OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 11:45:13 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 6908 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« 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: 3,014


« 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: 8,198


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
Posts: 10,015


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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« 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: 3,014


« 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
Posts: 10,015


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
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« 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: 8,198


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: 8,198


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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« 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
Posts: 10,015


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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,014


« 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
Posts: 10,015


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
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« 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
Posts: 10,015


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
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
Posts: 10,015


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
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
Posts: 10,015


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
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: 8,198


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: 8,198


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: 3,014


« 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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« 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: 5,027



« 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: 5,027



« 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: 5,027



« 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: 3,014


« 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: 5,027



« 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: 2,346


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: 3,014


« 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: 3,014


« 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: 3,014


« 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
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,658


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: 3,014


« 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: 2,522



« 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: 3,014


« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« 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: 3,014


« 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
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.194 seconds with 73 queries.