay, have it your way.........................in Russian.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2011, 05:51:24 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2011, 06:24:23 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter..."


God forbid anyone focus on the *message*!

So Vatican Radio got it wrong and Ankara is the Turkish capital and not Constantinople, er, Istanbul.  And, not being "Orthodox", maybe Vatican Radio confused St. Andrew as being patron saint of the EP (see this: Saint Andrew (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; early 1st century—mid to late 1st century AD), called in the Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos, or the First-called, is a Christian Apostle and the brother of Saint Peter. The name "Andrew" (Greek: manly, brave, from ἀνδρεία, Andreia, "manhood, valour"), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the 3rd or 2nd century BC. No Hebrew or Aramaic name is recorded for him. He is considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.) with being patron saint of "the Orthodox world".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Andrew  (source cited. S1389)

But....that's *far*, **far** more important than the message, isn't it?

So much for "working together in the common search for truth and unity".  Sad

Perhaps instead of looking for nits to pick it might be more constructive all around if, when spotting an error, to gently correct, in love and charity, the one who made it.  Or, if the error is of little import in the grand scheme of things, to just overlook it.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 03:13:05 PM by serb1389 » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2011, 06:30:01 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter..."


God forbid anyone focus on the *message*!

So Vatican Radio got it wrong and Ankara is the Turkish capital and not Constantinople, er, Istanbul.  And, not being "Orthodox", maybe Vatican Radio confused St. Andrew as being patron saint of the EP (see this: Saint Andrew (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; early 1st century—mid to late 1st century AD), called in the Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos, or the First-called, is a Christian Apostle and the brother of Saint Peter. The name "Andrew" (Greek: manly, brave, from ἀνδρεία, Andreia, "manhood, valour"), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the 3rd or 2nd century BC. No Hebrew or Aramaic name is recorded for him. He is considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.) with being patron saint of "the Orthodox world".

But....that's *far*, **far** more important than the message, isn't it?

So much for "working together in the common search for truth and unity".  Sad
it just showed that it skips the truth part to impose its idea of unity.  You conviently forget that we have danced this waltz before.  And no, little has changed.
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
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2011, 06:30:06 PM »

Damned Freemasons. Anyway, it should've been in Latin, the real common tongue of the west.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2011, 10:06:17 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter..."


God forbid anyone focus on the *message*!

So Vatican Radio got it wrong and Ankara is the Turkish capital and not Constantinople, er, Istanbul.  And, not being "Orthodox", maybe Vatican Radio confused St. Andrew as being patron saint of the EP (see this: Saint Andrew (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; early 1st century—mid to late 1st century AD), called in the Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos, or the First-called, is a Christian Apostle and the brother of Saint Peter. The name "Andrew" (Greek: manly, brave, from ἀνδρεία, Andreia, "manhood, valour"), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the 3rd or 2nd century BC. No Hebrew or Aramaic name is recorded for him. He is considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.) with being patron saint of "the Orthodox world".

But....that's *far*, **far** more important than the message, isn't it?

So much for "working together in the common search for truth and unity".  Sad
it just showed that it skips the truth part to impose its idea of unity.  You conviently forget that we have danced this waltz before.  And no, little has changed.

Do you have a map for that?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2011, 10:33:19 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."
In our Patriarchate St. Peter, its founder, is the patron saint of the Orthodox world.

Constantinople is not the Turkish capital, even according to the Turks.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in its ability to grasp other facts.

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter..."


God forbid anyone focus on the *message*!

So Vatican Radio got it wrong and Ankara is the Turkish capital and not Constantinople, er, Istanbul.  And, not being "Orthodox", maybe Vatican Radio confused St. Andrew as being patron saint of the EP (see this: Saint Andrew (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; early 1st century—mid to late 1st century AD), called in the Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos, or the First-called, is a Christian Apostle and the brother of Saint Peter. The name "Andrew" (Greek: manly, brave, from ἀνδρεία, Andreia, "manhood, valour"), like other Greek names, appears to have been common among the Jews from the 3rd or 2nd century BC. No Hebrew or Aramaic name is recorded for him. He is considered the founder and first bishop of the Church of Byzantium and is consequently the patron saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.) with being patron saint of "the Orthodox world".

But....that's *far*, **far** more important than the message, isn't it?

So much for "working together in the common search for truth and unity".  Sad
it just showed that it skips the truth part to impose its idea of unity.  You conviently forget that we have danced this waltz before.  And no, little has changed.

Do you have a map for that?
Or a picture of the Romanian Eparch of Italy?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:33:46 PM by WetCatechumen » Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,604



« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2011, 01:25:14 AM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.

Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2011, 01:30:23 AM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.



See people? This is thinking and a reasonable explanation.

Makes perfect sense.

Merci!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2011, 01:39:10 AM »

Quote from: Michał Kalina
I though patron Saints of the Orthodox world were Saints Cyrill and Methodius (at least Polish wikipedia says so).

Hmmm. Something to think about.  angel (Not that it's bad if they are. I just hadn't heard that before.)
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2011, 01:57:57 AM »

There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2011, 02:09:45 AM »

There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.
That was what I was thinking, then I thought of something else. Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2011, 02:48:46 AM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.



See people? This is thinking and a reasonable explanation.

Makes perfect sense.

Merci!

LOL In diplomacy, especially in diplomatic negotiations the usage of specific  Language is no trivial matter. it is calculated and deliberate with intended unsaid yet understood meaning( it also reflects and conveys  positive or negative intentions). carelessness in language of choice could send the wrong political message further alienating the other party one attempts to negotiate with. Those engaged in diplomacy are aware of this. so your question was in my opinion was neither trivial nor irrelevant. As opus clearly demonstrated it is an important part of the message. it is usually decided bilaterally what language to use to communicate between the two, it gets a more complicated when its a multilateral negotiation, anyway you know what I mean. angel
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2011, 03:17:58 AM »

Wait, Ss. Cyril and Methodius are some kind of patron saints of Orthodoxy? I knew I screwed up when I picked up them as my RC confirmation saints!  Oops.  Embarrassed

Regarding language in ecumenical exchanges, I don't know about official policy (if there is one) of the churches, but I would think that this is a pragmatic concern, rather than trying to choose a language that best conveys "love" or some abstract idea like that (a strange, arbitrary notion; I've never felt French to be particularly "lovely"). Like English in India, I would think that French fulfills a few important constraints imposed by the nature of the communication: It's neither side's native language, nor is it the native language of a strongly Catholic or Orthodox identified people (hardly any French are practicing Catholics), so it is relatively politically neutral. It seems like a decent choice, all things considered.
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2011, 01:53:50 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2011, 02:09:56 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2011, 02:22:42 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  Roll Eyes.  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2011, 03:37:00 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  Roll Eyes.  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2011, 03:59:51 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself?  

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  Roll Eyes.  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.

And this applies also to the *written* word?  (Remember, we're talking here of a written letter.)  If so, just what *is* Heidegger saying??  And...what does that "say" about Holy Scripture?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 04:13:08 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2011, 04:14:33 PM »

Yes, as noted by ialmisery, the letter was presented at the Patriarchal Church of St. George at the Phanar, in Istanbul, which, when it was referred to as Constantinople, was the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire.  Since the establishment of the so called Turkish Republic, Ataturk established his capital at Ankara.  Typical of the RC's, though, considering St. Andrew the patron of the Orthodox Church probably because he is the patron of the Church of Constantinople.

But, I do agree with the substance of His Holiness' message.  Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church should acknowledge that one thousand years of separation has resulted in differences in doctrine and theology, but acknowledge the 1,000 year history of their essential oneness in faith, and should establish an entity that would jointly proclaim the message of Christ to the world, along with other Trinitarian Christian denominations, if there are any left who don't ordain women and homosexuals.  The world needs the message of Jesus Christ more so today than ever, a world overwhelmed by hedonism and the Moslem heresy.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 04:16:46 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2011, 04:25:14 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself?  

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  Roll Eyes.  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.

And this applies also to the *written* word?  (Remember, we're talking here of a written letter.)  If so, just what *is* Heidegger saying??  And...what does that "say" about Holy Scripture?

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2011, 04:33:57 PM »



Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.


The term "non sequitur" comes to mind here.  Now, if that's an incorrect use of it, then how 'bout "just plain nonsense"?  Because, that's what you seem to be writing.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2011, 04:38:34 PM »



Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.


The term "non sequitur" comes to mind here.  Now, if that's an incorrect use of it, then how 'bout "just plain nonsense"?  Because, that's what you seem to be writing.

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2011, 04:41:09 PM »

I think he should have written it in Russian. 



Too soon?   Wink Grin

Maybe the EP will reply in........................Serbian  Grin Grin.

Okay, have it your way.........................in Russian.

psh...Arabic, obviously Wink
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 01, 2011, 04:43:11 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself?  

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  Roll Eyes.  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.

And this applies also to the *written* word?  (Remember, we're talking here of a written letter.)  If so, just what *is* Heidegger saying??  And...what does that "say" about Holy Scripture?

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.
Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!
"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

I *knew* someone would dredge that up  Roll Eyes.  So, whatever words I use in a given language will mean the same thing in that language no matter what they are, right?  I mean, if language is a medium, and the medium is the message, each language is a different message no matter what the words are?  Paleeeze....give me a break!

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.


Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.


The term "non sequitur" comes to mind here.  Now, if that's an incorrect use of it, then how 'bout "just plain nonsense"?  Because, that's what you seem to be writing.

 I need sources on all of these Martin Heidegger quotes, or links.  You both have 24 hours.  In fact, the next person who quotes ANYTHING without providing a link or citation will be warned.  You have all be warned.  
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #40 on: December 01, 2011, 04:43:26 PM »

if there are any left who don't ordain women and homosexuals.  The world needs the message of Jesus Christ more so today than ever, a world overwhelmed by hedonism and the Moslem heresy.

Weird how language always gives us away.

You don't think the the RC and OC ordain homosexuals?

They do.

And women?

That topic ain't closed or not rightfully so think some.

And strange how you place the ordination of women and homosexuals adjacent to the message of Jesus Christ.

Not going to get into these topics, just pointing out something I found a bit odd.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2011, 04:47:13 PM »



Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.


The term "non sequitur" comes to mind here.  Now, if that's an incorrect use of it, then how 'bout "just plain nonsense"?  Because, that's what you seem to be writing.

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.



Do *you* have anything to contribute to this non-discussion, of your own, besides unattributed quotes by Martin Heidegger without even any kind of contextual explanation?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,149


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2011, 05:02:38 PM »

Ahem.

At a quick glance, I thought the title read: Pope Benedict to Ordain Patriarch Bartholomew

Yes, I did a double take and realized I had initially read the title wrong.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2011, 05:10:00 PM »

Ahem.

At a quick glance, I thought the title read: Pope Benedict to Ordain Patriarch Bartholomew

Yes, I did a double take and realized I had initially read the title wrong.  Roll Eyes

What a great idea!!!! Grin

Wishful thinking  Grin Grin?  Freudian slip  Grin Grin?

That was pretty funny, Maria!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2011, 05:10:46 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!



Come on J Michael,  Cool language is very important in negotiations, issues such as sovereignty and political dominance (in this case Church governance) can be conveyed with the type of language one uses. They took care not to antagonize the other in these matters where the usage of one’s language can be understood as a concession of certain political power or weight to the other etc. Now your indignation over the inquirey about the language used although understandable is not entirely justified in the real world of diplomacy.  so calm down and let us reason together.  :angel:When these letters are written people(those in charge of writing them)  are concerned not only about what is being actually said with the words, but also the language used to convey them. In this case the careful selection of the neutral language French speaks well on the good will of the communicant as well as it successfully avoids any political misunderstanding.

People who know of the importance of language in diplomatic interactions have valid point to look into the type of language used as well as the content of the language. It is part of the message. The UN is a good example, if you would care to look into it, that publications of official documents have to wait until available in all the official languages of the UN. Just because it might  mean the same in English they do not rush to publish the English version first and wait on the others.

In this case there is a valid reason why the article mentioned that the Letter was in French. J Michael relax no one is arguing that the message of the words in the letter are not important, however it is a fair question and a valid one to look into why the Papal letter was written in French, the inquiry does not undermine or downplay the significance of what the letter says in words. You cannot dictate people to look into the meaning of the words only and ignore the significance of the language used. We can look at both, it should not be an either or thing. In the real world, such things are not mere speculations but rather informed and educated understandings of the significance of language in both secular and religious politics.

As we are many in here who are discussing this event, you have to give leeway for people to look at it from different angles it only serves to enrich our understanding IMO. So relax my brother we are all on the same page, you are free to discuss what the words say , as I am or any other person is free to inquire what the significance of the language used is, while holding my peace in regards to commenting on what the words say. I will not downplay the significance of the words as you should not down play the significance of the language used and get indignant over people who inquire about it. I hope we are having an intelligent and civil discussion, where educated inquiry and analysis of certain things are allowed, and we do not neccessarily have to ask the writters why they wrote it in french as you seem to think and suggest we do.

peace Smiley
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #45 on: December 01, 2011, 05:22:42 PM »

Quote
 I need sources on all of these Martin Heidegger quotes, or links.  You both have 24 hours.  In fact, the next person who quotes ANYTHING without providing a link or citation will be warned.  You have all be warned.  

Quote
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.

Can be found here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger

Quote
What is spoken is never, and in no. language, what is said.

The first return in google for this one (I don't understand why wikiquote doesn't source it, as it is one of his most famous statement) is a good one. It get the attribution and context for it:

http://thefloatinglibrary.com/2008/06/30/the-thinker-as-poet-by-heidegger/

The typewriting one is more "obscure". I know it because I know of a Heideggerain who also collects type-writers and has written on this subject. This line comes out of a lecture on Parmenides given by Heidegger. It was made quite famous by an essay by Derrida called "Heidegger's Hand".

It is easy to find a buncha places where this line is sourced, but poorly so, but I did find the essay by Derrida online and an quirky essay about science fiction and its relation to the technology used to write it.

Quote from: Martin Heidegger
In typewriting, all men resemble each other.

It can be found in each PDF document:

Heidegger's Hand by Derrida. It is the last line of the paragraph begun on page 178 and ending on 179.

The German source given for the quote within the essay is:

Gesamteausgabe, vol 54, Parmenides (Winter semester 1942/43), ed. M. S. Frings, 1982, p.119.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/posters/geschlecht2.pdf

Is SF handwritten? , Adam Roberts:

http://www.ntu.ac.uk/writing_technologies/current_journal/86049.pdf

Let me know, if you need anything else!

« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 05:24:59 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #46 on: December 01, 2011, 05:31:21 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


It's possible that Pat Bartholomew knows French better than English, something I find plausible for a man of his generation educated in Turkey.

As for the content, unsurprisingly we find the heretical presupposition that truth is still to be sought, rather than something already bequeathed to the Church in its fullness.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 05:31:41 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2011, 05:34:10 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2011, 05:35:03 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself?  

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!



Come on J Michael,  Cool language is very important in negotiations, issues such as sovereignty and political dominance (in this case Church governance) can be conveyed with the type of language one uses. They took care not to antagonize the other in these matters where the usage of one’s language can be understood as a concession of certain political power or weight to the other etc. Now your indignation over the inquirey about the language used although understandable is not entirely justified in the real world of diplomacy.  so calm down and let us reason together.  :angel:When these letters are written people(those in charge of writing them)  are concerned not only about what is being actually said with the words, but also the language used to convey them. In this case the careful selection of the neutral language French speaks well on the good will of the communicant as well as it successfully avoids any political misunderstanding.

People who know of the importance of language in diplomatic interactions have valid point to look into the type of language used as well as the content of the language. It is part of the message. The UN is a good example, if you would care to look into it, that publications of official documents have to wait until available in all the official languages of the UN. Just because it might  mean the same in English they do not rush to publish the English version first and wait on the others.

In this case there is a valid reason why the article mentioned that the Letter was in French. J Michael relax no one is arguing that the message of the words in the letter are not important, however it is a fair question and a valid one to look into why the Papal letter was written in French, the inquiry does not undermine or downplay the significance of what the letter says in words. You cannot dictate people to look into the meaning of the words only and ignore the significance of the language used. We can look at both, it should not be an either or thing. In the real world, such things are not mere speculations but rather informed and educated understandings of the significance of language in both secular and religious politics.

As we are many in here who are discussing this event, you have to give leeway for people to look at it from different angles it only serves to enrich our understanding IMO. So relax my brother we are all on the same page, you are free to discuss what the words say , as I am or any other person is free to inquire what the significance of the language used is, while holding my peace in regards to commenting on what the words say. I will not downplay the significance of the words as you should not down play the significance of the language used and get indignant over people who inquire about it. I hope we are having an intelligent and civil discussion, where educated inquiry and analysis of certain things are allowed, and we do not neccessarily have to ask the writters why they wrote it in french as you seem to think and suggest we do.

peace Smiley

I'm as relaxed as can be, dear Hiwot  Wink.  But, thanks for that.  There's much in your post I would reply to but I'm so relaxed at the moment that to do so would get me all uptight  Grin Roll Eyes!  Okay, just kidding.  I understand what you're saying, and agree with you up to a point.  I'm well aware of the functions of language in many areas of life, including diplomacy.  My *only* point, which seems to have gotten lost in all the verbiage and nonsensical postings, is/was that the language that the letter was written in is only a *part* of the picture in this story, and that by focusing so much attention on that, we lose sight of the *whole* picture, a huge portion of which is in the letter itself, i.e. the words and syntax and structure, etc.  That's it!

As for *why* French was used instead of any other available and shared language, well...*we* just don't know, and speculating about it may be fun and interesting but gets us no closer to an answer.  The only way we *will* know is if the writer(s) explain why, either on their own, or in response to a query.  I don't think that should be so difficult to understand, do you?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 05:40:41 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,916



« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2011, 05:37:45 PM »

All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

And yet here you remain.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #50 on: December 01, 2011, 05:39:30 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #51 on: December 01, 2011, 05:43:37 PM »

All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

And yet here you remain.

Boredom can make us do some pretty inane things, can't it Grin?  Besides, I may just be a (not so) secret glutton for punishment  Roll Eyes, especially considering some of the discussions I've been involved in here.  Oh well, I'll just offer it all up to God  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #52 on: December 01, 2011, 05:44:36 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

Can I quote Heidegger?

No seriously.

He is one of the first to take seriously the Greek notion of truth, starting with the very word itself.

Nietzsche literally figuratively flirting with the point.

The Greek for truth is a "privation".

The English stand in no etymological relationship with the Greek notion and the etymologies both show they stand some tension with one another.

Oh well.



Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 01, 2011, 05:45:13 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 01, 2011, 05:46:41 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

Can I quote Heidegger?

No seriously.

He is one of the first to take seriously the Greek notion of truth, starting with the very word itself.

Nietzsche literally figuratively flirting with the point.

The Greek for truth is a "privation".

The English stand in no etymological relationship with the Greek notion and the etymologies both show they stand some tension with one another.

Oh well.



Were you trying to say something here?  Prove a point perhaps?  Cuz I probably missed it....

....wait....

....yah.  definitely missed it.   Wink Grin Tongue
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #55 on: December 01, 2011, 05:47:25 PM »

I'm as relaxed as can be

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #56 on: December 01, 2011, 05:48:34 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

Can I quote Heidegger?

No seriously.

He is one of the first to take seriously the Greek notion of truth, starting with the very word itself.

Nietzsche literally figuratively flirting with the point.

The Greek for truth is a "privation".

The English stand in no etymological relationship with the Greek notion and the etymologies both show they stand some tension with one another.

Oh well.



Were you trying to say something here?  Prove a point perhaps?  Cuz I probably missed it....

....wait....

....yah.  definitely missed it.   Wink Grin Tongue

Yeah, I got some wind burn from that one, too!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #57 on: December 01, 2011, 05:49:59 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #58 on: December 01, 2011, 05:50:42 PM »


Hey!!!!  Where'd you get that picture of me??  I thought I deleted them all  Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #59 on: December 01, 2011, 05:51:01 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

Can I quote Heidegger?

No seriously.

He is one of the first to take seriously the Greek notion of truth, starting with the very word itself.

Nietzsche literally figuratively flirting with the point.

The Greek for truth is a "privation".

The English stand in no etymological relationship with the Greek notion and the etymologies both show they stand some tension with one another.

Oh well.



Were you trying to say something here?  Prove a point perhaps?  Cuz I probably missed it....

....wait....

....yah.  definitely missed it.   Wink Grin Tongue

The Greek word for truth, ἀλήθεια (aletheia), does mean to "reveal" or more properly to uncover, disclose, unclose.

The thinking on the Greek understanding of truth is so pervaded by Heidegger you can't even sillipedia the word without his work being the balk of the entry in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aletheia

« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 05:52:09 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #60 on: December 01, 2011, 05:52:59 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

There is the full and complete revelation of the Truth, and then there's the unfolding process of understanding and integrating it into our lives.  Or, am I wrong again?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #61 on: December 01, 2011, 05:59:00 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!



Come on J Michael,  Cool language is very important in negotiations, issues such as sovereignty and political dominance (in this case Church governance) can be conveyed with the type of language one uses. They took care not to antagonize the other in these matters where the usage of one’s language can be understood as a concession of certain political power or weight to the other etc. Now your indignation over the inquirey about the language used although understandable is not entirely justified in the real world of diplomacy.  so calm down and let us reason together.  :angel:When these letters are written people(those in charge of writing them)  are concerned not only about what is being actually said with the words, but also the language used to convey them. In this case the careful selection of the neutral language French speaks well on the good will of the communicant as well as it successfully avoids any political misunderstanding.

People who know of the importance of language in diplomatic interactions have valid point to look into the type of language used as well as the content of the language. It is part of the message. The UN is a good example, if you would care to look into it, that publications of official documents have to wait until available in all the official languages of the UN. Just because it might  mean the same in English they do not rush to publish the English version first and wait on the others.

In this case there is a valid reason why the article mentioned that the Letter was in French. J Michael relax no one is arguing that the message of the words in the letter are not important, however it is a fair question and a valid one to look into why the Papal letter was written in French, the inquiry does not undermine or downplay the significance of what the letter says in words. You cannot dictate people to look into the meaning of the words only and ignore the significance of the language used. We can look at both, it should not be an either or thing. In the real world, such things are not mere speculations but rather informed and educated understandings of the significance of language in both secular and religious politics.

As we are many in here who are discussing this event, you have to give leeway for people to look at it from different angles it only serves to enrich our understanding IMO. So relax my brother we are all on the same page, you are free to discuss what the words say , as I am or any other person is free to inquire what the significance of the language used is, while holding my peace in regards to commenting on what the words say. I will not downplay the significance of the words as you should not down play the significance of the language used and get indignant over people who inquire about it. I hope we are having an intelligent and civil discussion, where educated inquiry and analysis of certain things are allowed, and we do not neccessarily have to ask the writters why they wrote it in french as you seem to think and suggest we do.

peace Smiley

I'm as relaxed as can be, dear Hiwot  Wink.  But, thanks for that.  There's much in your post I would reply to but I'm so relaxed at the moment that to do so would get me all uptight  Grin Roll Eyes!  Okay, just kidding.  I understand what you're saying, and agree with you up to a point.  I'm well aware of the functions of language in many areas of life, including diplomacy.  My *only*, which seems to have gotten lost in all the verbiage and nonsensical postings, is/was that the language that the letter was written in is only a *part* of the picture in this story, and that by focusing so much attention on that, we lose sight of the *whole* picture, a huge portion of which is in the letter itself, i.e. the words and syntax and structure, etc.  That's it!

As for *why* French was used instead of any other available and shared language, well...*we* just don't know, and speculating about it may be fun and interesting but gets us no closer to an answer.  The only way we *will* know is if the writer(s) explain why, either on their own, or in response to a query.  I don't think that should be so difficult to understand, do you?

LOL J Michael ,I think we all agree that it is important to see the whole picture to get the message in its entirety,the parts we look at are important parts of the whole,which is why I said we are all on the same page. so I am glad we have clarified that.  Smiley

 there is a wild guess and there is an educated guess, that factors in the available political significance as well as practicality  of the used language , both in the context of history and present day reality. I am sure those who sent it and those who received it, understood the unsaid significance of the usage of French in the Papal letter to the Patriarch.For this reason it will  not be necessary for them to ask why they wrote it in French , as it would not have been necessary for them to ask why had it been written in Latin. the message will be understood. lol but yes I can see we can agree to disagree on this point. in fairness I can say yes the only way that we will ultimately know what exactly was on the minds of those who composed the letter in French , is by asking them. however I will also say  that  it is both unrealistic and abandons the usage of the knowledge found in the field of diplomacy.

Peace angel
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #62 on: December 01, 2011, 06:07:43 PM »

Although my ignorance is huge about many, many things, I *am* aware that language is extremely important, and that there are many reasons why one who is multilingual and addressing another polyglot chooses one language above others.  As I said earlier, why French was chosen in this instance is best asked of and answered by the person(s) writing the letter.  All of our speculation about it is nothing more than electronic hot air, which abounds beyond belief on the internet and on this board.

While the language one uses may or may not be part of what one is attempting to communicate, the language itself is a medium, is it not?  Am I mistaken in thinking that the message, whatever the language used to deliver it, is the *main* thing, if not necessarily the only thing, of import?

If, indeed, the message (i.e. that which is contained in the letter) is of highest, though not necessarily of sole priority, why then what seems here to be the greater focus on the language used to deliver the message rather than the message itself? 

Forgive me if I have misunderstood these things!



Come on J Michael,  Cool language is very important in negotiations, issues such as sovereignty and political dominance (in this case Church governance) can be conveyed with the type of language one uses. They took care not to antagonize the other in these matters where the usage of one’s language can be understood as a concession of certain political power or weight to the other etc. Now your indignation over the inquirey about the language used although understandable is not entirely justified in the real world of diplomacy.  so calm down and let us reason together.  :angel:When these letters are written people(those in charge of writing them)  are concerned not only about what is being actually said with the words, but also the language used to convey them. In this case the careful selection of the neutral language French speaks well on the good will of the communicant as well as it successfully avoids any political misunderstanding.

People who know of the importance of language in diplomatic interactions have valid point to look into the type of language used as well as the content of the language. It is part of the message. The UN is a good example, if you would care to look into it, that publications of official documents have to wait until available in all the official languages of the UN. Just because it might  mean the same in English they do not rush to publish the English version first and wait on the others.

In this case there is a valid reason why the article mentioned that the Letter was in French. J Michael relax no one is arguing that the message of the words in the letter are not important, however it is a fair question and a valid one to look into why the Papal letter was written in French, the inquiry does not undermine or downplay the significance of what the letter says in words. You cannot dictate people to look into the meaning of the words only and ignore the significance of the language used. We can look at both, it should not be an either or thing. In the real world, such things are not mere speculations but rather informed and educated understandings of the significance of language in both secular and religious politics.

As we are many in here who are discussing this event, you have to give leeway for people to look at it from different angles it only serves to enrich our understanding IMO. So relax my brother we are all on the same page, you are free to discuss what the words say , as I am or any other person is free to inquire what the significance of the language used is, while holding my peace in regards to commenting on what the words say. I will not downplay the significance of the words as you should not down play the significance of the language used and get indignant over people who inquire about it. I hope we are having an intelligent and civil discussion, where educated inquiry and analysis of certain things are allowed, and we do not neccessarily have to ask the writters why they wrote it in french as you seem to think and suggest we do.

peace Smiley

I'm as relaxed as can be, dear Hiwot  Wink.  But, thanks for that.  There's much in your post I would reply to but I'm so relaxed at the moment that to do so would get me all uptight  Grin Roll Eyes!  Okay, just kidding.  I understand what you're saying, and agree with you up to a point.  I'm well aware of the functions of language in many areas of life, including diplomacy.  My *only*, which seems to have gotten lost in all the verbiage and nonsensical postings, is/was that the language that the letter was written in is only a *part* of the picture in this story, and that by focusing so much attention on that, we lose sight of the *whole* picture, a huge portion of which is in the letter itself, i.e. the words and syntax and structure, etc.  That's it!

As for *why* French was used instead of any other available and shared language, well...*we* just don't know, and speculating about it may be fun and interesting but gets us no closer to an answer.  The only way we *will* know is if the writer(s) explain why, either on their own, or in response to a query.  I don't think that should be so difficult to understand, do you?

LOL J Michael ,I think we all agree that it is important to see the whole picture to get the message in its entirety,the parts we look at are important parts of the whole,which is why I said we are all on the same page. so I am glad we have clarified that.  Smiley

 there is a wild guess and there is an educated guess, that factors in the available political significance as well as practicality  of the used language , both in the context of history and present day reality. I am sure those who sent it and those who received it, understood the unsaid significance of the usage of French in the Papal letter to the Patriarch.For this reason it will  not be necessary for them to ask why they wrote it in French , as it would not have been necessary for them to ask why had it been written in Latin. the message will be understood. lol but yes I can see we can agree to disagree on this point. in fairness I can say yes the only way that we will ultimately know what exactly was on the minds of those who composed the letter in French , is by asking them. however I will also say  that  it is both unrealistic and abandons the usage of the knowledge found in the field of diplomacy.

Peace angel

Peace back atcha, Hiwot  Wink!

Again, I see exactly where you're coming from, and it's fine with me to agree to disagree.  Besides, that pistol I'm wielding in that ignominious picture of (not) me, gets awfully heavy when I have to keep pointing it at people  Grin Grin!

So, not being a diplomat, and not even being very diplomatic most of the time, I'll concede the point of your last sentence  Wink.

In Christ,
JM
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #63 on: December 01, 2011, 06:28:24 PM »

J Michael, that was a very diplomatic reply I would say  Wink  pleasure talking with ya  dear  Grin

peace angel
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #64 on: December 01, 2011, 06:32:07 PM »

J Michael, that was a very diplomatic reply I would say  Wink  pleasure talking with ya  dear  Grin

peace angel


The pleasure's all mine  Cheesy!  And I do mean that, in spite of what Mr. Heidegger might wax philosophical about.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 01, 2011, 06:50:13 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?

Let's start with "into" being a movement, not a stationary act. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #66 on: December 01, 2011, 06:51:29 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

There is the full and complete revelation of the Truth, and then there's the unfolding process of understanding and integrating it into our lives.  Or, am I wrong again?

That's exactly what I was going for.  That is how I understand it as well.  You said it a lot more succinctly than I did. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #67 on: December 01, 2011, 06:56:59 PM »

This discussion by Fr Michael Pomazansky might be helpful:

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.htm#_Toc514547886

It's very, very helpful in distinguishing the Orthodox understanding from Protestant scriptural literalism, which opposes the authority of later councils to define dogmas, and from Catholic theories of dogmatic development, which consider these later definitions to constitute entirely new revelations of the Holy Spirit, rather than more precise wordings of dogmas that the Church had always held since the time of the Apostles.
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #68 on: December 01, 2011, 08:06:06 PM »

Why are we even still discussing this?

Sheesh...I come here to get away from work, but you people aren't making it very easy!
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #69 on: December 01, 2011, 08:36:13 PM »

Pape Benoît XVI et le Patriarche Bartholomée sont des amis et cela est bon.  Ok, in spirit of French, I just said, Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are friends and that is good.  Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #70 on: December 01, 2011, 08:37:47 PM »

Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #71 on: December 01, 2011, 09:06:21 PM »

Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?

I don't know, I thought when the pope went to the phanar a few years back the tv said it was an ancient custom, the patriarch and the pope visiting each other..  ok, but if it did start in the 1960's, you could be correct.  Maybe when the pope and the patriarch reversed the schism in 1964.  That is what I don't get, how can the leaders of the churches lift the excommunications they had on each other and it not being seen as the end of the schism?  So, if tomorrow morning the current pope and patriarch of constantinople said the same thing, that the excommunications were lifted would people still ignore it?
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #72 on: December 01, 2011, 09:09:47 PM »

ok, the great and wonderful wikipedia states that it was  1952 when the first visit took place,but with a delegate representative of Constantinople.
Logged

Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #73 on: December 01, 2011, 09:47:05 PM »

Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?

I don't know, I thought when the pope went to the phanar a few years back the tv said it was an ancient custom, the patriarch and the pope visiting each other..  ok, but if it did start in the 1960's, you could be correct.  Maybe when the pope and the patriarch reversed the schism in 1964.  That is what I don't get, how can the leaders of the churches lift the excommunications they had on each other and it not being seen as the end of the schism?  So, if tomorrow morning the current pope and patriarch of constantinople said the same thing, that the excommunications were lifted would people still ignore it?

So according to you the schism has ended? Is this what you've been taught? You'll find quite a number of people on here who would insist that the lifting of the anathemas, the Balamand statement and other statements, the mutual prayer, the commemoration of the Pope in the DL etc, somehow do not constitute an end to the schism with the Pope. Of course, I would agree with you that by far the more reasonable interpretation of all these events is that, in the eyes of the EP and the Pope, the schism has ended, although I imagine we would both draw very different ecclesiological conclusions from this.
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #74 on: December 01, 2011, 09:56:24 PM »

Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?

I don't know, I thought when the pope went to the phanar a few years back the tv said it was an ancient custom, the patriarch and the pope visiting each other..  ok, but if it did start in the 1960's, you could be correct.  Maybe when the pope and the patriarch reversed the schism in 1964.  That is what I don't get, how can the leaders of the churches lift the excommunications they had on each other and it not being seen as the end of the schism?  So, if tomorrow morning the current pope and patriarch of constantinople said the same thing, that the excommunications were lifted would people still ignore it?

So according to you the schism has ended? Is this what you've been taught? You'll find quite a number of people on here who would insist that the lifting of the anathemas, the Balamand statement and other statements, the mutual prayer, the commemoration of the Pope in the DL etc, somehow do not constitute an end to the schism with the Pope. Of course, I would agree with you that by far the more reasonable interpretation of all these events is that, in the eyes of the EP and the Pope, the schism has ended, although I imagine we would both draw very different ecclesiological conclusions from this.

I don't make such decisions as to whether of not the schism has ended, my
Patriarch does.  I don't think the schism ended, it won't end for a long time either for a million reasons.  I was merely stating that if they lifted the excommunications but it didn't take effect per 1964, then what?  So why didn't it end then, if and when it happens again, is it going to be a real end to the schism?  At this point the RCC has gone so far off in the opposite direction as the EO I'm glad no one took the 1964 decree seriously.
Logged

pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #75 on: December 01, 2011, 10:49:02 PM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.



See people? This is thinking and a reasonable explanation.

Makes perfect sense.

Merci!

There's a simpler explanation: French is the main language of ecumenical dialogue in Europe.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #76 on: December 02, 2011, 09:56:08 AM »

I could imagine English, German, or Greek, but not French.

Why both of them don't live in the USA for the first place?

Yeah, really!  I mean, what the heck's the matter with them??  And just who the heck do they think they are, anyway?!?!?!?!?  Sheesh...the sheer chutzpah of it!!

Do you have ANY idea what you are going on about?

Think it through. Why would one of those three language be used?

You can do it.

Treating this as a guessing game, I interpret it as a personal message that incorporated a diplomatic choice of language.

Both Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew are hyperpolyglots; Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, Latin, some English, some Spanish; Patriarch Bartholomew: Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, classical Greek and Latin.

I suspect, based on where Patriarch Bartholomew was educated, German, French and Italian are the most compatible languages between the two hierarchs. I excluded Latin because it is too impersonal and prone to debates about interpretation. German and Italian might be construed as a Vatican-centric determination of what language should be used for correspondence (German might have additional problems I will not get into). French, on the other hand is the language of love, and perfectly appropriate for the occasion.



See people? This is thinking and a reasonable explanation.

Makes perfect sense.

Merci!

There's a simpler explanation: French is the main language of ecumenical dialogue in Europe.

I'm not sure about French being the language of love. What makes you say that, Opus?

Is French the main language of ecumenical dialog?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #77 on: December 02, 2011, 09:56:56 AM »

Look, they always have a chat or visit on St. Andrew's day it's a centuries old tradition.

Centuries? It did not start in 1960's?

I don't know, I thought when the pope went to the phanar a few years back the tv said it was an ancient custom, the patriarch and the pope visiting each other..  ok, but if it did start in the 1960's, you could be correct.  Maybe when the pope and the patriarch reversed the schism in 1964.  That is what I don't get, how can the leaders of the churches lift the excommunications they had on each other and it not being seen as the end of the schism?  So, if tomorrow morning the current pope and patriarch of constantinople said the same thing, that the excommunications were lifted would people still ignore it?

So according to you the schism has ended? Is this what you've been taught? You'll find quite a number of people on here who would insist that the lifting of the anathemas, the Balamand statement and other statements, the mutual prayer, the commemoration of the Pope in the DL etc, somehow do not constitute an end to the schism with the Pope. Of course, I would agree with you that by far the more reasonable interpretation of all these events is that, in the eyes of the EP and the Pope, the schism has ended, although I imagine we would both draw very different ecclesiological conclusions from this.

I don't make such decisions as to whether of not the schism has ended, my
Patriarch does.  I don't think the schism ended, it won't end for a long time either for a million reasons.  I was merely stating that if they lifted the excommunications but it didn't take effect per 1964, then what?  So why didn't it end then, if and when it happens again, is it going to be a real end to the schism?  At this point the RCC has gone so far off in the opposite direction as the EO I'm glad no one took the 1964 decree seriously.

You just said that in 1964 the Pope and Patriarch reversed the schism. Now you say they didn't. Which one is it?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 09:57:29 AM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #78 on: December 02, 2011, 03:06:40 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #79 on: December 02, 2011, 03:22:33 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #80 on: December 02, 2011, 03:33:49 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 03:34:11 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #81 on: December 02, 2011, 03:41:56 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

Dang! What did I miss?  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #82 on: December 02, 2011, 03:57:33 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #83 on: December 02, 2011, 04:28:21 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #84 on: December 02, 2011, 05:25:47 PM »

Trivial to be sure, but why French?

He's ready to accept our terms for the re-establishment of communion.  Roll Eyes
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #85 on: December 02, 2011, 05:52:01 PM »

Trivial to be sure, but why French?

He's ready to accept our terms for the re-establishment of communion.  Roll Eyes

Perhaps he wants to call to mind the french revolution?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #86 on: December 02, 2011, 06:43:13 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #87 on: December 02, 2011, 06:57:09 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #88 on: December 02, 2011, 07:36:12 PM »

Trivial to be sure, but why French?

He's ready to accept our terms for the re-establishment of communion.  Roll Eyes

Nice!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #89 on: December 02, 2011, 08:35:10 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.

You clearly believe the line has not been crossed yet. But on what grounds do you believe this? The canons don't just forbid mutual communion with heretics; they forbid mutual prayer. The line was crossed when the anathemas were lifted. If and when full communion comes, it will only be the final end of the descent into heresy.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #90 on: December 02, 2011, 08:44:51 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.

You clearly believe the line has not been crossed yet. But on what grounds do you believe this? The canons don't just forbid mutual communion with heretics; they forbid mutual prayer. The line was crossed when the anathemas were lifted. If and when full communion comes, it will only be the final end of the descent into heresy.
You're assuming two things: A. that your communion is the true Church, and B. that one party is heretical. I disagree with you on both points, so we appear to be at an impasse.
Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #91 on: December 02, 2011, 08:52:13 PM »

Jonathan,

Is your Old Calendar jurisdiction one of the ones that believes that "World Orthodoxy" has valid sacraments?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #92 on: December 02, 2011, 09:08:19 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.

Once they concelebrate i will believe that the schism has been healed...
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #93 on: December 02, 2011, 10:27:05 PM »

JGross, I never said they didn't, re-read my post, I said they lifted the excommunications but nothing has changed, so it must be empty, and howwould they really proove it ever ended if they can declare it over and no one listens? 

Heresy is a huge word to throw around.  To be a heretic is to be orthodox then leave and drag other people into your beliefs.  I'm just happy that I belong to a communion that is recognised world-wide as being Eastern Orthodox and I can share in the sacraments with every other Orthodox person that is in communion with me, hence, the whole Orthodox church.
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #94 on: December 03, 2011, 12:23:00 AM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. Cool
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 12:24:31 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #95 on: December 03, 2011, 01:08:13 AM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
The New Testament revelations are a done thing? So as the New Testament reveals slaves should remain subject to their masters, regardless of how harsh they may be? If there is slavery somewhere in the world today, and the reports are that it does exist, Christians should not encourage their liberty, but rather should encourage them to be obedient to their masters, regardless of how harsh their masters may be as was commanded in the New Testament? That doesn't seem right. It seems like it would be better to encourage freedom for slaves and not that they continue to submit and obey their harsh masters? 
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #96 on: December 03, 2011, 01:11:47 AM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
Easy. Christ was talking about the Church, not just the Apostles.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #97 on: December 03, 2011, 01:42:54 AM »

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #98 on: December 03, 2011, 01:47:47 AM »

You really know how to make somebody feel welcome.

Sad
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #99 on: December 03, 2011, 02:10:41 AM »

You really know how to make somebody feel welcome.

Sad
Of course, that's why I never put out a welcome mat.

But seriously the point of this section on the board is not about bickering between RC's and Orthodox, as Fr. Anastasios has already said in the past.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 02:13:00 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #100 on: December 03, 2011, 02:20:43 AM »

Just the same, I would think that any errors put forth by RCs would give Orthodox an opportunity to expose them to right teaching, even if they don't take to it (though some will). I don't know if openly questioning their participation here really furthers that.
Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #101 on: December 03, 2011, 02:27:18 AM »

Just the same, I would think that any errors put forth by RCs would give Orthodox an opportunity to expose them to right teaching, even if they don't take to it (though some will). I don't know if openly questioning their participation here really furthers that.
I'm just getting real tired of the same old canards RC's keep employing. How people like Isa and Fr. Ambrose cotinue dialouging with them I'll never get. It truly is a hopeless endeavor. The best excuse I ever heard for someone posting on this board was "Oh it's because Orthodox skew Eastern Catholic beliefs so I have to correct them.". No you do not. This is an Orthodox Christian message board not an EC one. If an Orthodox member wants to inquire about joining the EC then they will find the proper outlets to do so.

If we are really that wrong about the RC faith, let us be. It doesn't really matter to the committed Orthodox, they won't change. There was what maybe one occurence of an Orthodox becoming RC and that was never due to the polemics of the RC's here?

Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #102 on: December 03, 2011, 02:39:44 AM »

Okay, if you say so.  Cry  Cry  Cry
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #103 on: December 03, 2011, 02:40:40 AM »

My guess would be that Isa and Fr. Ambrose and others probably continue doing it because that's what you do when you are convinced that a brother is in error. I am sure that when Jesus Christ told Peter that he is to forgive his brother not only seven times, but seventy times seven, He said that with the knowledge that this was beyond the amount that would be considered tiresome (as it still is). But that's still what we are to do.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #104 on: December 03, 2011, 02:51:49 AM »

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? ...Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
My purpose has been to learn a little bit about the Orthodox Church. A while back, I did try to take an Orthodox catechism class which was given by an Orthodox priest, however, he said that  I would not be able to join since his class was not open to heretics.  
I have been somewhat distressed by some of what has gone on in the RCC recently with the huge  increase in marriage annulments (in the USA),  the sex scandals, the so-called "abuses" in the Roman liturgy, changes in disciplinary teachings, etc.  I see the Orthodox Church as an Apostolic Church, with an exceptionally fine liturgy and a certain stability in teaching, and I wanted to know a little more about what are the differences between the two Churches. R. Catholics have been talking about possible reunion with the E. Orthodox Church, but since neither side is willing to make concessions to the other, and since there is a whole lot of bad blood between the two Churches,  I don't see it happening (at least for a long while at best).
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #105 on: December 03, 2011, 02:56:44 AM »

Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.
I have tried to contribute within my capability. For example, there was a discussion a while back where one poster claimed that Maple was a superior program to Mathematica. My contribution to that discussion was to illustrate with an example of a calculation which Mathematica performed correctly, while Maple did not.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #106 on: December 03, 2011, 03:00:44 AM »

"Thank you, thank you- I didn't know I was the worst person in the world until you told me."

- Eugene O'Neill, 'Long Day's Journey Into Night'
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #107 on: December 03, 2011, 04:38:35 AM »

Really what have they honestly contributed to this board? I haven't contributed anything either, but come on.
I have tried to contribute within my capability. For example, there was a discussion a while back where one poster claimed that Maple was a superior program to Mathematica. My contribution to that discussion was to illustrate with an example of a calculation which Mathematica performed correctly, while Maple did not.

MATLAB!
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #108 on: December 03, 2011, 12:16:43 PM »

JGross, I never said they didn't, re-read my post, I said they lifted the excommunications but nothing has changed, so it must be empty, and howwould they really proove it ever ended if they can declare it over and no one listens? 

Heresy is a huge word to throw around.  To be a heretic is to be orthodox then leave and drag other people into your beliefs.  I'm just happy that I belong to a communion that is recognised world-wide as being Eastern Orthodox and I can share in the sacraments with every other Orthodox person that is in communion with me, hence, the whole Orthodox church.

But it's not true that nothing has changed. Before, the Pope and the Patriarch didn't pray together. Now they do.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #109 on: December 03, 2011, 12:18:27 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. Cool

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #110 on: December 03, 2011, 12:19:48 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
The New Testament revelations are a done thing? So as the New Testament reveals slaves should remain subject to their masters, regardless of how harsh they may be? If there is slavery somewhere in the world today, and the reports are that it does exist, Christians should not encourage their liberty, but rather should encourage them to be obedient to their masters, regardless of how harsh their masters may be as was commanded in the New Testament? That doesn't seem right. It seems like it would be better to encourage freedom for slaves and not that they continue to submit and obey their harsh masters? 

Well I would say that it would be inconsistent with the Gospel to encourage slaves to rebel, but it would be consistent to encourage masters to free their slaves.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #111 on: December 03, 2011, 12:23:27 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event. As far as I know this is how the Roman Catholics have conceived of their own doctrinal development since Cardinal Newman, but this is not how the Orthodox understand their possession of the truth.

I was just wondering how you understood it.  Of course the fullness of the truth was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.  I would say though that God can continue to reveal his truth to us, as he revealed his truth the the apostles throughout their lives.  It is not a "one & done" thing.  To constrict it, would be to constrict God.  No?

Well Christ certainly thought it was a one and done thing. How else do you understand "into all truth"?
Easy. Christ was talking about the Church, not just the Apostles.

The Orthodox believe that all the dogmatic truth of the faith was revealed to the Apostles on Pentecost, but these dogmas were at first held in the heart and were not necessarily yet couched in precise formulas. The purpose of the later dogmatic pronouncements of the Fathers was not because these later pronouncements represent new dogmatic revelations, but rather they are Spirit-guided expositions of dogmas that have previously been held in an unexpounded form.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #112 on: December 03, 2011, 12:27:00 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. Cool

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 12:29:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #113 on: December 03, 2011, 12:29:32 PM »

i wasn't aware that in '64 the pope declared himself first among equals and rejected the filioque...learn something new every day...

He didn't, but apparently that wasn't a necessary precondition for lifting the anathemas against him and commemorating his name in the DL.

lifting anathema is one thing, reversing schism is another...

Actually no, they're the same thing.

The effects of the schism have not been healed, nor has there been any resolution to the matters which caused the schism in the first place...t'was an empty agreement.

Not really sure it's empty when the Pope and the Patriarch pray together. Actually it kind of looks like they meant it.
We're still not in full communion, so it was a nice gesture, but it didn't really do anything.

You clearly believe the line has not been crossed yet. But on what grounds do you believe this? The canons don't just forbid mutual communion with heretics; they forbid mutual prayer. The line was crossed when the anathemas were lifted. If and when full communion comes, it will only be the final end of the descent into heresy.
You're assuming two things: A. that your communion is the true Church, and B. that one party is heretical. I disagree with you on both points, so we appear to be at an impasse.

Hm I think I forgot you were different from Ortho_cat. But I would still disagree with your assertion that "nothing has changed". I don't know how anyone can maintain this position amid all the evidence for mutual prayer. Just in case none of you has seen it, here is the famous video of the Pope's visit to the Phanar, where you can see the deacon commemorating the Pope's name and bowing to him, as he would to an Orthodox hierarch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH7x5kGAKIY
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #114 on: December 03, 2011, 12:35:26 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. Cool

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.

I didn't say "you mean" but "I think you mean". And I believe your own grievances refer to your interesting argument that you can accept the authority of the Apostolic Canons, except when it involves conceding that the said canons completely undermine your assertions about what the Church has traditionally believed about the validity of heretical baptism. When you tell me that the Canons are not sufficient evidence for what the Church believed, I reasonably point out that this must entail you do not accept their authority, after which you claim that I "put words in your mouth".

I pointed out that you can't say you accept the canons one moment and not accept them the next. Interestingly, other contributors supported me in this, showing that I'm not alone in thinking that you like to resort to chicanery in order to wriggle out of losing an argument. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #115 on: December 03, 2011, 12:54:56 PM »

Yes but truth, like revelation, is not a static process. No?

"Static process" is an oxymoron, surely. I think what you mean is that you accept this heretical presupposition that the Holy Spirit did not in fact lead the Apostles into all truth on Pentecost, but that truth was rather something that was discovered gradually over time after this event.
I can't help but notice that you are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. Cool

I'm drawing what I think are valid inferences from people's statements. I'm allowed to point out to people the implications of their stated opinions in these arguments. It seems that you are unique in believing that this is an invalid form of argument.
Peoples' words often do have logical implications, implications that they often didn't even intend. I point out those implications frequently myself. However, there's a difference between saying, "logically, your words imply this", and saying, "you mean to say this". With the former you're pointing out logical implications; with the latter you're attributing motives and claiming to know what the other person is actually thinking. This is called "putting words in one's mouth", a rather rude form of argument akin to the straw man. I know what I'm talking about since you've done this so often to me.

I didn't say "you mean" but "I think you mean".
"I think you mean...", "You mean..."... Is there really a difference? You're still projecting your thoughts into the other person's mind.

And I believe your own grievances refer to your interesting argument that you can accept the authority of the Apostolic Canons, except when it involves conceding that the said canons completely undermine your assertions about what the Church has traditionally believed about the validity of heretical baptism. When you tell me that the Canons are not sufficient evidence for what the Church believed, I reasonably point out that this must entail you do not accept their authority, after which you claim that I "put words in your mouth".
Asserting your certainty that St. Basil the Great means nothing to me? I had never said anything about St. Basil prior to that post.

Asserting that my personal opinion is that the Apostolic Canons are bogus? I never said that the Apostolic Canons are bogus and went to great pains to repeat to you that the only thing I considered bogus was your interpretation of said Apostolic Canons.

Yes, these are both attempts to put words into my mouth. You did it to me, and now you've done it to serb1389. You really need to stop doing that and start actually engaging what other people say.

I pointed out that you can't say you accept the canons one moment and not accept them the next. Interestingly, other contributors supported me in this, showing that I'm not alone in thinking that you like to resort to chicanery in order to wriggle out of losing an argument. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Yes, we do have a few posters here who are critical of my debate style, but we also have a good number of posters here who have voiced their criticisms of your debate style. I'd say we're even. Kiss

I also notice that those contributors whose "support for your position" you like to cite here, Iconodule and jckstraw72, commented only on my debate style. They offered no words whatsoever in defense of the actual substance of your arguments on that thread.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 12:59:08 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #116 on: December 03, 2011, 01:08:33 PM »

Given that your own reputation is hardly impeccable, I don't think you have the moral authority to point fingers at me and tell me how I should be conducting my arguments as if you're the impartial judge in this situation.

When someone says "truth is not a static process", what am I supposed to understand by that? I understood it to mean that this person does not believe revelation was something given all at once, as the Orthodox Church believes, but something gradually doled out over time, as the Catholics believe. I think that's a heresy and I said so. It then turned out this person didn't seem to mean that, but really it's his own problem in not expressing very clearly what he actually believed.

I don't know what you're referring to about St Basil. And no, it is not true that all you ever objected to was my "interpretation" of the Apostolic Canons. You were the one who first challenged my appeal to the authority of the Canons by objecting that they only appeared in the 4th century. If that isn't challenging their authority, what does the date of their appearance have to do with my argument?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 01:09:31 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #117 on: December 03, 2011, 02:04:55 PM »

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
I wonder if deep down you are truly scared and doubting your faith and that that is the real reason that you are lashing out at Catholics.

Also, the reason why we keep using the "regurgitated vomit" (redundancy? vomited vomit?) is because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements. So yes, we do often sound like a broken record, but it is because you guys tend to completely ignore our points. We raise a valid point about the something pertaining to our faith, and you all just resort to the old Eastern Orthodox mantra of "but like......the Pope is a heretic and junk." Who is really denying the truth here?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 02:08:36 PM by Wyatt » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 03, 2011, 02:35:19 PM »

What does "Matlab" mean?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #119 on: December 03, 2011, 02:46:55 PM »

Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?  I had it in here a minute ago, and now its gone...
Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #120 on: December 03, 2011, 03:13:07 PM »

Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?
That's not kosher.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #121 on: December 03, 2011, 03:13:43 PM »

, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements.


I am sure that most of the Orthodox do not understand how the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium presents binding infallible teaching to the Catholic Church, without issuing magisterial statements.  Could you share with us, briefly?

Years ago when I made enquiries I was told that examples of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were Limbo and the (material) fires of purgatory.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #122 on: December 03, 2011, 03:22:00 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:



It has nothing to do with the magisterium. Nihil obstats are issued by individual bishops.



No, they are not issued by bishops.  They are issued by theologians.  Their work is to examine a book and declare that it is free from doctrinal error and that what is in it may be believed by the Catholic faithful.

Quote
All a nihil obstat says is that nothing within a literary work is inherently heretical. It does not in any way say that the magisterium approves every letter of the book as official Church teaching.

Since a Nihil Obstat is not issued by a bishop you are correct in saying that it is not the approval of the magisterium.


Btw, it is the Imprimatur which a bishops issues which permits a work to be printed with his blessing. 


Quote
.....  seriously, if you want to convince people to think like you do, at least make it appear like you know and are presenting facts.

Well, I do agree with that.  All the Catholics on here have lost a little credibility since they are confused about Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs and who issues what!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: December 03, 2011, 03:39:11 PM »

Has anybody seen my ham sandwich?
That's not kosher.

Prolly why I can't find it...somebody threw the blasted thing in the trash...no doubt!
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: December 03, 2011, 04:36:57 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.



« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 04:38:10 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: December 03, 2011, 06:23:46 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstat is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 06:33:12 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: December 03, 2011, 06:31:45 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 06:32:34 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: December 03, 2011, 06:41:38 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: December 03, 2011, 06:54:46 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.
Logged

JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #129 on: December 03, 2011, 06:58:57 PM »

There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.

You're quite wrong Michal.  Clearly, St. John (Maximovitch) is the patron saint of the Orthodox World and Church.  I mean, what other saint lived in so much of it?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #130 on: December 03, 2011, 06:59:03 PM »

Thank you Stanely for your post and your sincerity.

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? You're not converting anyone and the same lines you people use has been the same regurgitated vomit used before again and again.

I wonder deep down inside some of you are truly scared that what you cling onto so much is actually wrong and you cannot accept that fact. You would rather hold on to pride rather than the truth.

Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
I wonder if deep down you are truly scared and doubting your faith and that that is the real reason that you are lashing out at Catholics.

Also, the reason why we keep using the "regurgitated vomit" (redundancy? vomited vomit?) is because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are, nor do they have a firm understanding of the difference between theological opinion and binding magisterial statements. So yes, we do often sound like a broken record, but it is because you guys tend to completely ignore our points. We raise a valid point about the something pertaining to our faith, and you all just resort to the old Eastern Orthodox mantra of "but like......the Pope is a heretic and junk." Who is really denying the truth here?
So out of all this nonsense you still haven't answered my question. Let's try this again.

Why do you still post on this forum? It is clear that you are in no way interested in joining the Orthodox Church nor are you interested in Orthodoxy itself.

My faith rests on the solid pillars of Orthodoxy. It is like a rock. If RC's, like Stanely, who are interested in the Church and want to learn more and maybe think about possibly becoming a member then I have absoultley no issue with it. I welcome them and hope they find the answers here to be illuming. The issue I have is when RC's who have no intention joining the Orthodox or even remotely interested in what they believe still post here and continue to bicker and embroil themselves over issues that have been tireless refuted by Orthodox members. I believe Fr. Ambrose took care of the rest of your post so I won't bother with it.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #131 on: December 03, 2011, 07:02:37 PM »

There is no such thing as patron Saints of the Church.

You're quite wrong Michal.  Clearly, St. John (Maximovitch) is the patron saint of the Orthodox World and Church.  I mean, what other saint lived in so much of it?

Holy Spirit. j/k
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #132 on: December 03, 2011, 07:51:15 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.

Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #133 on: December 03, 2011, 07:51:53 PM »

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? ...Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.
My purpose has been to learn a little bit about the Orthodox Church. A while back, I did try to take an Orthodox catechism class which was given by an Orthodox priest, however, he said that  I would not be able to join since his class was not open to heretics.  
The class or the Church?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #134 on: December 03, 2011, 08:29:49 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it. 

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #135 on: December 03, 2011, 09:06:03 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:



It has nothing to do with the magisterium. Nihil obstats are issued by individual bishops.



No, they are not issued by bishops.  They are issued by theologians.  Their work is to examine a book and declare that it is free from doctrinal error and that what is in it may be believed by the Catholic faithful.
Oh cute...you think you're going to be witty and post what you sent to me via a private message and "expose" my ignorance. Too bad I beat you to it here, and I am totally willing to admit that I was mistaken:

Since it seems that a great many on this forum (including even myself) do not have a proper understanding of the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, I thought it would be useful to have a thread to clear everything up. Fr. Ambrose pointed out to me, for instance, that the nihil obstat is not actually issued by the bishop...only the imprimatur is.

Quote
All a nihil obstat says is that nothing within a literary work is inherently heretical. It does not in any way say that the magisterium approves every letter of the book as official Church teaching.

Since a Nihil Obstat is not issued by a bishop you are correct in saying that it is not the approval of the magisterium.
So if it was issued by a bishop then you think it would equal magisterial approval? Hardly. The magisterium is ALL of the bishops, not just a solitary bishop.

Btw, it is the Imprimatur which a bishops issues which permits a work to be printed with his blessing.
Hey...since you know so much about nihil obstats and imprimaturs, Father, why did you never correct ialmisry when he was grossly misrepresenting what nihil obstats and imprimaturs mean within the Catholic faith? You put plenty of energy into correcting me over a technicality when ialmisry was severely in error. If you're going to be biased, at least make it subtle. Don't be blatantly so.


Quote
.....  seriously, if you want to convince people to think like you do, at least make it appear like you know and are presenting facts.

Well, I do agree with that.  All the Catholics on here have lost a little credibility since they are confused about Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs and who issues what!
Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #136 on: December 03, 2011, 09:07:49 PM »


Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
That's how Fr. A rolls.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #137 on: December 03, 2011, 09:15:37 PM »

So out of all this nonsense you still haven't answered my question. Let's try this again.
Ok...GO FOR IT.

Why do you still post on this forum?
What an odd question. Why do you?

It is clear that you are in no way interested in joining the Orthodox Church nor are you interested in Orthodoxy itself.
Are you sure about that?

My faith rests on the solid pillars of Orthodoxy.
Mine rests on Christ and His Church.

It is like a rock.
Your faith is like a Chevy truck?

If RC's, like Stanely, who are interested in the Church and want to learn more and maybe think about possibly becoming a member then I have absoultley no issue with it.
I'm glad he has your seal of approval, oh mighty pseudo-moderator.

I welcome them and hope they find the answers here to be illuming.
illuming?

The issue I have is when RC's who have no intention joining the Orthodox or even remotely interested in what they believe still post here and continue to bicker and embroil themselves over issues that have been tireless refuted by Orthodox members.
Our issues have been refuted? Really? When did that happen? Quotes?

I believe Fr. Ambrose took care of the rest of your post so I won't bother with it.
Yes...and he had about as much of a point as you do. Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #138 on: December 03, 2011, 09:15:58 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it. 

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

Mary,  I am not asking for lists.

I an saying that there must surely be one or two examples you can provide  of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium functioning.   Or has it never actually ever functioned but it remains a theoretical concept?

But then why would the priest from whom I made enquiry have given the examples of Limbo and the fire of Purgatory?   He knew what my question concerned.  I think that Catholics on the forum are not familiar with the workings of the Magisterium in it various manifestations.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #139 on: December 03, 2011, 09:18:04 PM »


Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
That's how Fr. A rolls.

Please do not tell fibs about the clergy.  I am sure it'll heat up those purgatorial fires for you.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #140 on: December 03, 2011, 09:20:16 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release. 

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it. 

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

Mary,  I am not asking for lists.

I an saying that there must surely be one or two examples you can provide  of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium functioning.   Or has it never actually ever functioned but it remains a theoretical concept?

But then why would the priest from whom I made enquiry have given the examples of Limbo and the fire of Purgatory?   He knew what my question concerned.  I think that Catholics on the forum are not familiar with the workings of the Magisterium in it various manifestations.



Here is a good place to begin for people who are somewhat in the dark:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 09:34:04 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #141 on: December 03, 2011, 09:24:06 PM »


Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
That's how Fr. A rolls.

Please do not tell fibs about the clergy.  I am sure it'll heat up those purgatorial fires for you.

Maybe we should conduct the discussion of magisterial teaching in a different [less polluted] thread. 

I did whack you about the knees with a stick, on this question, so I am willing to put some effort into the discussion but I have limited time and hate it when these threads turn into the inside of a used barf bag.

Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #142 on: December 03, 2011, 09:29:10 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it.  

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

Mary,  I am not asking for lists.

I an saying that there must surely be one or two examples you can provide  of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium functioning.   Or has it never actually ever functioned but it remains a theoretical concept?

But then why would the priest from whom I made enquiry have given the examples of Limbo and the fire of Purgatory?   He knew what my question concerned.  I think that Catholics on the forum are not familiar with the workings of the Magisterium in it various manifestations.



Here is a good place to begin for people who are somewhat in the dark:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.

Hey, you beat me to it  Wink!

Here's a couple more sources to check out: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm, and The Catechism of the Catholic Church,  #77, 85-87, 95, 888-92, 2032-2035.

I'd elaborate more, but gotta go watch Wisconsin beat up Michigan State so they can go to the Rose Bowl and lose to my beloved Quack Attack (University of Oregon Ducks)  Grin Grin!

(Sincere apologies for the lack of pretty pictures and maps  Roll Eyes)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 09:30:13 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #143 on: December 03, 2011, 09:33:40 PM »


Not nearly as embarrassing as the Eastern Orthodox or Pseudo-Catholics who say outlandish things like that the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are issued by the magisterium, although of course you don't recall that because you conveniently turned a blind eye to those things.
That's how Fr. A rolls.

Please do not tell fibs about the clergy.  I am sure it'll heat up those purgatorial fires for you.
I never lie about the clergy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #144 on: December 03, 2011, 09:36:00 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it.  

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Sorry but I don't have the interior energy for all that.  If I see a place where I might contribute to making the teaching of my Church more clear, I'll do that.

M.

Mary,  I am not asking for lists.

I an saying that there must surely be one or two examples you can provide  of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium functioning.   Or has it never actually ever functioned but it remains a theoretical concept?

But then why would the priest from whom I made enquiry have given the examples of Limbo and the fire of Purgatory?   He knew what my question concerned.  I think that Catholics on the forum are not familiar with the workings of the Magisterium in it various manifestations.



Here is a good place to begin for people who are somewhat in the dark:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.

Hey, you beat me to it  Wink!

Here's a couple more sources to check out: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm, and The Catechism of the Catholic Church,  #77, 85-87, 95, 888-92, 2032-2035.

I'd elaborate more, but gotta go watch Wisconsin beat up Michigan State so they can go to the Rose Bowl and lose to my beloved Quack Attack (University of Oregon Ducks)  Grin Grin!

(Sincere apologies for the lack of pretty pictures and maps  Roll Eyes)
I got a map of purgatory here, in true Izzy style:    Grin Grin Grin

Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #145 on: December 03, 2011, 09:37:19 PM »

moving to a fresher and more appropriately titled thread
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 09:51:43 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #146 on: December 03, 2011, 09:48:31 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


This thread certainly presents no evidence of the existence of any such 'mature people'. Surely the Devil himself chuckles while we continue our endless, petty bickering.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #147 on: December 03, 2011, 10:18:15 PM »

..... because we raise points that are never refuted nor addressed. For example, many of the loudmouths on this forum DO NOT understand what nihil obstats and imprimaturs are,

Well, it’s true that Catholics have shown their confusion on this matter.  You yourself are a bit confused:


Indeed you are, Father.  Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.  

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


I am not confused.  I never said what you seem to be accusing me of, viz.,  “It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.”  I’d be an idiot to make such an assertion.  Like Devin’s blog you appear to have a low opinion of us and give us little credit for knowing a few things.  Sad  The Nihil Obstast is a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.

That is imprecise: for someone who knows a few things.

The NO simply indicates that there are no formal heretical elements in the book that are intended to  draw the reader away from the Church.  In other words, there is nothing there that is formally heretical...to the best of the knowledge of the LOCAL censor.

I suppose that even false teachings are published with episcopal Imprimatur.  There is that book on purgatory Read It or Rue It from the 1930s -with an Imprimatur and an enthusiastic Introduction from the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon.  It was true in its day, and in fact it would have comprised part of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (all the bishops would have agreed with it.)   But now, 80 years later with the revamping of purgatorial doctrines.....

You cannot back up your assertion that all bishops would have agreed with each and every assertion in that book as formal teaching of the Catholic Church.  They MIGHT have agreed that it was a pastorally useful text, since many bishops, then and now, think the laity are about as dumb as sheep and need to be frightened into obedience... but even that assertion is nothing but an assertion..  I have that old text btw.

I wonder if you would illustrate for us the capability of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to formulate infallible teaching, and this without the issuance of magisterial statements.

As I have mentioned, in the past before doctrines began to be recast, the teaching of Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as such.



The faith is not a set of lists, Father.   This "list hunt" that you and Al Misry seem to have initiated...as though it has meaning...is essentially meaningless.

I will talk to you about the ordinary magisterium through those who are authorized to speak of it publicly but I am not going to participate in a "list hunt"....

There has been no recasting of doctrine as you call it.  

There is development of doctrine as the Church understands it but I doubt that you or Al Misry would give it more than a few paragraphs before the cut and paste and maps would come out.

Not my fault nor my credit that our side enjoys an overabundence of evidence.  Just sharing the wealth.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 10:21:46 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 #148 on: December 03, 2011, 10:24:51 PM »


I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.


A friend, yes.  But also the Diocesan Theologian.  His words carry a certain weight.

He was not speaking of purgatory but of the fire of purgatory as something material.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #149 on: December 03, 2011, 10:26:15 PM »

Why do you still post on this forum?
What an odd question. Why do you?
Posing a question as an answer to my question is not an answer. How about you answer the question, honestly. Then I will answer yours.

Quote
Are you sure about that?
None of your 1900+ posts indicate any interest into Orthodoxy. Do I really need to fine comb your posts?

Quote
Mine rests on Christ and His Church.
And so does mine. However the head of My Church is Christ, I can't say the same for yours.

Quote
Your faith is like a Chevy truck?
Built Ford tough.

Quote
I'm glad he has your seal of approval, oh mighty pseudo-moderator.
Unlike you, Stanely answered the question.

Quote
iluming?
illuminating. But if your excuse for an argument is to parse out spelling errors I won't have any of it.

Quote
Our issues have been refuted? Really? When did that happen? Quotes?
Try the head of the Church. Or papal infallibility. Or ex cathedra. Or papal primacy. Etc. There's plenty of it, it's not my fault you are too blind to see it. Maybe you can see but refuse to acknowledge the truth. I think that's the core problem.

Quote
Yes...and he had about as much of a point as you do. Wink
Well when you are responding to a post that had no point in the first place its hard to really make it into one.
 You are on post moderation for 40 days for bickering and personal attacks against each other.  It is absurd and will not be tolerated.  This is to be a place for good discussion and learning not schoolyard bickering.  Please use this time to cool down and remember each post will be reviewed the moderator team before we either let it be posted or not.  If you feel you have not been bickering, stepping over the boundaries of general decency on this forum then please feel free to contact our administrative staff, Fr. Chris.   -username! Orthodox Catholic Moderator
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: December 03, 2011, 10:27:58 PM »

"Catholics and Orthodox face exactly the same challenges in the cultural, social, economic, political and ecological spheres. Faced with the urgency of these tasks, we have the duty to show the world that we are people of a mature faith, people who – despite our tensions – are capable of working together in the common search for truth and unity.

That’s the message at the heart of a letter sent by Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew 1st of Constantinoplel to mark Wednesday’s feast of St Andrew, patron saint of the Orthodox world. The letter, written in French, was presented to the Patriarch in the Turkish capital by a delegation from the Pontifical council for Christian Unity, headed by Cardinal Kurt Koch."


This thread certainly presents no evidence of the existence of any such 'mature people'. Surely the Devil himself chuckles while we continue our endless, petty bickering.


Well, I am asking for information on some Catholic matters which interest me but I get fobbed off by people introducing a tone of personal bickering.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #151 on: December 03, 2011, 10:31:21 PM »


I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.


A friend, yes.  But also the Diocesan Theologian.  His words carry a certain weight.

He was not speaking of purgatory but of the fire of purgatory as something material.

This is not what is described and understood as magisterial teaching that is of the faith and infallible, regardless of the source.  These are pastoral teachings that are open to discussion and to change over time.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #152 on: December 03, 2011, 10:34:42 PM »


I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.


A friend, yes.  But also the Diocesan Theologian.  His words carry a certain weight.

He was not speaking of purgatory but of the fire of purgatory as something material.

This is not what is described and understood as magisterial teaching that is of the faith and infallible, regardless of the source.  These are pastoral teachings that are open to discussion and to change over time.

For the sake of argument, would you define these 'pastoral teachings' as being somewhat analogous to what Orthodox would define as "theologoumena?"
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #153 on: December 03, 2011, 10:39:15 PM »


I cannot answer your question about why a friend of your's told you that Limbo and Purgatory are "examples" of magisterial teaching.  Limbo and Purgatory have never been on a par with one another in terms of systematic and formal doctrinal teaching.


A friend, yes.  But also the Diocesan Theologian.  His words carry a certain weight.

He was not speaking of purgatory but of the fire of purgatory as something material.

This is not what is described and understood as magisterial teaching that is of the faith and infallible, regardless of the source.  These are pastoral teachings that are open to discussion and to change over time.

For the sake of argument, would you define these 'pastoral teachings' as being somewhat analogous to what Orthodox would define as "theologoumena?"

They are.  They are representative of a deeper spiritual and theological truth that is irreformable, but in themselves they are not irreformable.  I do not have the time to search documents that I've read over the years but there certainly are examples of saints and theological and spiritual writers who speak of the fires of purgation as analogous means of referring to the burning pain of being without our Lord.  These writings long pre-date the Second Vatican Council, and some of them pre-date Trent.

M.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 10:40:43 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #154 on: December 03, 2011, 11:14:21 PM »

Why do you still post on this forum?
What an odd question. Why do you?
Posing a question as an answer to my question is not an answer. How about you answer the question, honestly. Then I will answer yours.
Since I don't know you and have no reason to trust you, I think the discussion on what my or your intentions on the forum are will stop here.

Quote
Are you sure about that?
None of your 1900+ posts indicate any interest into Orthodoxy. Do I really need to fine comb your posts?
You know this how?

Quote
Mine rests on Christ and His Church.
And so does mine. However the head of My Church is Christ, I can't say the same for yours.
Mine is Christ, and I'm still in communion with the rock that Christ Himself appointed to shepherd His Church until the day that He returns in glory.

Quote
Your faith is like a Chevy truck?
Built Ford tough.
Wrong answer. Jesus prefers Chryslers.

Quote
I'm glad he has your seal of approval, oh mighty pseudo-moderator.
Unlike you, Stanely answered the question.
If I owed you an explanation I would give you one.

Quote
iluming?
illuminating. But if your excuse for an argument is to parse out spelling errors I won't have any of it.
K.

Quote
Our issues have been refuted? Really? When did that happen? Quotes?
Try the head of the Church. Or papal infallibility. Or ex cathedra. Or papal primacy. Etc. There's plenty of it, it's not my fault you are too blind to see it. Maybe you can see but refuse to acknowledge the truth. I think that's the core problem.
Those things are all sound, orthodox teachings. It's not my fault that you are too blind to see it.

Quote
Yes...and he had about as much of a point as you do. Wink
Well when you are responding to a post that had no point in the first place its hard to really make it into one.
Your point, I realize, is that since I don't kiss the schismatic ring of rebel bishops that I have no place here. You're wrong.
 You are being placed on post moderation for 40 days for bickering and personal attacks between yourself and other posters.  Sit back, calm down and stop fighting on oc.net please.  I have given several public warnings and official warnings as of late for this issue, I am not tolerating it any longer.  Every post has to be reviewed by the moderator team for approval for 40 days.  If you feel you have not been bickering and being trivial in your posts please feel free to contact Fr Chris, our administrator -username! Orthodox Catholic moderator
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 11:14:48 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #155 on: December 03, 2011, 11:49:19 PM »

So still no answer Wyatt? Honestly I think Fr. Anastasios deserves one.

The purpose of this forum (named "OrthodoxChristianity.net") is to convert people to Orthodoxy.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38675.msg629458.html#msg629458

Again dialouging with you and a few other RC members here hasn't been about conversion to Orthodoxy. Again why are you here?

You are not the moderator of this forum nor any other forum on oc.net.  Please be mindful, I have asked you before to do so of other people. -username! Orthodox-Catholic moderator
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 01:08:54 PM by username! » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #156 on: December 04, 2011, 12:08:55 AM »

Bickering Watch . The OC.net Moderatorial Service has declared a Bickering Watch for this thread. Conditions are right for the formation of a stream of bickering, pointlessly reviewing the same topics ad nauseum that have derailed and poisoned past threads. Repeat, there is a Bickering Watch over this thread; any posters interested in actually learning anything are advised to stay away from this potential bickering activity and seek refuge in polite discourse within the topics originally presented in this thread." username section moderator



Bickering will not be tolerated.  Any further bickering in this thread and those responsible will be given appropriate moderator action -username! orthodox-catholic moderator
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #157 on: December 04, 2011, 12:59:09 AM »

Again why are you here?
I was and am interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As a Catholic I believe it is a true Church of Apostolic origin. I am just disappointed at the way in which our Church is presented by some on the forum who clearly have an agenda.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #158 on: December 04, 2011, 02:07:18 AM »

Again why are you here?
I was and am interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As a Catholic I believe it is a true Church of Apostolic origin.
See that wasn't too hard.

Quote
I am just disappointed at the way in which our Church is presented by some on the forum who clearly have an agenda.
What agenda? IIRC Isa is about as conservative as they come.

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.

Maybe if we discussed more about your issues with the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy itself we can get into some fruitful discussion and end the bickering.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #159 on: December 04, 2011, 12:33:41 PM »

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #160 on: December 04, 2011, 03:17:15 PM »

Again why are you here?
I was and am interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As a Catholic I believe it is a true Church of Apostolic origin.
See that wasn't too hard.

Quote
I am just disappointed at the way in which our Church is presented by some on the forum who clearly have an agenda.
What agenda? IIRC Isa is about as conservative as they come.

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.

Maybe if we discussed more about your issues with the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy itself we can get into some fruitful discussion and end the bickering.

To address one of your comments:  If a person's heart and mind in Orthodoxy are soured against the Catholic Church because of misinformation and misunderstanding, I would think that it would be very important to come to a better understanding of the truth. 

I don't know any of us who are active here who are hoping to turn people away from Orthodoxy.  I believe that we are more interested in being able to engage a better and more spiritually fruitful dialogue.

As to your last point, I don't know if any of us have "issues" with Orthodoxy, except for those cases where Orthodox faithful or spiritual writers and theologians badly re-present Catholic teaching.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #161 on: December 04, 2011, 08:04:37 PM »

Again why are you here?
I was and am interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As a Catholic I believe it is a true Church of Apostolic origin.
See that wasn't too hard.

Quote
I am just disappointed at the way in which our Church is presented by some on the forum who clearly have an agenda.
What agenda? IIRC Isa is about as conservative as they come.

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.

Maybe if we discussed more about your issues with the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy itself we can get into some fruitful discussion and end the bickering.

To address one of your comments:  If a person's heart and mind in Orthodoxy are soured against the Catholic Church because of misinformation and misunderstanding, I would think that it would be very important to come to a better understanding of the truth. 

I don't know any of us who are active here who are hoping to turn people away from Orthodoxy.  I believe that we are more interested in being able to engage a better and more spiritually fruitful dialogue.

As to your last point, I don't know if any of us have "issues" with Orthodoxy, except for those cases where Orthodox faithful or spiritual writers and theologians badly re-present Catholic teaching.

M.
A great post Maria. I am not here because I have any intention of converting any EOs to the Catholic Church.I'm not here because I have some problem with Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact, there are many things about Eastern Orthodoxy that I truly respect and appreciate. I'm here because the discussion is often interesting and engaging. Most of the EO posters are charitable and fantastic folks who address these issues in truth and love. However, I am also here because of the likes of certain radical anti-Catholic posters who do whatever they can to distort the teachings of the Catholic Church. A great example of this is the thread on Natural Law where a couple of EO posters pruposely misrepresent Natural Law theory.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #162 on: December 04, 2011, 08:34:18 PM »

Funny how the doctrines and stances that the Orthodox disagree with are so prone to misunderstanding, isn't it?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #163 on: December 04, 2011, 08:42:39 PM »

Funny how the doctrines and stances that the Orthodox disagree with are so prone to misunderstanding, isn't it?

I don't find it funny at all. 

What I find interesting is that you can find Orthodox clergy and bishops and others who think that there has been a great deal of missed understandings over the centuries and that we are much closer in terms of theology and doctrine than many might surmise.

Where the difficulty is, they tend to think, is in the liturgies, and practices such as fasting and prayer disciplines among the laity, and iconography, etc.  These are the things that make it seem as though the east and west are very different.

And of course there is the huge hurdle concerning the meaning of immediate and ordinary jurisdiction on the part of the pope...what does it mean?  How would it work if there was a resumption of communion.

M.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 08:43:21 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #164 on: December 04, 2011, 09:32:25 PM »

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #165 on: December 04, 2011, 09:34:56 PM »

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Oh Izzy,  Roll Eyes Your post is just full of it.

Tags edited - MK
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 06:56:34 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #166 on: December 04, 2011, 09:37:38 PM »

Funny how the doctrines and stances that the Orthodox disagree with are so prone to misunderstanding, isn't it?
Yes. Makes you wonder how that happens. Roll Eyes
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #167 on: December 04, 2011, 09:39:37 PM »

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Oh Izzy,  Roll Eyes
Who?
Your post is just full of it.
the plenitude of the Holy Spirit.  Nice you noticed.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #168 on: December 04, 2011, 09:41:21 PM »

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Oh Izzy,  Roll Eyes
Who?
Your post is just full of it.
the plenitude of the Holy Spirit.  Nice you noticed.
Careful, you are creeping toward blasphemy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #169 on: December 04, 2011, 10:46:05 PM »

Anyway remember when I posted the quote by Fr. Anastasios who said this forum was about conversion into the Orthodox Church and not about correcting errors Orthodox posters may have against your Church? If we have erred, what does it matter? It's not like you correcting those errors are going to change the heart and minds of the faithful Orthodox.
Not only do I remember you quoting it, but I remember when Fr. Anastasios said it. However, even though that may be the overall purpose of the forum, this is still the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section. If the creators of this site and forum members wish to have discussion with us, fine. However, discussion should be as open and honest as possible. We are not just going to sit back and do nothing while our Church is slandered. The fact that you think such a thing is no big deal is quite telling. Do the Eastern Orthodox members on here value truth or don't they?
Of course we do. That's why so many of us embraced Orthodoxy and sought reception into the Catholic Church.
Oh Izzy,  Roll Eyes
Who?
Your post is just full of it.
the plenitude of the Holy Spirit.  Nice you noticed.
Careful, you are creeping toward blasphemy.
Oh? Formal or material?
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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #170 on: December 05, 2011, 01:42:50 AM »

Funny how the doctrines and stances that the Orthodox disagree with are so prone to misunderstanding, isn't it?
I guess St. Basil's remark that Latin is an imprecise language has rung true through the centuries. laugh
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #171 on: December 05, 2011, 03:32:48 AM »