OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 12:00:11 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: Intentional misrepresentation?  (Read 7338 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« on: January 27, 2012, 02:17:48 PM »

To clear up some confusion I caused by not doing this earlier, the following thread started here: Imaculate Conception. I split this off and made it its own thread in an effort to clean up a runaway thread that jumped the tracks and caused a huge wreck.  -PtA



It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 05:04:00 PM by Fr. George » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2012, 02:35:58 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I'm not reading anything into anything here--just commenting that anytime any Orthodox or Catholic Christian paints a negative picture of or bashes in any way the other's Church (OR is perceived to be doing so), it is, for me, an occasion of sadness.  Is it not for you, too?

Now, hopefully Fr. Ambrose will log-in sometime today and answer our questions  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 (?)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2012, 03:08:17 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I'm not reading anything into anything here--just commenting that anytime any Orthodox or Catholic Christian paints a negative picture of or bashes in any way the other's Church (OR is perceived to be doing so), it is, for me, an occasion of sadness.  Is it not for you, too?


If it's a valid picture, then the reality may sadden me, but I don't see any grounds for criticizing the messenger. "Bashing", I agree is bad, but it's often a very subjective accusation--just because someone says something I don't like, or don't agree with about my church doesn't actually make it bashing.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2012, 03:17:52 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I'm not reading anything into anything here--just commenting that anytime any Orthodox or Catholic Christian paints a negative picture of or bashes in any way the other's Church (OR is perceived to be doing so), it is, for me, an occasion of sadness.  Is it not for you, too?


If it's a valid picture, then the reality may sadden me, but I don't see any grounds for criticizing the messenger. "Bashing", I agree is bad, but it's often a very subjective accusation--just because someone says something I don't like, or don't agree with about my church doesn't actually make it bashing.


I agree with you as far as it goes, but many times it's in "how" something is said as much as in "what" is being said, not to mention the intent that may be behind it.  Over time and with experience it is often possible to discern another's intent in the patterns of what they say or write when it may not be blatantly obvious.

But, let's not belabor the point, alright?  We really *do* keep digressing here, don't we  Wink?

Now, hopefully Fr. Ambrose will log-in sometime today and answer our questions  Wink.  It's about 8:15 tomorrow morning in N.Z., so I imagine he's finishing his prayers and corn flakes.... 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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2012, 03:37:12 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2012, 03:41:28 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Surly the above mentioned would not be discussing The immaculate conception on an orthodox forum  Undecided
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2012, 03:48:45 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Okay, okay....I didn't mean to slight anyone by leaving them out.  Please feel free to consider my post amended to include all Christians  Wink.  (Are you *not* Catholic, then?  Why did I think you were?)
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: 10,175


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


« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2012, 03:49:43 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Surly the above mentioned would not be discussing The immaculate conception on an orthodox forum  Undecided

Far, far stranger things have happened  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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2012, 04:01:42 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Surly the above mentioned would not be discussing The immaculate conception on an orthodox forum  Undecided

I'm not too sure any of us are talking about the Immaculate Conception.

P.S. In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that there's already a conversation (see this post and the references therein) about the whole “Orthodox or Catholic, just not Protestant” idea, which seems to be a pretty standard idea on OCnet. I'm not trying to turn this thread into another conversation about it, just pointing out an example of it.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 04:03:01 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2012, 04:05:40 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Okay, okay....I didn't mean to slight anyone by leaving them out.  Please feel free to consider my post amended to include all Christians  Wink.  (Are you *not* Catholic, then?  Why did I think you were?)

That's understandable. See here.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2012, 04:24:46 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.
If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2012, 04:26:01 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Okay, okay....I didn't mean to slight anyone by leaving them out.  Please feel free to consider my post amended to include all Christians  Wink.  (Are you *not* Catholic, then?  Why did I think you were?)

That's understandable. See here.

Well....butter my butt and call me a biscuit  Grin Grin Grin!



Seriously, though...I hope you've found the home you're looking for--I'm just sorry it's not the Catholic Church.  Maybe one day you'll come back home to us.
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 (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2012, 04:26:16 PM »


“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."


There is a certain dichotomy here.  The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.



1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults".  Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"?  Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else  Grin?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins".  Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however,  has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins.  Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist.  You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things.  I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them  Wink!

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can. 

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link.  This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?


1.  I say that you have proved your point that it was never "official" teaching.

2.  I say that you have also proved my point.  For centuries bishops and priests deceived the gullible faithful about it.  For centuries they terrified the people with threats of mortal sin and hell fire for missing Mass on Sundays and eating meat on Fridays.

3.  I say that if your bishops were happily deceiving and telling fibs then how can you know they are not doing so now.  Over all, the level of perceived integrity among Catholic bishops is at a low ebb (refer their handling of the sex abuse. Anybody read the government report on the Diocese of Cloynes?)

4.  I say that there may be an exculpatory factor for the bishops and priests - that they were uneducated men without any training in theology?

5.  I say that the Vatican itself is mired in ignorance since after Vatican II a decree was sent forth abolishing obligatory fasting from meat on Fridays on pain of mortal skin.  The Vatican also thought that it was official teaching.  Obviously the Vatican had never read the Catechism of Trent.  The Vatican still believes it was official teaching because it insists that those who ate meat on Fridays when it was proscribed by the Church will remain in hell.



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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2012, 04:38:21 PM »


“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."


There is a certain dichotomy here.  The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.



1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults".  Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"?  Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else  Grin?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins".  Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however,  has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins.  Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist.  You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things.  I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them  Wink!

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can.  

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link.  This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?
Amrosian Resonse: "I'm so clever. I'm going to find a way to paint what the Catholic Church teaches in the most negative aspect possible. It will give me a nice little straw man to beat the crap out of."

Not to distract from J Michael's question, but I'd like to ask a question of my own: What does this mean for the other catechisms? What say you 3 Catholics (or anyone else who wants to respond)?

I personally don't know, as I'm not yet familiar enough with the Trent Catechism to be able to make a comparison--but I'm workin' on it  Cheesy.  

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?


It impacts me and my family personally.  To this day some of my family believes that there are family members in hell either because they did not bother going to Mass on Sundays or they used to eat meat on Fridays.   The Vatican has proclaimed that the meat-eaters are still in hell and aren't getting out.  

If there is any 'it saddens me" it is because the Popes arbitrarily used their powers to create a mortal sin (meat on Fridays) and there are people in hell because of it.  In a misguided attempt to impose penitential exercises on the faithful the Popes turned their Church into a vehicle of damnation for many.  Let the Pope release them from hell and I'll stop bitching!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 04:49:02 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2012, 04:45:25 PM »


“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."


There is a certain dichotomy here.  The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.



1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults".  Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"?  Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else  Grin?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins".  Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however,  has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins.  Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist.  You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things.  I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them  Wink!

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can. 

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link.  This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?


1.  I say that you have proved your point that it was never "official" teaching.

2.  I say that you have also proved my point.  For centuries bishops and priests deceived the gullible faithful about it.  For centuries they terrified the people with threats of mortal sin and hell fire for missing Mass on Sundays and eating meat on Fridays.

3.  I say that if your bishops were happily deceiving and telling fibs then how can you know they are not doing so now.  Over all, the level of perceived integrity among Catholic bishops is at a low ebb (refer their handling of the sex abuse. Anybody read the government report on the Diocese of Cloynes?)

4.  I say that there may be an exculpatory factor for the bishops and priests - that they were uneducated men without any training in theology?

5.  I say that the Vatican itself is mired in ignorance since after Vatican II a decree was sent forth abolishing obligatory fasting from meat on Fridays on pain of mortal skin.  The Vatican also thought that it was official teaching.  Obviously the Vatican had never read the Catechism of Trent.  The Vatican still believes it was official teaching because it insists that those who ate meat on Fridays when it was proscribed by the Church will remain in hell.





Well...for all your saying, you have failed to shows us precisely from the Catechism of Trent (or any other Catechism for that matter) and in its words the kinds of things you were talking about in replies #624, 625, and 628 above.
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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2012, 04:47:04 PM »


“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."


There is a certain dichotomy here.  The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.



1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults".  Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"?  Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else  Grin?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins".  Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however,  has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins.  Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist.  You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things.  I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them  Wink!

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism PRECISELY the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can. 

Rather, ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link.  This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?


1.  I say that you have proved your point that it was never "official" teaching.

2.  I say that you have also proved my point.  For centuries bishops and priests deceived the gullible faithful about it.  For centuries they terrified the people with threats of mortal sin and hell fire for missing Mass on Sundays and eating meat on Fridays.

3.  I say that if your bishops were happily deceiving and telling fibs then how can you know they are not doing so now.

See my post, on the other thread, about the Catholic Answers Forum.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2012, 04:59:43 PM »

Well...for all your saying, you have failed to shows us precisely from the Catechism of Trent (or any other Catechism for that matter) and in its words the kinds of things you were talking about in replies #624, 625, and 628 above.

Post 624

"To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture."

I have shown this with the incident in Maccabees

It won't be found in Trent since Catholics abandoned belief in the forgiveness of serious sin after death.

---

Post 625

Michael is asking me if  "we know for a fact that that [lesser faults] means "venial sins"? "

That does not compute for me?  Are there people in Purgatory for something called "lesser faults" but these are not venial sins?  

What is the Catholic definition of the "lesser faults" which land a soul in Purgatory?

It is not found in Trent. Trent believes people are in Purgatory for two categories of sins - venial sins and confessed mortal sins.

This third category of "lesser faults" which take you to Purgatory would seem to be a new teaching
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 05:27:35 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2012, 05:14:37 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.
If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2012, 05:16:32 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.
If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2012, 05:26:45 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.
If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

I think that what your reaction indicates is simply unfamiliarity with the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, and it is so unfamiliar that you think somebody who experienced it and now speaks about it is a liar.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2012, 05:41:02 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.
If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

But what evidence do you have that he is misrepresenting his actual experience from 40+ years ago? It seems fairly consistent with what I've heard from other RC's of that generation (though generally with less passion).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2012, 06:02:13 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.
If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

But what evidence do you have that he is misrepresenting his actual experience from 40+ years ago? It seems fairly consistent with what I've heard from other RC's of that generation (though generally with less passion).

Papist,

I've taken this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia.   It shows I am speaking the truth.  Read the whole article.

"As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII."
[Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Boccioni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)].

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01067a.htm

and

The Baltimore Catechism...

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.
     
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2012, 06:34:36 PM »

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?

So how did I go with answering that one?  laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2012, 07:03:52 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I am Father Ambrose's age and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church the same way that he was in an Irish Catholic family in America, rather than in Ireland.  And even I know that his caricatures are just that: cartoons of his experiences.  The things I talk about here and the interpretations that I offer were given to me back in the years before influence of Vatican II took hold fully, or more fully.

So you cannot just paint a happy face on what Father Ambrose does here...at least you will not ever convince me.

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy and so it is his aim to do as much damage as he can to the face of the Catholic Church in public venues to send that message to other Orthodox believers.  He fans the flames of a fire that he knows already consumes.  And he is not ashamed to say so in his own words.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2012, 07:03:52 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.
If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

But what evidence do you have that he is misrepresenting his actual experience from 40+ years ago? It seems fairly consistent with what I've heard from other RC's of that generation (though generally with less passion).

Papist,

I've taken this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia.   It shows I am speaking the truth.  Read the whole article.

"As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII."
[Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Boccioni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)].

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01067a.htm

and

The Baltimore Catechism...

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.
     


I fail to see the need for Father Ambrose's hysteria over mortal sin.

Also I fail to see any indication in Father's cartoon of a Church's teachings that "sends" souls to hell to be more than a little over the top...as though there is no relief from sin in the Catholic Church through repentance and the sacrament of penance and confession.

Father should remember that even in the Catholic Church children are expected to grow up and develop the faith of an adult.

If there is some impediment to that psychological and spiritual development then the Church mitigates for those souls through prayer, fasting and alms-giving.

We are still stuck with Father's admission that he believes the Catholic Church is trying to destroy Orthodoxy.

I must say that it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that he is trying to return the favor...

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2012, 09:09:37 PM »

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

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


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

« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 09:14:05 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2012, 09:55:17 PM »

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

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


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


You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2012, 10:07:50 PM »

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

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


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

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2012, 10:11:36 PM »


You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  Shocked

See message 332 also
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg697681.html#msg697681
where I agree with her.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2012, 10:35:57 PM »

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism. 

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

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


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

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  Roll Eyes

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 10:41:41 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2012, 10:36:36 PM »


You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  Shocked

See message 332 also
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg697681.html#msg697681
where I agree with her.

OIC. I thought I remembered you saying something like the "destroy" line.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2012, 10:40:07 PM »

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

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


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

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  Roll Eyes

    Gas Station Employee: I'm picking up your sarcasm.
    Richard: Well, I should hope so, because I'm laying it on pretty thick.
(Tommy Boy)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2012, 12:10:12 AM »

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism. 

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

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


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

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  Roll Eyes

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
So are all Catholics going to hell, or just our clergy?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2012, 12:15:33 AM »

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

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


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

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  Roll Eyes

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?  

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country.  
So are all Catholics going to hell, or just our clergy?

I'm sure none of your soldier boys are in hell, Wyatt. During his famous apologies Pope John Paul prayed that God would forgive them and since he "holds on earth the place of God Almighty" he is sure to have been heard.

"But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty...”

PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE
Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII
June 20, 1894

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 12:23:24 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2012, 12:15:56 AM »

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2012, 12:17:22 AM »

I'm sure none of your soldier boys are in hell, Wyatt. During his famous apologies Pope John Paul prayed that God would forgive them and since he "holds on earth the place of God Almighty" he is sure to have been heard.
Clearly you have some deep seeded bitterness you need to work out, and since I'm somewhat spiritually fragile right now and this place seems to be spiritual poison for the most part, I think I'm bowing out for the night.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2012, 12:21:28 AM »


You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  Shocked


That phrase originally came from you.  I don't think in those terms when I think of our respective Churches.  
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2012, 12:28:52 AM »


You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  Shocked


That phrase originally came from you.  I don't think in those terms when I think of our respective Churches.  

Gosh!  you are right.  I must apologise.  I see I wrote to Alonso...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27476.msg435353.html#msg435353

I am sure you do not know this, but within Orthodoxy there is a deep-seated fear of Roman Catholicism.  It has been conditioned by long centuries of aggression - the Crusades, the 60 year occupation of Constantinople, the bloodbath in Jerusalem, the attempt to fragment and destroy Orthodoxy by the creation of parallel look-alike Churches in many Orthodox countries (always accompanied by violence), the Croatian policy in WWII of "kill 1/3 of the Orthodox, convert 1/3, and marry 1/3."    

Things such as this have become an integral part of Orthodoxy's innermost psyche when they think of Roman Catholics.  Brushing it aside as polemics damages the bilateral dialogue because it does not acknowledge a deep-rooted problem in our relationship which cries out for attention.  

Pope John Paul II spoke often of the "healing of memory."  The Orthodox attitude could be summed up in the well-known words of Patriarch Pavle of Serbia when he dedicated the monument at the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia - "Forgive we must, forget we dare not."  Oprostiti moramo, zaboraviti ne smemo.

Don't shoot me for saying this.  I am just the messenger.  But what I am reporting is how the average Orthodox Christian sees things.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 12:33:04 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2012, 01:01:59 AM »


You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  Shocked


That phrase originally came from you.  I don't think in those terms when I think of our respective Churches.  

Gosh!  you are right.  I must apologise.  I see I wrote to Alonso...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27476.msg435353.html#msg435353

I am sure you do not know this, but within Orthodoxy there is a deep-seated fear of Roman Catholicism.  It has been conditioned by long centuries of aggression - the Crusades, the 60 year occupation of Constantinople, the bloodbath in Jerusalem, the attempt to fragment and destroy Orthodoxy by the creation of parallel look-alike Churches in many Orthodox countries (always accompanied by violence), the Croatian policy in WWII of "kill 1/3 of the Orthodox, convert 1/3, and marry 1/3."    

Things such as this have become an integral part of Orthodoxy's innermost psyche when they think of Roman Catholics.  Brushing it aside as polemics damages the bilateral dialogue because it does not acknowledge a deep-rooted problem in our relationship which cries out for attention.  

Pope John Paul II spoke often of the "healing of memory."  The Orthodox attitude could be summed up in the well-known words of Patriarch Pavle of Serbia when he dedicated the monument at the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia - "Forgive we must, forget we dare not."  Oprostiti moramo, zaboraviti ne smemo.

Don't shoot me for saying this.  I am just the messenger.  But what I am reporting is how the average Orthodox Christian sees things.


Well Said Father, In the Quote.......Just to add Franciscan Run ,Jesenovac Death Camp  ...Catholic Church At it's Best, If one Doesn't join them Thru covert activity ,then use force ,if neither works, destruction the only alternative ..... police
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 01:05:22 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2012, 01:09:17 AM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I am Father Ambrose's age and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church the same way that he was in an Irish Catholic family in America, rather than in Ireland.  And even I know that his caricatures are just that: cartoons of his experiences.  The things I talk about here and the interpretations that I offer were given to me back in the years before influence of Vatican II took hold fully, or more fully.

So you cannot just paint a happy face on what Father Ambrose does here...at least you will not ever convince me.

So in other words, your personal experience is different from Fr. Ambrose's and I should believe yours and not his? Why? Indeed, given that you were in different countries and therefore different families, different parochial schools, different parishes, why should I believe that your experiences are mutually exclusive?

Fr. Ambrose's memories are clearly colored by his eventual conversion to Orthodoxy--but I could say the same thing for yours being colored by your need to maintain cognitive assonance for your continued commitment to the Roman communion.

And then, of course, there are the cases where Fr. Ambrose has produced documentary evidence that his assertions (e.g., meat on Friday or missing Mass were mortal sins) were in fact held by some significant portion of Roman Catholics, supporting his contention that that is what he experienced at the time whether you shared those experiences or not.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2012, 09:06:06 AM »


You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  Shocked


That phrase originally came from you.  I don't think in those terms when I think of our respective Churches.  

Gosh!  you are right.  I must apologise.  I see I wrote to Alonso...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27476.msg435353.html#msg435353

Aha! I thought you had said it.

I am sure you do not know this, but within Orthodoxy there is a deep-seated fear of Roman Catholicism.  It has been conditioned by long centuries of aggression - the Crusades, the 60 year occupation of Constantinople, the bloodbath in Jerusalem, the attempt to fragment and destroy Orthodoxy by the creation of parallel look-alike Churches in many Orthodox countries (always accompanied by violence), the Croatian policy in WWII of "kill 1/3 of the Orthodox, convert 1/3, and marry 1/3."    

Things such as this have become an integral part of Orthodoxy's innermost psyche when they think of Roman Catholics.  Brushing it aside as polemics damages the bilateral dialogue because it does not acknowledge a deep-rooted problem in our relationship which cries out for attention.  

Pope John Paul II spoke often of the "healing of memory."  The Orthodox attitude could be summed up in the well-known words of Patriarch Pavle of Serbia when he dedicated the monument at the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia - "Forgive we must, forget we dare not."  Oprostiti moramo, zaboraviti ne smemo.

Don't shoot me for saying this.  I am just the messenger.  But what I am reporting is how the average Orthodox Christian sees things.

Well, I'll think about it. Kidding.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2012, 02:29:41 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I am Father Ambrose's age and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church the same way that he was in an Irish Catholic family in America, rather than in Ireland.  And even I know that his caricatures are just that: cartoons of his experiences.  The things I talk about here and the interpretations that I offer were given to me back in the years before influence of Vatican II took hold fully, or more fully.

So you cannot just paint a happy face on what Father Ambrose does here...at least you will not ever convince me.

So in other words, your personal experience is different from Fr. Ambrose's and I should believe yours and not his?


I will continue to push against the negative interpretations that Father Ambrose has to offer, in those cases where he is wrong.

I will also continue to maintain that he says these things knowingly to fan the flames of an already consuming dislike...dislike caused by attitudes that are both factual and just as often contrived.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2012, 03:49:50 PM »

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?

So how did I go with answering that one?  laugh


Well, I'm not impressed, to tell you the truth  laugh.   

To be honest with you, there's too much going on, both on this thread (far too many sub-topics and tangents for me to concentrate on) and in my life and work to devote the kind of time and energy needed to continue to engage here on a truly meaningful level--besides, you're as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel, with far too much antipathy towards the Catholic Church to engage in a truly give-and-take kind of discussion  Wink.  You, me, and others here have been or are far too invested in being "right" than in any thing else.  This leads to the spilling of way too much (cyber) ink, as it were and brings to mind Matt. 12:35-37--[35] The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.
[36] I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter;
[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."


My concern is as much for my own salvation as for yours and others here.  I know that I, for one, have been guilty of uttering far too many careless words here, and possibly of encouraging others to utter their own careless words.  So, I think that enough is enough, at least for now, and it's time for me, once again, to bow out and focus a little more on my interior spiritual life than on these never-ending, basically fruitless and often toxic so-called "discussions". So,  I'll sit back and watch and maybe even "get my toes wet" here and there, but that's about it.  So, have "fun", IrishHermit  Roll Eyes!

One last comment for now:  You quote Patriarch Pavel (?) as saying something to the effect of, "We must forgive, but we must never forget."  This is very true, and as a Jew, I know well the truth of it.  I'm reminded, however, of something someone else, and I can't remember who, once said: "If we truly forgive, then we will eventually forget that which we have forgiven."  I don't know if that is always true, but I have found that to be true in my own life--at least a little bit 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 (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2012, 05:55:35 PM »


You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  Shocked


That phrase originally came from you.  I don't think in those terms when I think of our respective Churches. 

Gosh!  you are right.  I must apologise.  I see I wrote to Alonso...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27476.msg435353.html#msg435353

Aha! I thought you had said it.

Forgive me for not having instant recall.... laugh after all, the message is May 2010
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2012, 05:58:53 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I am Father Ambrose's age and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church the same way that he was in an Irish Catholic family in America, rather than in Ireland.  And even I know that his caricatures are just that: cartoons of his experiences.  The things I talk about here and the interpretations that I offer were given to me back in the years before influence of Vatican II took hold fully, or more fully.

So you cannot just paint a happy face on what Father Ambrose does here...at least you will not ever convince me.

So in other words, your personal experience is different from Fr. Ambrose's and I should believe yours and not his?


I will continue to push against the negative interpretations that Father Ambrose has to offer, in those cases where he is wrong.

I will also continue to maintain that he says these things knowingly to fan the flames of an already consuming dislike...dislike caused by attitudes that are both factual and just as often contrived.

M.

Never contrived, sweet Lady!   

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2012, 06:32:44 PM »

--besides, you're as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel,

Often just what the Orthodox think of the Catholic polemicists they engage in discussion - with their distorted quotes from the Fathers and their ability to slide from “this is our teaching” to “this doesn’t count, it’s not magisterial.”

Quote
with far too much antipathy towards the Catholic Church to engage in a truly give-and-take kind of discussion  Wink.

I detest the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.  Even the Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny detests it and more than I do, I would say..  He has thrown the Papal Nuncio out of Ireland.  The Government has permanently dismantled the Papal Nunciature after the Government published its report on sexual abuse in the Diocese of Cloynes.  He points out that the Vatican worked furtively to subvert the course of justice in Ireland.  If you read the Irish papers you will know that the Catholics of Ireland agree with him.

I detest it for abusing its authority to create mortal sins where there were none before (meat on Friday), imposing this burden on the faithful and thereby bringing about the damnation of thousands of its members.  It set itself up as a vehicle of damnation and not a vehicle of salvation.

I detest it for it efforts over many centuries to damage Orthodoxy, by wars and crusades and the creation of look-alike Churches in Orthodox countries.  The Orthodox detestation of these Churches is evidenced by the number of times meetings of the International Dialogue have come to a grinding halt over this matter.

But we must be absolutely clear....  I do not detest individual Catholics nor the Catholics of Ireland nor Catholic faithful general.  I love them as persons.   


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2012, 06:33:49 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I am Father Ambrose's age and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church the same way that he was in an Irish Catholic family in America, rather than in Ireland.  And even I know that his caricatures are just that: cartoons of his experiences.  The things I talk about here and the interpretations that I offer were given to me back in the years before influence of Vatican II took hold fully, or more fully.

So you cannot just paint a happy face on what Father Ambrose does here...at least you will not ever convince me.

So in other words, your personal experience is different from Fr. Ambrose's and I should believe yours and not his?


I will continue to push against the negative interpretations that Father Ambrose has to offer, in those cases where he is wrong.

I will also continue to maintain that he says these things knowingly to fan the flames of an already consuming dislike...dislike caused by attitudes that are both factual and just as often contrived.

M.

Never contrived, sweet Lady!   

But "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'

Hardly the worst. 

Frustrating as the dickens but not the worst...God forbid!!
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2012, 06:55:19 PM »

To be honest with you, there's too much going on, both on this thread (far too many sub-topics and tangents for me to concentrate on) and in my life and work to devote the kind of time and energy needed to continue to engage here on a truly meaningful level--besides, you're as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel

Interesting. So does that mean that calling someone "as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel" isn't engaging on truly meaningful level?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 705



« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2012, 06:59:30 PM »

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the middle of wolves: be you therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." St. Matthew 10:16

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2012, 07:03:41 PM »

Aha! I thought you had said it.

Forgive me for not having instant recall.... laugh after all, the message is May 2010

No need to apologize, you gave me a good opportunity for an "Aha".

BTW, post #331 of that thread is also interesting:

Quote from: Michał Kalina
Quote
Ukrainian GreeK Catholic Churches have not yet come back from Russian Orthodoxy, which recieved them from soviet desition to destroy catholicism in Ukraine.

False. http://www.ugcc.org.ua/index.php?L=2 We wait for them to come back once again.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2012, 07:54:45 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?
Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2012, 08:59:30 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2012, 09:03:49 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: January 28, 2012, 09:10:29 PM »

Sorry, I never saw that question.  By that logic I think I'd like to be Buddhist. Grin

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2012, 09:16:57 PM »

Sorry, I never saw that question.  By that logic I think I'd like to be Buddhist. Grin

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?  

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country.  
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?
By your grin emoticon I take it that you do not agree with that logic, but that is your logic that you put forth taken to its logical conclusion. How do you determine where to draw the line? Why remain Eastern Orthodox when you could join Oriental Orthodoxy or the Assyrian Church of the East? If the sanctity of a Church is based solely on the least number of mistakes in its past, then you, too, are in the wrong Church. How many miaphysites have been killed at the hands of your Church, Father?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 09:17:14 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2012, 09:20:23 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?


Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #56 on: January 28, 2012, 09:25:36 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?


Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel

Violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church? How so? I've never read anything in Scripture, the Catechism, the Bible, or any other Catholic text that condones killing even those considered by the Church to be schismatics, heretics, or apostates. If you mean that some Popes or some theologians personally believed that such actions were justified theologically, that is much different than violence being formally received into the theology of the Catholic Church. What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: January 28, 2012, 09:38:06 PM »

Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?


Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel

Violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church? How so? I've never read anything in Scripture, the Catechism, the Bible, or any other Catholic text that condones killing even those considered by the Church to be schismatics, heretics, or apostates. If you mean that some Popes or some theologian
Fr. Ambrose, you never answered this:

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 
Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?
If the "True Church" is the one which cast the fewest stones throughout history, why aren't you Oriental Orthodox?

Actually that'd probably be the ACOE.
Ok...but the point still stands. How can he, in good conscience, remain Eastern Orthodox if the ultimate test of truth is the Church with the least blood on its hands?


Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel

For me there is a majoy dofferencde between the blod shed by the Orthodox ansd the institutionalised bllod shed of Catholicism.  It is institutauoned, for example, via Thomas Aquinas and his theologhicla justification fior the mirder of dissidents.   Orthodox haas mursdeerd them too,lthough to a much lesser extent - but it has never tried to theologically jusdify these ervils as pleassing to God. s personally believed that such actions were justified theologically, that is much different than violence being formally received into the theology of the Catholic Church. What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

History shows, to the unbiased eye, that violence is an acceptable mode when it suits the Catholic Church and when it is in a position to get away with it.

Pius IX killed hundreds of young Italian man to defend his Papal States against the Kingdom of Italy.  He was utterly shocked when he appealed to the French and Spanish to come and help him fight his bloody war and they refused.  Imagine pious Catholics refusing to go to war for the Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ on earth!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2012, 09:44:31 PM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2012, 12:35:23 AM »

The Orthodox know they are sinning.
They know they are sinning and yet they still do it? That's more serious than a sin committed out of ignorance.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Source?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2012, 12:47:12 AM »

How many miaphysites have been killed at the hands of your Church, Father?

None, as far as I know.  I don’t think that any Miaphysites have been killed, except by Muslims in recent decades.   Or are you considering Miaphysites as the historical descendants of Monophysites who were indeed repressed by the Church of the Supreme Pontiff (Mods – this is using the term historically to distinguish them from modern Miaphysites who are not Monophysites doctrinally but apparently the equivalent of Diophysites.)

Wyatt, do you have any statistics for the numbers killed by the Catholic Church in those early centuries?  also those killed  in the assaults on Jerusalem when the city was inches deep in the Christian blood spilled by the Italian, French and Spanish Crusaders?

On an opposite note, I found this on the Net – the slaughter of 350 Maronite monks

“The earliest information that is available on the Maronite sect was recorded by Theodoret,
bishop of Cyrrhus (d. 458). Early in the sixth century, Maronite monks were foremost among
the defenders of the doctrine of Chalcedon, which, owing to the controversy generated in its
aftermath, brought on a permanent schism between adherents of Chalcedon and those of
Monophysitism, the faith of the Jacobites and the Nestorians. In the battles that ensued with
the Monophysites, Maronites lost 350 monks. Many of their monasteries were destroyed by
the Monophysites. Saint Maron's monastery, however, continued to serve until the middle of
the seventh century as the stronghold of the Chalcedonians as well as the center of their missionary a
ctivities in northern Syria.”

http://www.everyculture.com/Africa-Middle-East/Maronites-History-and-Cultural-Relations.html

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2012, 12:57:40 AM »

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Source?

Phew!  It’s tough having discussions with the Catholic members of the forum when they don’t seem to know very much about their own history prior to Vatican II.  No doubt I risk incurring another charge of hating Catholics for bringing this history to their attention. Cry

How’s about.......

"The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance."

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


And from the Catholic Encyclopedia (looking for things you might find trustworthy)....

"At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 01:07:34 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2012, 02:26:07 AM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,

Nice thing is there's no real penalty for Orthodox sinning.

They are rewarded by the silence of the lamb and apologist priests.

Perhaps the worst after all...
Logged

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

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


« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2012, 03:44:25 AM »

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?
Maybe I have not kept up sufficiently with the many theological changes that have swept over the RCC, but I would guess that the terminology may have been changed, but the teaching behind it has not. I suppose  that a lesser sin would be a venial sin, while a serious sin is a mortal sin. I am not sure about the use of the word "fault" instead of "sin". It should be kept in mind that, although grave matter is required for mortal sin, for the person to be guilty of mortal sin, there has to be sufficient knowledge and reflection and as well full consent of the will on his part. For example, if a person were to eat meat on a Friday of Lent, it would probably not be a sin if he had forgotten that it was a day of abstinence. 
For the examples which you have cited, I think you have to look at the circumstances and motivation. For example, to kick a dog who is chasing after you and biting at your leg as you are riding your bicycle, would not, in my estimation be a sin. You are trying to get the dog to stop harassing you and from possibly causing an accident. To kick your grandmother is wrong of course, but it would depend on the circumstances as to whether it would be venial or mortal. To deliberately kick your grandmother with severe force and with the intention of causing her serious harm or death, would be a mortal sin. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2012, 05:41:19 AM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,

Nice thing is there's no real penalty for Orthodox sinning.

They are rewarded by the silence of the lamb and apologist priests.

Perhaps the worst after all...


The canonical consequence of kiling in war is exclusion from communion for three years.

A very good article on this is...

St. Basil’s Guidance on War and Repentance

http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2012, 09:24:46 AM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,

Nice thing is there's no real penalty for Orthodox sinning.

They are rewarded by the silence of the lamb and apologist priests.

Perhaps the worst after all...


The canonical consequence of kiling in war is exclusion from communion for three years.

A very good article on this is...

St. Basil’s Guidance on War and Repentance

http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/

Quote
Several commentators (not least many of the later western Church fathers) have regarded this as fudge, but it seems to me to express, in a finely tuned economic way, the tension in the basic Christian message that there is an unresolvable shortfall between the ideal and the real in an apocalyptically charged religion. What this Basilian canon does most effectively is to set a No Entry sign to any potential theory of Just War within Christian theology, and should set up a decided refusal of post-war church-sponsored self-congratulations for victory.

I have to agree with these "commentators".

Quote
All violence, local, individual, or nationally-sanctioned, is here stated to be an expression of hubris that is inconsistent with the values of the Kingdom of God, and while in many circumstances that violence may be necessary or unavoidable (Basil states the only legitimate reasons as the defense of the weak and innocent), it is never justifiable.

If it's necessary or unavoidable, the it is by nature justified. That doesn't make it less a horrible thing, but it was still necessary.

Quote
Even for the best motives in the world, the shedding of blood remains a defilement, such that the true Christian, afterwards, would wish to undergo the cathartic experience of temporary return to the lifestyle of penance, that is be penitent. Basils restriction of the time of penance to three years, seemingly harsh to us moderns, was actually a commonly recognized sign of merciful leniency in the ancient rule book of the early Church.

So even after Confession, you're required to be restricted from the Grace of the Sacraments? Illogical, and counter-productive for the sake of pacifism. I'm glad this isn't the practice in Orthodoxy.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2012, 10:40:08 AM »

What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin."

The Orthodox know they are sinning.

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,

Nice thing is there's no real penalty for Orthodox sinning.

They are rewarded by the silence of the lamb and apologist priests.

Perhaps the worst after all...


The canonical consequence of kiling in war is exclusion from communion for three years.

A very good article on this is...

St. Basil’s Guidance on War and Repentance

http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/

Binding and loosing...mostly loosing from what you've said here.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2012, 10:40:08 AM »


So even after Confession, you're required to be restricted from the Grace of the Sacraments? Illogical, and counter-productive for the sake of pacifism. I'm glad this isn't the practice in Orthodoxy.

As I said before:  consequences...what consequences?
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2012, 11:00:12 AM »


So even after Confession, you're required to be restricted from the Grace of the Sacraments? Illogical, and counter-productive for the sake of pacifism. I'm glad this isn't the practice in Orthodoxy.

As I said before:  consequences...what consequences?

One of the OCA bishops, San Francisco, was speaking of applying this canon to the American soldiers who caused deaths in Iraq.  I think he was writing on Orthodox-Forum.

Of course one has to observe that Saint Basil does say that it was out of kilter with previous tradition and it was only his personal suggestion.

"Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean."
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 11:09:51 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2012, 11:31:02 AM »


So even after Confession, you're required to be restricted from the Grace of the Sacraments? Illogical, and counter-productive for the sake of pacifism. I'm glad this isn't the practice in Orthodoxy.

As I said before:  consequences...what consequences?

Certainly our holy Fathers imposed heavy penances, ones which neither of our Churches apply today...

Caution: R18, Not for the delicate.

"The Penitential of Saint Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury in 670 required 1 year for inter-femoral contact (penis between thighs); 3 years for all lesbian activity, undifferentiated; 7 to 15 years for anal intercourse; 7 to 22 years for fellatio; and, for comparison, 7 to 10 years for murder; 15 years for infanticide (reduced to 7 years if the mother was a pauper).

"If caught kissing, boys under the age of 20 were subject to 6 special fasts; 8 fasts if it was "licentious kissing"; 10 fasts if it was "kissing with emission"; more if it involved mutual masturbation; and much longer if the partners were over the age of 20.”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CeltList/message/36577
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2012, 12:11:24 PM »

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Source?

Phew!  It’s tough having discussions with the Catholic members of the forum when they don’t seem to know very much about their own history prior to Vatican II.  No doubt I risk incurring another charge of hating Catholics for bringing this history to their attention. Cry

How’s about.......

"The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance."

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


And from the Catholic Encyclopedia (looking for things you might find trustworthy)....

"At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It's not as if the Pope is encouraging cold-blooded rape and murder. This was about defending the Catholic Church, was it not? If none of the crusades had happened I might be praying to allah right now.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2012, 05:59:19 PM »

But it is not sin for Roman Catholics. They are even rewarded for it with Plenary Indulgences,
Source?

Phew!  It’s tough having discussions with the Catholic members of the forum when they don’t seem to know very much about their own history prior to Vatican II.  No doubt I risk incurring another charge of hating Catholics for bringing this history to their attention. Cry

How’s about.......

"The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance."

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


And from the Catholic Encyclopedia (looking for things you might find trustworthy)....

"At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It's not as if the Pope is encouraging cold-blooded rape and murder. This was about defending the Catholic Church, was it not? If none of the crusades had happened I might be praying to allah right now.

Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2012, 06:11:37 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2012, 06:32:40 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 06:34:26 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2012, 06:50:40 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #75 on: January 29, 2012, 07:07:36 PM »

Somewhere on the forum we have spoken already of the first-hand account of Count Geoffrey de Villehardouin but a search did not find it.

Here is de Villehardouin's account

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/villehardouin.asp

"Villehardouin's Conquest of Constantinople is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose."
~Wkikpedia
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 07:11:16 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #76 on: January 30, 2012, 09:01:44 AM »

Here is another take on what happened!

Quote
The Fourth Crusade and the Latin empire of Constantinople

Pope Innocent III was the first pope since Urban II to be both eager and able to make the Crusade a major papal concern. In 1198 he called a new Crusade through legates and encyclical letters. In 1199 a tax was levied on all clerical incomes—later to become a precedent for systematic papal income taxes—and Fulk of Neuilly, a popular orator, was commissioned to preach. At a tournament held by Thibaut III of Champagne, several prominent French nobles took the cross. Among them was Geoffrey of Villehardouin, author of one of the principal accounts of the Crusade; other important nobles joined later, and contact was made with Venice to provide transport.

Unfortunately, Thibaut of Champagne died before the Crusaders departed for Venice, and the barons turned to Boniface of Montferrat, whose involvement as leader of the Crusade proved to be fateful. He had close family ties with both the Byzantine Empire and the Crusader states. His brother, Conrad of Montferrat, had received the crown of Jerusalem only to be murdered by the Assassins shortly thereafter. Before going to the Holy Land, Conrad had married the sister of Emperor Isaac II Angelus and received the title of Caesar. Boniface was also the vassal of Philip of Swabia, who was a contender for the German throne and the son-in-law of Isaac II. In 1195 Isaac was blinded and deposed by his brother, who took the throne as Alexius III. Several years later Isaac's son, also named Alexius, escaped from Constantinople and fled to Philip's court. At Christmas 1201 Boniface, Philip, and the young Alexius discussed the possibility of using the Crusade to depose Alexius III and place the young man on the throne. Boniface sought the approval of the pope for the diversion, but Innocent refused to allow it. The young Alexius also journeyed to Rome but had no better luck with Innocent III. Despite the papal prohibition, Boniface and the Byzantine prince still hoped to find a way to move the Crusade toward Constantinople on its way to the Holy Land.

When the Crusade army arrived in Venice in the summer of 1202, it was only one-third of its projected size. This was a serious problem, since the French had contracted with the Venetians for a fleet and provisions that they now realized they neither needed nor could afford. The Venetians had incurred enormous expense for the French and were understandably upset by their inability to pay. The leader of Venice, Doge Enrico Dandolo, was a man of great sagacity and prudence who was in his 90s and completely blind by the time of the Crusade. Dandolo proposed that if the French would assist the Venetians in capturing the rebellious city of Zadar (now in Croatia), he would be willing to suspend the outstanding debt until it could be paid in captured booty. With few options, the Crusaders agreed, even though Zadar was a Christian city under the control of the king of Hungary, who had taken the Crusader's vow. Innocent was informed of the plan, but his veto was disregarded. In November 1202 the Crusaders captured Zadar and wintered there. Reluctant to jeopardize the Crusade, Innocent gave conditional absolution to the Crusaders, but not to the Venetians.

Meanwhile, envoys from Philip of Swabia arrived at Zadar with an offer from Alexius, the Byzantine prince. If the Crusaders would sail to Constantinople and topple the reigning emperor, Alexius would place the Byzantine church in submission to Rome, pay the Crusaders an enormous sum, and join the Crusade to Egypt (now the centre of Muslim power in the Levant) with a large army. It was a tempting offer for an enterprise that was short on funds. The Crusade leaders accepted it, but a great many of the rank and file wanted nothing to do with the proposal, and many deserted. The Crusade sailed to Corfu before arriving in Constantinople in late June 1203. After the Crusaders attacked the northeastern corner of the city and then set a destructive fire, the citizens of Constantinople turned against Alexius III, who then fled. The Byzantine prince was elevated to the throne as Alexius IV along with his blind father, Isaac II.

Although the new emperor tried to make good his promises to the Crusaders, he soon ran short of money. He also faced anti-Latin hatred in Constantinople, which had been endemic for decades and now reached a fever pitch. Alexius IV, who owed his throne to Latins, became bitterly unpopular and was finally toppled in a palace coup in late January 1204. The Crusaders, now cheated of their reward and disgusted at the treachery of the Byzantines, declared war on Constantinople, which fell to the Fourth Crusade on April 12, 1204. What followed was one of the most profitable and disgraceful sacks of a city in history. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on. Many also broke their vows to respect the women of Constantinople and assaulted them. When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his pilgrims, he was filled with shame and strongly rebuked them.

Before the capture of the city, the Crusaders had decided that 12 electors (6 Venetians and 6 Franks) should choose an emperor who would rule one-fourth of the imperial domain. The other three-fourths was to be divided. The clergy of the party that did not include the emperor-elect were to oversee Hagia Sophia and choose a patriarch. A small amount of property was specifically designated to support the clergy, and the rest was divided as booty.

Once order had been restored, the Franks and the Venetians implemented their agreement; Baldwin of Flanders was elected emperor, and the Venetian Thomas Morosini was chosen patriarch. Various Latin-French lordships throughout Greece—in particular, the duchy of Athens and the principality of the Morea—did provide cultural contacts with western Europe and promoted the study of Greek. There was also a French impact on Greece. Notably, a collection of laws, the Assises de Romanie (Assizes of Romania), was produced. The Chronicle of the Morea appeared in both French and Greek (and later Aragonese) versions. Impressive remains of Crusader castles and Gothic churches can still be seen in Greece. Nevertheless, the Latin empire always rested on shaky foundations. Indeed, not all the Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Crusade. The imperial government continued in Nicaea, and the offshoot empire of Trebizond, at the eastern end of the Black Sea, lasted until 1461. The Byzantine despotate of Epirus was also established, and the Bulgarians remained hostile to the Crusaders. Finally, in 1261 a sadly diminished Constantinople was reconquered by Michael VIII Palaeologus with the aid of Genoa, the traditional rival of Venice. The city, however, would never be the same. For the remainder of its Christian history, it would remain poor, dilapidated, and largely abandoned.

The belief that the conquest of Constantinople would help Crusading efforts was a mirage. Indeed, the opposite was true, for the unstable Latin empire siphoned off much of Europe's Crusading energy. The legacy of the Fourth Crusade was the deep sense of betrayal the Latins had instilled in their Greek coreligionists. With the events of 1204, the schism between the Catholic West and Orthodox East was complete.

Crusades.  (2012). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 30, 2012, 05:55:32 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.

Intent matters.

The sack can either be portrayed as a betrayal of the evil Latins, OR it can be understood to be manipulation by the Byzantines themselves for the benefit of the Byzantine royals, who's blame is left on the evil Latins.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
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: 1,625



« Reply #78 on: January 31, 2012, 02:29:31 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.

Intent matters.

The sack can either be portrayed as a betrayal of the evil Latins, OR it can be understood to be manipulation by the Byzantines themselves for the benefit of the Byzantine royals, who's blame is left on the evil Latins.

Yes, the royals really intended for the crusaders to come, destroy their imperial city, steal their treasures and relics, kill their men and rape their women. Roll Eyes
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
primuspilus
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,521


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #79 on: January 31, 2012, 02:41:17 PM »

I think it was nothing more than the latins grabbing a carrot that was dangled infront of them. They grabbed it and gobbled it in one chomp, then took the whole box of carrots Wink

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #80 on: January 31, 2012, 02:50:33 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
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
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #81 on: January 31, 2012, 02:51:28 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
What about when the Orthodox massacred the Latins in Constantinople years before this event?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #82 on: January 31, 2012, 03:06:47 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?

I've noticed that a number of mods are very poor topic namers.  They stink, frankly. I guess they need the practice though, so keep at it dear, dear mods! You'll get better! I know you can do it! Grin Tongue
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #83 on: January 31, 2012, 03:57:45 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #84 on: January 31, 2012, 04:11:46 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Okeedokee!  Thanks for clarifying.  Wink

Back to the topic, anyone?
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 (?)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,649


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 31, 2012, 05:06:38 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
What about when the Orthodox massacred the Latins in Constantinople years before this event?

They're all dead and in God's hands. We need to get over it - both sides. Don't forget that at the time of the fall in 1453 the Latins were celebrating Mass at Hagia Sophia on a side altar at the same time the Patriarch's Liturgy was interrupted by the Sultan's entry.
Logged
primuspilus
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,521


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #86 on: January 31, 2012, 05:14:25 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
What about when the Orthodox massacred the Latins in Constantinople years before this event?

They're all dead and in God's hands. We need to get over it - both sides. Don't forget that at the time of the fall in 1453 the Latins were celebrating Mass at Hagia Sophia on a side altar at the same time the Patriarch's Liturgy was interrupted by the Sultan's entry.
They also died together, swords in hand. So maybe there is hope Smiley

All we need is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to storm the next meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue and we're in business Smiley

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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,292


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #87 on: January 31, 2012, 05:15:45 PM »

[Exactly, the Crusades were for the purpose of protecting Christian lands. You can take the protestant propoganda, or the twisted story of the Sack of Constantinople all you want, but that's just it, a twist on reality.

If you are only familiar with twisted Protestant propaganda then here are the facts.....

The Sack of Constantinople
By Nicholas A. Cooke
Communicant of St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox Church, Concord, CA
Diocese of the West, Orthodox Church in America

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

Except it glosses over the key point that matters.

This is what your article says:
Quote
Dandolo persuaded the Crusaders to move on Constantinople instead of on Egypt by offering to advance the 85,000 silver marks needed for ships. All conquests and loot were to be divided evenly. The French agreed. Here the Crusade turned away from the control of the pope and into the hands of schemers, politicians, and adventurers. Greeks themselves were not entirely blameless in the plot against the city. The emperor Isaac had been deposed by his brother, Alexius III. Isaac's son, Alexius (the Younger), sat down with Dandolo and the Crusaders and made them an offer: he would pay 200,000 silver marks, put up an army of to fight against Islam, assign 500 knights for life to guard the Holy Land, and he offered the submission of the Eastern Church in exchange for help in regaining the throne. Later, when it came time to pay Alexius could not raise the money. The Crusaders were infuriated and used this as another excuse to attack the city. In any event, the original intent of the Crusade was forgotten, and the armies stood before Constantinople. Inside the walls most of the inhabitants were Orthodox Christians. Outside the walls the men wore crosses on their mantles and called themselves Christians. It was Holy Week of the year 1204.

But it glosses the Byzantine manipulation, and even makes it out that the evil Crusaders were really out to get Constantinople.

Here is another version:
Quote
In early 1203, another ingredient was added to the mix. Envoys from Prince Alexius Angelos, a claimant to the Byzantine imperial title, arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Zara. Well aware of the westerners’ lack of men and money he made a persuasive offer: if they helped to reinstate him in Constantinople he would pay them 200,000 marks, give them all the supplies they needed and provide an army of 10,000 men. He would also place the Greek Orthodox Church under the authority of the papacy. But once again, the prospect of turning their weapons against their Christian brothers appalled many of the crusaders and another body of men chose to leave. Those who remained were convinced that joining with the Prince presented the most effective way of achieving the means to their goal.

Prince Alexius had assured the westerners that he would be welcomed back by his people. Unfortunately, these hopes were unfounded and by June 1203 it was evident to all in the crusader army that they would have to fight to get him re-instated. The mere sight of Constantinople’s massive walls put fear into their hearts; they had ‘never imagined there could be so fine a place in the world’, yet ‘there was indeed no man so brave and daring that his flesh did not shudder at the sight’. What hope did such a small force have against the mighty Byzantine Empire?

In fact, by the early thirteenth century, the Byzantine world was in a fragile condition, corroded by two decades of internal feuding. The death of Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), presaged a series of regencies, usurpations and coups. Between 1180 and 1204 no fewer than fifty-eight rebellions or uprisings took place across the empire. Prince Alexius’s father, Isaac Angelos (1185-95), had come to power by such means, but was deposed and blinded by his brother, Alexius III. Coupled with this chaos in leadership, external and internal forces had also imposed serious pressure on the Greeks. In 1176 the Seljuks of Asia Minor had heavily defeated a large Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriocephalum. In 1185, the Sicilians had sacked Thessalonica, the empire’s second city. Five years later, an alliance with Saladin brought the Greeks into conflict with the huge crusading army of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany (1152-90) and the Byzantines were swiftly pushed to one side. With the decline in central authority the provinces sought advantage too. In 1184, Cyprus broke away, the following year the Bulgarians revolted, and in 1188 the city of Philadelphia in Asia Minor seceded.

Amid such chronic instability, it is not surprising that the Byzantines’ military strength declined, most alarmingly in the navy. In 1169, the Greeks had sent a splendid fleet of 150 ships to help the Crusader States fight the Egyptians. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, however, Niketas Choniates, an eyewitness, observed that only twenty half-rotten vessels could be mustered to face the invaders. The Greeks’ land forces,  were not so feeble. At their core was the Varangian Guard, an elite unit made up of foreign mercenaries (often Scandinavians) armed with fearsome double-headed axes. Furthermore, the sheer size of Constantinople’s population gave the Byzantines numerical superiority.

In July 1203 the crusaders staged an amphibious landing. Capturing the suburb of Galata, they broke through into the harbour of the Golden Horn and took a section of the sea walls. The Venetian mariners were able to brush aside Greek opposition and use their skills to adapt their vessels to take siege towers, bringing the ships up to the sea walls to disgorge safely the armed men necessary to continue the assault.
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople

A little bit different picture, isnt it?

Nothing in what you have quoted addresses the horrors of the sack of Constantinople.  But I have the impression that you may see what you are quoting as a justification for it.  I find that as persuasive as the US invading and looting the Vatican because of the sexual abuse.
What about when the Orthodox massacred the Latins in Constantinople years before this event?

They're all dead and in God's hands. We need to get over it - both sides. Don't forget that at the time of the fall in 1453 the Latins were celebrating Mass at Hagia Sophia on a side altar at the same time the Patriarch's Liturgy was interrupted by the Sultan's entry.
I actually agree with you. The only reason I bring up what I did, was so that I could provide the other side of the story.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #88 on: January 31, 2012, 05:45:02 PM »



Dear Witega,  I appreciate your postings and from what I have gleaned of your character you are a good person.

But I must say that I do not think I am happy to have a thread devoted to me with the Title of "Intentional misrepresentation?"   I do not think it was intentional but that impugns my honesty and integrity.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 05:50:40 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #89 on: January 31, 2012, 06:35:55 PM »



Dear Witega,  I appreciate your postings and from what I have gleaned of your character you are a good person.

But I must say that I do not think I am happy to have a thread devoted to me with the Title of "Intentional misrepresentation?"   I do not think it was intentional but that impugns my honesty and integrity.

I believe Fr. Ambrose has already been made aware, but just for the record, I did not start this thread and I certainly did not choose the title for it. For whatever reason, the mod found my post on the previous thread to be the most convenient point for separating out the part he wanted to separate, and he chose the title with zero input from me.

I do not always agree with Fr. Ambrose but I have never implied, much less stated, that he is posting anything but his honest memories and opinions.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #90 on: January 31, 2012, 06:58:05 PM »



Dear Witega,  I appreciate your postings and from what I have gleaned of your character you are a good person.

But I must say that I do not think I am happy to have a thread devoted to me with the Title of "Intentional misrepresentation?"   I do not think it was intentional but that impugns my honesty and integrity.

Actually, I believe witega was defending you.

His post, and many others, were transplanted to this new thread because the old thread was getting out of hand.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #91 on: January 31, 2012, 07:00:02 PM »

Just wanted to see how this would look.  Wink

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #92 on: January 31, 2012, 07:58:01 PM »



Dear Witega,  I appreciate your postings and from what I have gleaned of your character you are a good person.

But I must say that I do not think I am happy to have a thread devoted to me with the Title of "Intentional misrepresentation?"   I do not think it was intentional but that impugns my honesty and integrity.

I believe Fr. Ambrose has already been made aware, but just for the record, I did not start this thread and I certainly did not choose the title for it. For whatever reason, the mod found my post on the previous thread to be the most convenient point for separating out the part he wanted to separate, and he chose the title with zero input from me.

I do not always agree with Fr. Ambrose but I have never implied, much less stated, that he is posting anything but his honest memories and opinions.

Than you, Witega.  Yes, a forum member kindly wrote and informed me it was not you who named this thread.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #93 on: January 31, 2012, 08:13:09 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2012, 08:29:00 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2012, 08:50:18 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.  I know that I have not done that.  But you may be right - others may believe that I have done so (intentional misrepresentation, according to your thread title) and it may benefit them to hash it out.

I need to point out that my participation in this thread about me, defending myself, will be as I choose and I shall not respond to any nastiness publicly.

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2012, 08:57:31 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:

Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 08:58:32 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2012, 09:08:21 PM »

To be honest with you, there's too much going on, both on this thread (far too many sub-topics and tangents for me to concentrate on) and in my life and work to devote the kind of time and energy needed to continue to engage here on a truly meaningful level--besides, you're as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel

Interesting. So does that mean that calling someone "as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel" isn't engaging on truly meaningful level?

I call upon J Michael, in the name of the truth, to substantiate his accusation against me.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2012, 09:14:15 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three.  
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 09:15:58 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,069



« Reply #99 on: January 31, 2012, 09:35:21 PM »

since this thread has started in a very ill-like manner I am locking it.  Please re-start the thread with a clear subject that doesn't include attacking another poster in the first post -username! Orthodox-Catholic moderator
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,069



« Reply #100 on: January 31, 2012, 09:57:51 PM »

upon review I'm reopening it.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #101 on: January 31, 2012, 10:32:15 PM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

[
Warning for 40 days for ad hominem against Irish Hermit.

^^ This seems to be the same misunderstanding we discussed earlier: witega was defending him.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #102 on: January 31, 2012, 10:33:04 PM »

upon review I'm reopening it.

Thank you, Username!.

OK, folks, Peter the Aleut says I am consistently accused of lying...

Quote from:  PetertheAleut
It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying

Now is your chance to produce your evidence.

I think you have a rare and unheard of opportunity when the moderators allow a thread focused on judging/proving whether an Orthodox priest is a man of dishonesty, a consistent liar.   I doubt if such discussion would take place on other Orthodox venues.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #103 on: January 31, 2012, 10:51:38 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three.  

No, Fr. Ambrose, it appears that you're misrepresenting me, and I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.

Many threads have been derailed, yes, but I'm not laying the blame on anyone in particular, be they Catholics or otherwise.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #104 on: January 31, 2012, 10:57:37 PM »

Peter.....

Peter Everyone can See ,Even the Blind ,That
You Keep Hounding Fathers Posts, to Find Fault,
where there isn't Any...... police
 
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #105 on: January 31, 2012, 10:59:30 PM »



Dear Witega,  I appreciate your postings and from what I have gleaned of your character you are a good person.

But I must say that I do not think I am happy to have a thread devoted to me with the Title of "Intentional misrepresentation?"   I do not think it was intentional but that impugns my honesty and integrity.

I believe Fr. Ambrose has already been made aware, but just for the record, I did not start this thread and I certainly did not choose the title for it. For whatever reason, the mod found my post on the previous thread to be the most convenient point for separating out the part he wanted to separate, and he chose the title with zero input from me.

I do not always agree with Fr. Ambrose but I have never implied, much less stated, that he is posting anything but his honest memories and opinions.
Yes, I take the credit/blame for starting this thread. You are exactly correct in your assessment of my reasons for doing so.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #106 on: January 31, 2012, 11:00:20 PM »

Peter.....

Peter Everyone can See ,Even the Blind ,That
You Keep Hounding Fathers Posts, to Find Fault,
where there isn't Any...... police
 
Is Fr. Ambrose the only priest on this forum?
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #107 on: January 31, 2012, 11:04:28 PM »

Fr.Ambrose  of all the Clergy ,Is The Most Active Member ,
 And it Look's Like He's Fair Game For You... Grin
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 11:05:50 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #108 on: January 31, 2012, 11:05:08 PM »

Peter.....

Peter Everyone can See ,Even the Blind ,That
You Keep Hounding Fathers Posts, to Find Fault,
where there isn't Any...... police
 
Is Fr. Ambrose the only priest on this forum?

Stashko's spelling has always been a bit wayward. It's part of his posting character. He has simply omitted an apostrophe. Surely, PtA, with your superior skills, you should have spotted it.  
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,431


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #109 on: February 01, 2012, 12:19:22 AM »

Quote
It seems to me that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying

Such claims are worthless unless they are shown rather than simply told.

A thread like this is shameful without proof. I think the proof should be shown or close the thread -lacking clear proof it is unwarranted, unethical slander.

Assertions of this kind seem to me to literally ***saturate*** this forum (Catholic/Orthodox discussion, against Orthodox clergy in particular -not just Fr. Ambrose) often with a clear lack of convincing evidence. It is my view that one Roman Catholic poster in particular who shall remain unnamed here is one of the worst offenders of this sort I have ever seen anywhere at anytime on any internet forum, and that is saying quite a lot.

In another forum which I administrate such constant slander and belittling of alleged (seldom proven) "ignorance," purposeful distortion" etc. of any member -especially primarily by one "prosecuting" member- without clear and near irrefutable demonstration is not allowed and amounts to a bannable offense. We don't care if the accused is an atheist or a rightist or a leftist or a Christian or etc.; they have a right not to have to face personal slander -all the more a constant stream of it- unless it is demonstrated beyond all possible reasonable doubt. Such below the belt and/or careless nonsense would be unethical and unacceptable in any good newspaper or courtroom without firm proof and so it should be in a professionally adjudicated debate forum.


« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 12:31:58 AM by xariskai » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #110 on: February 01, 2012, 02:05:46 AM »

Peter.....

Peter Everyone can See ,Even the Blind ,That
You Keep Hounding Fathers Posts, to Find Fault,
where there isn't Any...... police
 
Is Fr. Ambrose the only priest on this forum?

Stashko's spelling has always been a bit wayward. It's part of his posting character. He has simply omitted an apostrophe. Surely, PtA, with your superior skills, you should have spotted it.  
I wasn't even responding to his use of "fathers" instead of "father's".
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #111 on: February 01, 2012, 02:20:53 AM »

Peter.....

Peter Everyone can See ,Even the Blind ,That
You Keep Hounding Fathers Posts, to Find Fault,
where there isn't Any...... police
 
Actually, stashko, in this case I'm not finding fault with Fr. Ambrose. I didn't start this thread to state any suspicion I might have that Fr. Ambrose intentionally misrepresents Roman Catholic doctrine. I just note that he gets accused of this a lot, enough so that threads get derailed by these accusations. I'm finally giving him a chance to defend himself against these charges without threads getting derailed in the process.

And to you Catholic posters reading this thread, this is your chance to finally make your case against Fr. Ambrose, to "put up or shut up", as the saying goes. What evidence can you provide that Fr. Ambrose really does make a practice of intentionally misrepresenting your faith? Just repeating that charge against him means nothing if you can't prove it--besides that, repetition of your mantra is an intellectually lazy way to dodge your responsibility to offer a cogent defense of your faith. So I finally say to you: Prove your case against Fr. Ambrose by telling us what you really believe, or stop slandering him with the accusation that he intentionally misrepresents (IOW, lies about) your faith. The same goes for your accusations against Isa Almisry.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 03:44:13 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #112 on: February 01, 2012, 02:25:15 AM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three.  

No, Fr. Ambrose, it appears that you're misrepresenting me, and I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.

I took care to study your post so that I would not misrepresent you and I do not believe that I did.  I am very careful about these things with you since I know how persnickety you are about all things major and minor.

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #113 on: February 01, 2012, 02:27:41 AM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three.  

No, Fr. Ambrose, it appears that you're misrepresenting me, and I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.

I took care to study your post so that I would not misrepresent you and I do not believe that I did.  I am very careful about these things with you since I know how persnickety you are about all things major and minor.


Looking back at what I posted, I've come to recognize that you understand what I said better than I first thought you did.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #114 on: February 01, 2012, 02:45:57 AM »

I shall not bothering replying to the nasty posts which we anticipate....

Examples from this thread...

Papist: " If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise..."

In other words, call me a liar.

"Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching."

I don't.  In the cases to which Papist is referring he is ignorant of the beliefs of his Church prior to circa 1965.

Elijahmaria:  "I fail to see the need for Father Ambrose's hysteria over mortal sin."

The lady is way over the top. It's her way of negating what I wrote.  Hysteria?!

Wyatt:  "So are all Catholics going to hell, or just our clergy?"

The question constitutes the attribution of a belief to me which I have never thought or written.   It's in the same realm as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

J Michael (quoted by Peter J):  "So does that mean that calling someone "as wily as a fox and slippery as a greased eel" isn't engaging on truly meaningful level?"

Stupid insults.

But I am b~o~r~e~d by this.  I cannot be bothered looking for more of these things.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #115 on: February 01, 2012, 02:49:46 AM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three.  

No, Fr. Ambrose, it appears that you're misrepresenting me, and I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.

I took care to study your post so that I would not misrepresent you and I do not believe that I did.  I am very careful about these things with you since I know how persnickety you are about all things major and minor.


Looking back at what I posted, I've come to recognize that you understand what I said better than I first thought you did.

It *is* sometimes hard for us to understand you.  You often wrap what you say very carefully so that there is no possibility of comeback on you.  I wish I had your skill.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 02:50:30 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #116 on: February 01, 2012, 02:50:27 AM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three.  

No, Fr. Ambrose, it appears that you're misrepresenting me, and I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.

I took care to study your post so that I would not misrepresent you and I do not believe that I did.  I am very careful about these things with you since I know how persnickety you are about all things major and minor.


Looking back at what I posted, I've come to recognize that you understand what I said better than I first thought you did.

It is sometimes hard for us to understand you.  You often wrap what you say very carefully so that there is no possibility of comeback on you.  I wish I had your skill.
Grin
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #117 on: February 01, 2012, 04:32:00 AM »

Peter.....

Peter Everyone can See ,Even the Blind ,That
You Keep Hounding Fathers Posts, to Find Fault,
where there isn't Any...... police

Actually, stashko, in this case I'm not finding fault with Fr. Ambrose. I didn't start this thread to state any suspicion I might have that Fr. Ambrose intentionally misrepresents Roman Catholic doctrine. I just note that he gets accused of this a lot, enough so that threads get derailed by these accusations. I'm finally giving him a chance to defend himself against these charges without threads getting derailed in the process.

And to you Catholic posters reading this thread, this is your chance to finally make your case against Fr. Ambrose, to "put up or shut up", as the saying goes. What evidence can you provide that Fr. Ambrose really does make a practice of intentionally misrepresenting your faith? Just repeating that charge against him means nothing if you can't prove it--besides that, repetition of your mantra is an intellectually lazy way to dodge your responsibility to offer a cogent defense of your faith. So I finally say to you: Prove your case against Fr. Ambrose by telling us what you really believe, or stop slandering him with the accusation that he intentionally misrepresents (IOW, lies about) your faith. The same goes for your accusations against Isa Almisry.

Peter, is your advice really within the parameters of this list and permissible behaviour for forum members?   Username1 does not agree with you that there should be open slather on me.  Here are Username1’s instructions on this thread

Quote
Actually, starting a whole topic with an ad hominem against another member is just way beyond breaking the rules of oc.net. You are on post moderation for 40 days and I am locking this topic. There are other ways to start a topic. An example would be to start a discussion on a particular issue and not doing so attacking another poster, an Eastern Orthodox priest to boot on an Eastern Orthodox forum, would be a good start. -username! Orthodox-Catholic Moderator

I believe this is very a sensible decision and good advice by the Section moderator:

If this thread is permitted to continue, how will it be concluded?  Will a panel of my peers be convened, the priests who are moderators?  Will they judge the accusations against me and render a decision?  Or will the accusations simply be allowed to lie here, on a public forum, without a resolution?  The integrity of a priest is a vital necessity in his work.  If this thread has accusations that i am a liar (and you have already introduced that shocking possibility) and this is not resolved, it is more serious for me and my work in the Church than it would be for people in other occupations.

Overall I have to say that I find it unusual that you, a moderator, opened a thread which you surely must have realised has the potential to turn into a hate fest against a priest.  Mary's depiction of Fr Hardon as a "simple little priest"  will pale.


Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #118 on: February 01, 2012, 04:41:37 AM »

It seems that it is far too personal, and it should never be that way.

I don't always agree with what Fr. Ambrose says, but I would not attack him personally, only discuss what has been said. Plus this thread is completely against biblical and Christian principles. "Treat each other with respect and love" Remember.

No doubt that this will turn out nasty, better to have it locked again!  police

Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #119 on: February 01, 2012, 04:44:36 AM »

Quote
It seems to me that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying

Such claims are worthless unless they are shown rather than simply told.

A thread like this is shameful without proof. I think the proof should be shown or close the thread -lacking clear proof it is unwarranted, unethical slander.

Assertions of this kind seem to me to literally ***saturate*** this forum (Catholic/Orthodox discussion, against Orthodox clergy in particular -not just Fr. Ambrose) often with a clear lack of convincing evidence. It is my view that one Roman Catholic poster in particular who shall remain unnamed here is one of the worst offenders of this sort I have ever seen anywhere at anytime on any internet forum, and that is saying quite a lot.

In another forum which I administrate such constant slander and belittling of alleged (seldom proven) "ignorance," purposeful distortion" etc. of any member -especially primarily by one "prosecuting" member- without clear and near irrefutable demonstration is not allowed and amounts to a bannable offense. We don't care if the accused is an atheist or a rightist or a leftist or a Christian or etc.; they have a right not to have to face personal slander -all the more a constant stream of it- unless it is demonstrated beyond all possible reasonable doubt. Such below the belt and/or careless nonsense would be unethical and unacceptable in any good newspaper or courtroom without firm proof and so it should be in a professionally adjudicated debate forum.




Xariskai,

Thank you for what you have written.

I hope that the person who created this thread, PetertheAleut, for the purpose of discussing whether I am guilty of "Intentional misrepresentation" and lying will respond to you.
Logged
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: 1,625



« Reply #120 on: February 01, 2012, 04:55:16 AM »

Let's cool down for a second here. I'm afraid that this thread is becoming a source of contention for no good reason.
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 #121 on: February 01, 2012, 05:10:43 AM »

Let's cool down for a second here. I'm afraid that this thread is becoming a source of contention for no good reason.

I myself am not "hot" - but I am the defendant in this courtroom and need to defend myself.

People such as Witega, Xariskai, Stashko, LBK, and JR are not writing in heat.

As for this thread being a source of contention, that is inevitable.  It was created by PetertheAleut to receive and judge accusations that I am guilty of intentional misrepresentation and constantly lying.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #122 on: February 01, 2012, 05:27:09 AM »

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.


Witega, thank you for speaking in support of my honesty.

I am glad that PetertheAleut made your post the OP for this thread.  You are the flagship of my innocence.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #123 on: February 01, 2012, 09:22:36 AM »

Peter.....

Peter Everyone can See ,Even the Blind ,That
You Keep Hounding Fathers Posts, to Find Fault,
where there isn't Any...... police

Actually, stashko, in this case I'm not finding fault with Fr. Ambrose. I didn't start this thread to state any suspicion I might have that Fr. Ambrose intentionally misrepresents Roman Catholic doctrine. I just note that he gets accused of this a lot, enough so that threads get derailed by these accusations. I'm finally giving him a chance to defend himself against these charges without threads getting derailed in the process.

And to you Catholic posters reading this thread, this is your chance to finally make your case against Fr. Ambrose, to "put up or shut up", as the saying goes. What evidence can you provide that Fr. Ambrose really does make a practice of intentionally misrepresenting your faith? Just repeating that charge against him means nothing if you can't prove it--besides that, repetition of your mantra is an intellectually lazy way to dodge your responsibility to offer a cogent defense of your faith. So I finally say to you: Prove your case against Fr. Ambrose by telling us what you really believe, or stop slandering him with the accusation that he intentionally misrepresents (IOW, lies about) your faith. The same goes for your accusations against Isa Almisry.

Peter, is your advice really within the parameters of this list and permissible behaviour for forum members?   Username1 does not agree with you that there should be open slather on me.  Here are Username1’s instructions on this thread

Quote
Actually, starting a whole topic with an ad hominem against another member is just way beyond breaking the rules of oc.net. You are on post moderation for 40 days and I am locking this topic. There are other ways to start a topic. An example would be to start a discussion on a particular issue and not doing so attacking another poster, an Eastern Orthodox priest to boot on an Eastern Orthodox forum, would be a good start. -username! Orthodox-Catholic Moderator

I believe this is very a sensible decision and good advice by the Section moderator:

If this thread is permitted to continue, how will it be concluded?  Will a panel of my peers be convened, the priests who are moderators?  Will they judge the accusations against me and render a decision?  Or will the accusations simply be allowed to lie here, on a public forum, without a resolution?  The integrity of a priest is a vital necessity in his work.  If this thread has accusations that i am a liar (and you have already introduced that shocking possibility) and this is not resolved, it is more serious for me and my work in the Church than it would be for people in other occupations.

Overall I have to say that I find it unusual that you, a moderator, opened a thread which you surely must have realised has the potential to turn into a hate fest against a priest.  Mary's depiction of Fr Hardon as a "simple little priest"  will pale.

Hi Fr. Ambrose. Just to add to my 2 cents, I would say that those accusations were on a public forum even before this thread existed. This thread gives people to challenge those accusations, as for example xariskai did:

Such claims are worthless unless they are shown rather than simply told.

A thread like this is shameful without proof. I think the proof should be shown or close the thread -lacking clear proof it is unwarranted, unethical slander.

Assertions of this kind seem to me to literally ***saturate*** this forum (Catholic/Orthodox discussion, against Orthodox clergy in particular -not just Fr. Ambrose) often with a clear lack of convincing evidence. It is my view that one Roman Catholic poster in particular who shall remain unnamed here is one of the worst offenders of this sort I have ever seen anywhere at anytime on any internet forum, and that is saying quite a lot.

In another forum which I administrate such constant slander and belittling of alleged (seldom proven) "ignorance," purposeful distortion" etc. of any member -especially primarily by one "prosecuting" member- without clear and near irrefutable demonstration is not allowed and amounts to a bannable offense. We don't care if the accused is an atheist or a rightist or a leftist or a Christian or etc.; they have a right not to have to face personal slander -all the more a constant stream of it- unless it is demonstrated beyond all possible reasonable doubt. Such below the belt and/or careless nonsense would be unethical and unacceptable in any good newspaper or courtroom without firm proof and so it should be in a professionally adjudicated debate forum.



Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #124 on: February 01, 2012, 10:34:51 AM »

Peter.....

Peter Everyone can See ,Even the Blind ,That
You Keep Hounding Fathers Posts, to Find Fault,
where there isn't Any...... police

Actually, stashko, in this case I'm not finding fault with Fr. Ambrose. I didn't start this thread to state any suspicion I might have that Fr. Ambrose intentionally misrepresents Roman Catholic doctrine. I just note that he gets accused of this a lot, enough so that threads get derailed by these accusations. I'm finally giving him a chance to defend himself against these charges without threads getting derailed in the process.

And to you Catholic posters reading this thread, this is your chance to finally make your case against Fr. Ambrose, to "put up or shut up", as the saying goes. What evidence can you provide that Fr. Ambrose really does make a practice of intentionally misrepresenting your faith? Just repeating that charge against him means nothing if you can't prove it--besides that, repetition of your mantra is an intellectually lazy way to dodge your responsibility to offer a cogent defense of your faith. So I finally say to you: Prove your case against Fr. Ambrose by telling us what you really believe, or stop slandering him with the accusation that he intentionally misrepresents (IOW, lies about) your faith. The same goes for your accusations against Isa Almisry.

Peter, is your advice really within the parameters of this list and permissible behaviour for forum members?   Username1 does not agree with you that there should be open slather on me.  Here are Username1’s instructions on this thread

Quote
Actually, starting a whole topic with an ad hominem against another member is just way beyond breaking the rules of oc.net. You are on post moderation for 40 days and I am locking this topic. There are other ways to start a topic. An example would be to start a discussion on a particular issue and not doing so attacking another poster, an Eastern Orthodox priest to boot on an Eastern Orthodox forum, would be a good start. -username! Orthodox-Catholic Moderator

I believe this is very a sensible decision and good advice by the Section moderator:

If this thread is permitted to continue, how will it be concluded?  Will a panel of my peers be convened, the priests who are moderators?  Will they judge the accusations against me and render a decision?  Or will the accusations simply be allowed to lie here, on a public forum, without a resolution?  The integrity of a priest is a vital necessity in his work.  If this thread has accusations that i am a liar (and you have already introduced that shocking possibility) and this is not resolved, it is more serious for me and my work in the Church than it would be for people in other occupations.

Overall I have to say that I find it unusual that you, a moderator, opened a thread which you surely must have realised has the potential to turn into a hate fest against a priest.  Mary's depiction of Fr Hardon as a "simple little priest"  will pale.
username! and I are in perfect agreement on this subject, and I find your apparent attempt to make it look as if there's a rift between us an unethical manipulation of this discussion. If you think we may be working against each other in our official roles as moderators, then the proper way to address this is via the "Report to Moderator" function, not through public discussion such as this.

That said, people have always been permitted to criticize the behavior of others on the public forum, to include making accusations against you, that you intentionally misrepresent them, even if these accusations are unfounded. However, you are the only one who ever makes it appear as if these charges against your behavior are actually attacks against your person. There is a difference. When people intimate that you may be misrepresenting them, that you may be lying, they are merely criticizing your behavior; they are not calling you a liar. If anyone were truly to call you a liar, then that would be a personal attack and would incur disciplinary action against said poster. No one's calling you a liar--if anyone does, he will be punished for ad hominem--so please stop trying to blow this thread up into the hate fest you fear it will become.

Additionally, as Peter J said above, the accusations have already been made of your behavior. I'm not asking anyone to post new accusations. I'm just asking them to substantiate the accusations they've already made. And if they cannot prove their accusations true, what do you have to fear? You will be exonerated. I'm putting our Catholic posters in the hot seat here, not you.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 10:54:30 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,274



WWW
« Reply #125 on: February 01, 2012, 10:51:48 AM »


Folks, I think you've completely misunderstood the purpose of this thread.  It's not meant to be spiteful or hurtful to anyone.

It has branched off a previous thread that was getting seriously derailed and off topic, due to people arguing points with Fr. Ambrose.  Neither party was "wrong", however, the discussion had nothing to do with the OP of that thread.

This thread is where one should go, if in the course of discussing a matter revolving around the Opening Post of a thread, another subject comes up where people don't see eye to eye, and accuse each other of misrepresenting their beliefs.

Therefore, instead of completely derailing a thread, head over hear and rehash the particular disagreement and have at it.....leaving the original topic to evolve without bickering and misunderstanding....so, that if someone one day wishes to read about the original topic, they don't have to pour over pages of he said, she said....and can focus only on the topic of interest.

Please, believe me that nobody here wishes anyone any harm.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #126 on: February 01, 2012, 02:11:59 PM »


Folks, I think you've completely misunderstood the purpose of this thread.  It's not meant to be spiteful or hurtful to anyone.

It has branched off a previous thread that was getting seriously derailed and off topic, due to people arguing points with Fr. Ambrose.  Neither party was "wrong", however, the discussion had nothing to do with the OP of that thread.

This thread is where one should go, if in the course of discussing a matter revolving around the Opening Post of a thread, another subject comes up where people don't see eye to eye, and accuse each other of misrepresenting their beliefs.

Therefore, instead of completely derailing a thread, head over hear and rehash the particular disagreement and have at it.....leaving the original topic to evolve without bickering and misunderstanding....so, that if someone one day wishes to read about the original topic, they don't have to pour over pages of he said, she said....and can focus only on the topic of interest.

Please, believe me that nobody here wishes anyone any harm.



I am glad that has been cleared up! I just didn't want it to turn in to a vigilante squad  Wink
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,431


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #127 on: February 01, 2012, 02:25:10 PM »

Quote
...people have always been permitted to criticize the behavior of others on the public forum, to include making accusations against you, that you intentionally misrepresent them, even if these accusations are unfounded.
Unsubstantiated allegations against persons are allowed here even if they are unfounded?

That is absolutely awful!

Such a policy almost begs for endless off-topic personal wrangling and diversion, and very unpleasant discussions of the sort which can make *all* participants look (or feel) bad whether they are right or wrong.

Many forums simply do not allow this kind of nonsense, e.g.

>Take on the idea, not the messenger. Avoid personal attacks, personal accusations, or personal insults, whether regarding personal knowledge, personal style, or any other personal attribute.

>Do not make slanderous or libelous posts. Knowingly making false claims about an individual, company, or organization is expressly prohibited.

>Members are allowed to attack positions, but not persons who are fellow members. Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. If you have been contacted by staff about personal attacks or are upset when posting try to avoid using personal pronouns or mentioning other members by name; instead try phrases like "the above position is inaccurate because..." rather than something like "You ignorant bozo, you know nothing!"


« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 02:34:43 PM by xariskai » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #128 on: February 01, 2012, 03:45:09 PM »

Can I write this/ask this without being accused of accusing Fr. Ambrose of lying?  Well, I guess we'll see....

In reply #55 above, Fr. Ambrose writes: "Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel"

In the following reply, #56, Wyatt writes: "Violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church? How so? I've never read anything in Scripture, the Catechism, the Bible, or any other Catholic text that condones killing even those considered by the Church to be schismatics, heretics, or apostates. If you mean that some Popes or some theologians personally believed that such actions were justified theologically, that is much different than violence being formally received into the theology of the Catholic Church. What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin.""

From my reading of the thread, Fr. Ambrose never really addressed Wyatt's comment other than to state how this or that Pope used violence as a means to an end.  He never referenced any Catholic theological sources or works, e.g. Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, any Catechism, writings of the saints, Vatican documents, etc. wherein it could be said to be clear that "violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church" and thereby institutionalized.

Now...*is* what Fr. Ambrose wrote a misrepresentation?  *Or*, has he just failed to cite incontrovertible evidence of his assertion?  In any event, would you please, Fr., show us precisely where violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church in a way that it has become institutionalized?

I, as well as probably everyone else here, am well aware of violence perpetrated by sinful (and sometimes repentant) and very imperfect human beings that has accompanied the Church (Catholic *and* Orthodox) as it has waxed and waned throughout history.  I'm sure we can *all* find examples wherein members of the Catholic Church and members of the Orthodox Church committed violent acts.  This, however, is a far, far cry from violence being institutionalized in the theology of the Catholic or any other Church.


I'm posting this here because the replies referenced are on this thread.  If the mods want to move it, I certainly have no problem with that.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 03:54:41 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 (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: February 01, 2012, 04:15:58 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three. 

No, Fr. Ambrose, it appears that you're misrepresenting me, and I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.

The above words from PetertheAleut are an ominous example of the dangers and injustices we may expect his thread.

He accuses me:

1.  “it appears that you're misrepresenting me”

2.  “I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.”

Then a few messages later he is obliged to withdraw:

Looking back at what I posted, I've come to recognize that you understand what I said better than I first thought you did.

So we see that even the man who started this thread,in order that people may discuss my faults and a judgement brought upon me,is unable to judge me accurately. Now PetertherAleut is a long-time and very experienced moderator, he prides himself on his use of logic and discernment...... so if such a person gets it wrong, well.... do the rest of my accusers have even half his acumen?

Btw, I greatly appreciate, dear Peter, that you acted with integrity and admitted that your first message about me was not accurate.  Thank you!  But it is as I say a fine example of the injustice one may anticipate from this thread and others may not have your honesty in admitting they are wrong.

And a second btw, has it ever been allowed before on the forum that a kind of public tribunal is set up by a moderator inviting criticism of an Orthodox priest from forum members? 

Logged
primuspilus
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,521


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #130 on: February 01, 2012, 04:25:57 PM »

For the record, I think this thread is completely stupid. How about we not throw one member to the wolves for everyone to take a bite off of? It's disgraceful.

Why not make another thread stating, "Hey let us give reasons why <user> is a moron?" or "Is <user> a liar?"

On the course of threads, we will on occasion, decend to attacks. Such things happen. So do people be called out for saying things that are incorrect, or to defend a position.That is the nature of what we do here. However, to single out one user in this fasion is simply pathetic. I say the whole thread be deleted.

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #131 on: February 01, 2012, 04:27:06 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three. 

No, Fr. Ambrose, it appears that you're misrepresenting me, and I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.

The above words from PetertheAleut are an ominous example of the dangers and injustices we may expect his thread.

He accuses me:

1.  “it appears that you're misrepresenting me”

2.  “I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.”

Then a few messages later he is obliged to withdraw:

Looking back at what I posted, I've come to recognize that you understand what I said better than I first thought you did.

So we see that even the man who started this thread,in order that people may discuss my faults and a judgement brought upon me,is unable to judge me accurately. Now PetertherAleut is a long-time and very experienced moderator, he prides himself on his use of logic and discernment...... so if such a person gets it wrong, well.... do the rest of my accusers have even half his acumen?

Btw, I greatly appreciate, dear Peter, that you acted with integrity and admitted that your first message about me was not accurate.  Thank you!  But it is as I say a fine example of the injustice one may anticipate from this thread and others may not have your honesty in admitting they are wrong.

And a second btw, has it ever been allowed before on the forum that a kind of public tribunal is set up by a moderator inviting criticism of an Orthodox priest from forum members? 


In all honesty, Fr. Ambrose, I think you take yourself and this thread way too seriously.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,726


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #132 on: February 01, 2012, 04:28:14 PM »

For the record, I think this thread is completely stupid. How about we not throw one member to the wolves for everyone to take a bite off of? It's disgraceful.

Why not make another thread stating, "Hey let us give reasons why <user> is a moron?" or "Is <user> a liar?"

On the course of threads, we will on occasion, decend to attacks. Such things happen. So do people be called out for saying things that are incorrect, or to defend a position.That is the nature of what we do here. However, to single out one user in this fasion is simply pathetic. I say the whole thread be deleted.

PP
Refer back to Liza's comments, for she understands the purpose of this thread:


Folks, I think you've completely misunderstood the purpose of this thread.  It's not meant to be spiteful or hurtful to anyone.

It has branched off a previous thread that was getting seriously derailed and off topic, due to people arguing points with Fr. Ambrose.  Neither party was "wrong", however, the discussion had nothing to do with the OP of that thread.

This thread is where one should go, if in the course of discussing a matter revolving around the Opening Post of a thread, another subject comes up where people don't see eye to eye, and accuse each other of misrepresenting their beliefs.

Therefore, instead of completely derailing a thread, head over hear and rehash the particular disagreement and have at it.....leaving the original topic to evolve without bickering and misunderstanding....so, that if someone one day wishes to read about the original topic, they don't have to pour over pages of he said, she said....and can focus only on the topic of interest.

Please, believe me that nobody here wishes anyone any harm.


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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: February 01, 2012, 04:38:08 PM »

However, you are the only one who ever makes it appear as if these charges against your behaviour are actually attacks against your person. There is a difference.

There is not.    I am being accused here of dishonesty, of intentional misrepresentation and of lying (the last two your words.)

To separate my person from my behaviour is nonsense.    “Yes, we have a wonderful priest in our parish Fr Ambrose, but he is dishonest and he intentionally misrepresents facts and people and he is given to lying."

Or,  "We have a wonderful President, but he is dishonest and he intentionally misrepresents facts and people and he is given to lying.”

Quote
When people intimate that you may be misrepresenting them, that you may be lying, they are merely criticizing your behavior; they are not calling you a liar. If anyone were truly to call you a liar, then that would be a personal attack and would incur disciplinary action against said poster. No one's calling you a liar--if anyone does, he will be punished for ad hominem--so please stop trying to blow this thread up into the hate fest you fear it will become.

You have already said that I am seen as given to lying.  If that is not tantamount to calling me a liar then what is?  You may like to play verbal games, claiming that stating Father Ambrose consistently lies is not the same as calling him a liar.  I see it as a distinction without a difference.  I also see it as an attack on my person and my reputation and I rather shocked that it is taking place publically on this forum.

Quote
It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

Iow, you have made the focus of this thread the contention that I lie and consistently lie.

Quote
so please stop trying to blow this thread up into the hate fest you fear it will become.

I am not doing that.  You misjudge me, again - as you did in message 103.

Logged
primuspilus
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,521


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #134 on: February 01, 2012, 04:41:21 PM »

Quote
Folks, I think you've completely misunderstood the purpose of this thread.  It's not meant to be spiteful or hurtful to anyone.

It has branched off a previous thread that was getting seriously derailed and off topic, due to people arguing points with Fr. Ambrose.  Neither party was "wrong", however, the discussion had nothing to do with the OP of that thread.

This thread is where one should go, if in the course of discussing a matter revolving around the Opening Post of a thread, another subject comes up where people don't see eye to eye, and accuse each other of misrepresenting their beliefs.

Therefore, instead of completely derailing a thread, head over hear and rehash the particular disagreement and have at it.....leaving the original topic to evolve without bickering and misunderstanding....so, that if someone one day wishes to read about the original topic, they don't have to pour over pages of he said, she said....and can focus only on the topic of interest.

Please, believe me that nobody here wishes anyone any harm.
Sorry, to me thats like pulling someone's pants down in a crowd to make a joke, but not meaning to embarass said person. It is what it is.


I see where Liza said this is:
Quote
another subject comes up where people don't see eye to eye, and accuse each other of misrepresenting their beliefs
"each other" indeed.

I hate this PC crap. Intentional misrepresentation is called a lie where Im from. It stemed from Fr. Ambrose's "Intentional misrepresentation"  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 04:42:17 PM by primuspilus » 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #135 on: February 01, 2012, 04:48:35 PM »

The title of this thread is interesting, to say the least  Wink.

If one looks up the word "lie" in a dictionary or thesaurus, one of the synonyms listed is....."misrepresentation".

I wonder what, precisely, the mods had in mind when naming this?
Exactly what you think I had in mind. It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread so it doesn't derail the thread from which I split this one.

Hmmmm.... I think it is very odd to have a thread focused on discussing whether a forum member is lying, and even more so when the member is an Orthodox priest.

You had all better consider yourselves challenged to prove this contention, at least the forum members who agree with what Peter has explained.

1. Just what facets of the Roman Catholic faith does Father Ambrose lie about....?

2.  Substantiate this with links to his messages.

Peter, I suppose there is the possibility that I am totally misunderstaning and you are raising the question of whether the Catholics are intentionally misrepresenting me?  But even so, it is still a very odd and somewhat intrusive thread and not a little destructive of the dignity of the prieshood, imo.


No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics. It's about time we had a thread where we could hash out these questions specifically and from both sides without derailing more threads.

In that case, hash it out, dear man.  Produce the evidence.  Link to the messages in threads which I have derailed by misrepresenting the Roman Catholic faith.

Threads which you have derailed? That isn't what PtA said:
Quote
No, Fr. Ambrose, many threads have been derailed by Roman Catholic allegations that you're misrepresenting their faith in your anti-Catholic apologetics, and that certain Catholics actively misrepresent our Orthodox faith in their apologetics.

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three. 

No, Fr. Ambrose, it appears that you're misrepresenting me, and I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.

The above words from PetertheAleut are an ominous example of the dangers and injustices we may expect his thread.

He accuses me:

1.  “it appears that you're misrepresenting me”

2.  “I suspect that you're doing so intentionally.”

Then a few messages later he is obliged to withdraw:

Looking back at what I posted, I've come to recognize that you understand what I said better than I first thought you did.

So we see that even the man who started this thread,in order that people may discuss my faults and a judgement brought upon me,is unable to judge me accurately. Now PetertherAleut is a long-time and very experienced moderator, he prides himself on his use of logic and discernment...... so if such a person gets it wrong, well.... do the rest of my accusers have even half his acumen?

Btw, I greatly appreciate, dear Peter, that you acted with integrity and admitted that your first message about me was not accurate.  Thank you!  But it is as I say a fine example of the injustice one may anticipate from this thread and others may not have your honesty in admitting they are wrong.

And a second btw, has it ever been allowed before on the forum that a kind of public tribunal is set up by a moderator inviting criticism of an Orthodox priest from forum members? 

As the other Peter put it, Catholic posters are in the hot seat here, not Fr. Ambrose.

Nevertheless, if Fr. Ambrose doesn't see it that way, perhaps the purpose of this thread has already been defeated.

 Undecided
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #136 on: February 01, 2012, 04:50:49 PM »

Please, believe me that nobody here wishes anyone any harm.

Liza, you are wrong.  Wish it or not, already there is harm underway from this thread of PetertheAleut's.   I've had an e-mail from an American priest who runs a clergy list.  "We all thought that you were an OK guy but we hear that the staff on Orthodox Christianity Net view you as a liar.  What's up, Father?  Need any testimonials from your brothers?"

Quote
It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

Logged
primuspilus
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,521


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #137 on: February 01, 2012, 04:52:26 PM »

Quote
As the other Peter put it, Catholic posters are in the hot seat here, not Fr. Ambrose.

Nevertheless, if Fr. Ambrose doesn't see it that way, perhaps the purpose of this thread has already been defeated.
I've followed this entire thread and I took it as an attack on Fr. Ambrose. Perhaps you're correct. I apologize if I am completely wrong about the thread, but that is simply how I took it.

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
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,274



WWW
« Reply #138 on: February 01, 2012, 04:54:57 PM »

Quote
Folks, I think you've completely misunderstood the purpose of this thread.  It's not meant to be spiteful or hurtful to anyone.

It has branched off a previous thread that was getting seriously derailed and off topic, due to people arguing points with Fr. Ambrose.  Neither party was "wrong", however, the discussion had nothing to do with the OP of that thread.

This thread is where one should go, if in the course of discussing a matter revolving around the Opening Post of a thread, another subject comes up where people don't see eye to eye, and accuse each other of misrepresenting their beliefs.

Therefore, instead of completely derailing a thread, head over hear and rehash the particular disagreement and have at it.....leaving the original topic to evolve without bickering and misunderstanding....so, that if someone one day wishes to read about the original topic, they don't have to pour over pages of he said, she said....and can focus only on the topic of interest.

Please, believe me that nobody here wishes anyone any harm.
Sorry, to me thats like pulling someone's pants down in a crowd to make a joke, but not meaning to embarass said person. It is what it is.


I see where Liza said this is:
Quote
another subject comes up where people don't see eye to eye, and accuse each other of misrepresenting their beliefs
"each other" indeed.

I hate this PC crap. Intentional misrepresentation is called a lie where Im from. It stemed from Fr. Ambrose's "Intentional misrepresentation"  Roll Eyes



Hold on, primuspilus.

I respect your desire to defend Fr. Ambrose, however, you are barking up the wrong tree.  You have no need to defend him against me, as I have never said a word against him.

Once again, open your eyes and you will realize this thread was branched off another one which was getting lost over all the bickering.  Neither I, nor PTA, has said that this thread is for attacking IrishHermit.  In fact, it is here so he can openly defend himself from accusations, while NOT derailing the previoius topic of the original thread.

This thread is NOT for open attack on IrishHermit, nor anyone else.  It is simply here so he can defend himself against others, from attacks that were already occurring against him.
Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #139 on: February 01, 2012, 04:58:58 PM »

We have disdcussed, more than once, the theology of the Angelic Doctor, which not only advises but strongly recommends that religious dissidents be killed.  He even teaches that heretics who repent and return to Catholicism should still be given by the Church to be killed by the secular powers.

This is institutionlised murder taught as theology by Aquinas, the greastest Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church.  Because we have discuused this before I assumed Catholics here would be aware of it.

Can I write this/ask this without being accused of accusing Fr. Ambrose of lying?  Well, I guess we'll see....

In reply #55 above, Fr. Ambrose writes: "Now, as I think I pointed out in an earlier posts, there is an immense difference between Christians who fall into violence from time to time thereby sinfully vitiating the teaching of Christ and Christians such as Thomas Aquinas and some of the Popes who institutionalise violence by incorporating it into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The first type of Christians are sinners, the latter type are perverters of the Gospel"

In the following reply, #56, Wyatt writes: "Violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church? How so? I've never read anything in Scripture, the Catechism, the Bible, or any other Catholic text that condones killing even those considered by the Church to be schismatics, heretics, or apostates. If you mean that some Popes or some theologians personally believed that such actions were justified theologically, that is much different than violence being formally received into the theology of the Catholic Church. What it sounds like to me is another case of "when Eastern Orthodox Christians sin it is less grievous than when Roman Catholics sin.""

From my reading of the thread, Fr. Ambrose never really addressed Wyatt's comment other than to state how this or that Pope used violence as a means to an end.  He never referenced any Catholic theological sources or works, e.g. Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, any Catechism, writings of the saints, Vatican documents, etc. wherein it could be said to be clear that "violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church" and thereby institutionalized.

Now...*is* what Fr. Ambrose wrote a misrepresentation?  *Or*, has he just failed to cite incontrovertible evidence of his assertion?  In any event, would you please, Fr., show us precisely where violence is incorporated into the theology of the Catholic Church in a way that it has become institutionalized?

I, as well as probably everyone else here, am well aware of violence perpetrated by sinful (and sometimes repentant) and very imperfect human beings that has accompanied the Church (Catholic *and* Orthodox) as it has waxed and waned throughout history.  I'm sure we can *all* find examples wherein members of the Catholic Church and members of the Orthodox Church committed violent acts.  This, however, is a far, far cry from violence being institutionalized in the theology of the Catholic or any other Church.


I'm posting this here because the replies referenced are on this thread.  If the mods want to move it, I certainly have no problem with that.

Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #140 on: February 01, 2012, 05:02:25 PM »

My sense is that the threads get heated when the following happens:

- Poster X says something about Roman Catholicism.

- Fr. Ambrose posts a source or states something from a RC source that contradicts Poster X’s statement.

- Poster X reinterprets Fr. Ambrose’s source either by asserting that the source is invalid or that it means something other than what Fr. Ambrose thinks that it means.

- Fr. Ambrose assures Poster X that what he posted means exactly what it says, and then he gets annoyed that his evidence is being incorrectly dismissed or falsely reinterpreted.

- Fr. Ambrose challenges Poster X to prove his/her point with valid sources.

- Poster X suddenly can’t remember/access source, or provides a source that is too long to read and claims he/she does not have the time to identify the ‘money quote.’

- Fr. Ambrose further pushes Poster X.

- Other posters object to Fr. Ambrose’s pushing.  Meanwhile, Poster X begins to complain that the attacks are ad hominem.

- Poster X then claims Fr. Ambrose is purposefully twisting RC doctrine because he refuses to believe Poster X’s position.

- Fr. Ambrose pushes further, and Poster X eventually admits that the other sources are valid, but that RC doctrine it still not as Fr. Ambrose’s sources say, but rather he is misreading them.



Well, that's how it appears to me.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
primuspilus
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,521


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #141 on: February 01, 2012, 05:08:39 PM »

Quote
Hold on, primuspilus.

I respect your desire to defend Fr. Ambrose, however, you are barking up the wrong tree.  You have no need to defend him against me, as I have never said a word against him.

Once again, open your eyes and you will realize this thread was branched off another one which was getting lost over all the bickering.  Neither I, nor PTA, has said that this thread is for attacking IrishHermit.  In fact, it is here so he can openly defend himself from accusations, while NOT derailing the previoius topic of the original thread.

This thread is NOT for open attack on IrishHermit, nor anyone else.  It is simply here so he can defend himself against others, from attacks that were already occurring against him
My apologies if I read too far into it. It was not my intent.

My sense is that the threads get heated when the following happens:

- Poster X says something about Roman Catholicism.

- Fr. Ambrose posts a source or states something from a RC source that contradicts Poster X’s statement.

- Poster X reinterprets Fr. Ambrose’s source either by asserting that the source is invalid or that it means something other than what Fr. Ambrose thinks that it means.

- Fr. Ambrose assures Poster X that what he posted means exactly what it says, and then he gets annoyed that his evidence is being incorrectly dismissed or falsely reinterpreted.

- Fr. Ambrose challenges Poster X to prove his/her point with valid sources.

- Poster X suddenly can’t remember/access source, or provides a source that is too long to read and claims he/she does not have the time to identify the ‘money quote.’

- Fr. Ambrose further pushes Poster X.

- Other posters object to Fr. Ambrose’s pushing.  Meanwhile, Poster X begins to complain that the attacks are ad hominem.

- Poster X then claims Fr. Ambrose is purposefully twisting RC doctrine because he refuses to believe Poster X’s position.

- Fr. Ambrose pushes further, and Poster X eventually admits that the other sources are valid, but that RC doctrine it still not as Fr. Ambrose’s sources say, but rather he is misreading them.



Well, that's how it appears to me.

See, thats what I thought.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #142 on: February 01, 2012, 05:09:04 PM »

In all honesty, Fr. Ambrose, I think you take yourself and this thread way too seriously.

Yes, I value my reputation.

This thread is already starting to become known in Orthodox circles
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #143 on: February 01, 2012, 05:11:08 PM »

I see that you are right.  Peter has said

1. that Roman Catholics have derailed many threads.

2. the cause of their derailing many threads has been my misrepresentation of their faith.

Has anybody so far proved this?  After all, this thread is now on page three.   

You've got #1 right: Many RCs derail threads.  You've got #2 wrong: PtA said that the reason for derailing is that they are accusing you of misrepresenting; he did not say that you actually have been misrepresenting their faith.

Quite frankly, it is a good thing that this thread exists.  Since, IMO, you don't misrepresent the RC faith, this thread will serve two purposes:
1. It will eventually display to RC's (and everyone else) that they cannot continue to accuse you of misrepresenting Roman Catholicism, and
2. It will keep threads from being derailed (i.e. forcing them to address the actual points you and others bring forth) by serving as a location for the (as yet unfounded) accusations against you to be moved to.

Since you've posted nothing to smear your good name, there is no ammunition for harm, and since their accusations against you are baseless, there is plenty of ammunition for good.


Liza, you are wrong.  Wish it or not, already there is harm underway from this thread of PetertheAleut's.   I've had an e-mail from an American priest who runs a clergy list.  "We all thought that you were an OK guy but we hear that the staff on Orthodox Christianity Net view you as a liar.  What's up, Father?  Need any testimonials from your brothers?" 

The thread is not PeterTheAleut's - it belongs to the forum community.

"we hear that the staff on Orthodox Christianity Net view you as a liar" - Not true.  Someone's been lying to them (or they don't understand tone, grammar, and syntax well).  The thread is an opportunity for your opponents to stop insinuating and start producing evidence - an opportunity which they will fail in, and in which you will be vindicated.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 05:13:10 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,274



WWW
« Reply #144 on: February 01, 2012, 05:11:53 PM »

Please, believe me that nobody here wishes anyone any harm.

Liza, you are wrong.  Wish it or not, already there is harm underway from this thread of PetertheAleut's.   I've had an e-mail from an American priest who runs a clergy list.  "We all thought that you were an OK guy but we hear that the staff on Orthodox Christianity Net view you as a liar.  What's up, Father?  Need any testimonials from your brothers?"

Quote
It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......



Father, I am truly sorry to hear this.  

As a "staff" member myself, I assure you that everyone is viewed equally and with respect.  

It is possible that some individuals will not always agree with you, nor you with them, however, that is unfortunately the nature of a discussion forum.  This is a democracy and everyone has a voice, and will be heard.

This thread isn't even a week old, yet it seems to have traveled the world and back.  I am saddened to hear that an American priest would judge you on heresay of a week's old thread on some Internet Forum.

Father, if you feel that you are being wronged by an individual or post, please utilize the "report to moderator" option in the lower right hand corner, and I promise you that your report will be given equal time and treatment, and will be handled just like every other report.  If you don't report an issue, it will only fester and rot.  

I know I wish you no harm, nor anyone else.  

Folks, let's try to put our animosities behind us and move forward with an open mind, so we can truly discuss the issues that interest us.  All this anger and suspicion is only barricading us, and hindering our growth.  We can't possibly learn from each other if we put up all these barriers.

I for one love this forum because I can and do learn a lot from each and everyone of you.


Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #145 on: February 01, 2012, 05:20:44 PM »

As the other Peter put it, Catholic posters are in the hot seat here, not Fr. Ambrose.

Dear Peter,  here is the purpose of this thread:

It seems to me, the moderator who named this thread, that many of our Catholic posters consistently accuse Fr. Ambrose of intentionally misrepresenting your faith--IOW, of lying. I'm simply making that contention the focus of this thread......

This thread has been created by a moderator with the purpose of discussing whether Fr Ambrose is consistently lying.
Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,274



WWW
« Reply #146 on: February 01, 2012, 05:26:37 PM »

...but, Father, it was created to thwart the RC's and their accusations against you, not to accuse you.

It was meant to have them try to explain in this post why they stated you were misrepresenting the RC Faith.

The impetus here was on them to do some explaining of their accusations.  

If anyone was getting "accused" here, it was the RC posters who were attacking your beliefs, Father.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 05:27:26 PM by LizaSymonenko » Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #147 on: February 01, 2012, 05:29:14 PM »

- Fr. Ambrose assures Poster X that what he posted means exactly what it says, and then he gets annoyed that his evidence is being incorrectly dismissed or falsely reinterpreted.


Father,  I am fairly old now and don't have emotions to waste, and certainly not on internet forums.   laugh
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 05:38:21 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Manalive
Иоанн
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Posts: 289


It is later than we think.


« Reply #148 on: February 01, 2012, 05:31:55 PM »

I am a little shocked at the treatment of a Priest on this thread and that there would be an actual thread devoted to hashing out whether he is guilty of misrepresenting the faith of another group. Not only misrepresenting it, but doing so intentionally. "Grilling" a priest by starting a thread on whether he is intentionally deceiving is calling into question his priestly vocation, which is quite wrong. Fr. Ambrose should not have to be called into question like this and I hope no harm will come upon his name.
Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom
primuspilus
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,521


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #149 on: February 01, 2012, 05:32:17 PM »

...but, Father, it was created to thwart the RC's and their accusations against you, not to accuse you.

It was meant to have them try to explain in this post why they stated you were misrepresenting the RC Faith.

The impetus here was on them to do some explaining of their accusations.  

If anyone was getting "accused" here, it was the RC posters who were attacking your beliefs, Father.
I believe you, and I think the intention was right, but in execution, really turned wrong. Lets just all say "I apologize, nobody is a liar" and lock this thing. So we can go back to attacking everyone  laugh

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: February 01, 2012, 05:37:17 PM »

Quite frankly, it is a good thing that this thread exists.  Since, IMO, you don't misrepresent the RC faith, this thread will serve two purposes:

I have been scandalised by Mary's attempts to attack Orthodoxy on OC.net, with allegations that we allow abortion, sexual liberalism, hypocrisy about the Immaculate Conception (we always believed it, now we deny it) , etc.  As this aspect of her apologetics became apparent to me I realised that what she writes needs opposing.  It may be beneficial to open a parallel thread to this one, examining Mary's misrepresentations of Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 05:39:36 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #151 on: February 01, 2012, 05:44:16 PM »

...but, Father, it was created to thwart the RC's and their accusations against you, not to accuse you.
.

Then let me say...  I have known myself for 65 years.  I am well acquainted with myself.  I am a monk and part of my rule is a daily examination of conscience.  I know I am not a liar.

Roman Catholics who call me a liar are liars.
Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,274



WWW
« Reply #152 on: February 01, 2012, 05:47:34 PM »


Agreed.   Wink

It's funny....but, all of a sudden I am not seeing any of the RC's posting anything against you, Father.

Perhaps, because they were called out, they now hesitate in their accusations.
Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #153 on: February 01, 2012, 05:50:47 PM »

Don't be scandalized by Mary, Father.  It is pretty apparent from the sources provided in your discussions with her that she often can't even accurately represent her own church, which is why she routinely insults her own bishops and clergy when they don't suit her particular theological opinions.  She did this with the medieval bishops and indulgences, and she again did this with Fr. Harden.

Sadly, Mary appears to be ruining her own reputation in the eyes of many.  So far, I think you've handling it fairly well with slamming her too hard.

I can also vouch for the fact that, when Mary started posting here, you asked me to be charitable.  I tried, but she was not amenable to such even though I have no animosity to the RCC and have tried to express my admiration of them even in disagreement.

Too often, good manners are confused with unqualified agreement.


Quite frankly, it is a good thing that this thread exists.  Since, IMO, you don't misrepresent the RC faith, this thread will serve two purposes:

I have been scandalised by Mary's attempts to attack Orthodoxy on OC.net, with allegations that we allow abortion, sexual liberalism, hypocrisy about the Immaculate Conception (we always believed it, now we deny it) , etc.  As this aspect of her apologetics became apparent to me I realised that what she writes needs opposing.  It may be beneficial to open a parallel thread to this one, examining Mary's misrepresentations of Orthodoxy.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #154 on: February 01, 2012, 05:57:32 PM »

I still don't understand why you people give them the time of day.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #155 on: February 01, 2012, 06:02:19 PM »

Stones can either dull a blade or sharpen it.  It all depends on the angle... and the stone.

I still don't understand why you people give them the time of day.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


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


« Reply #156 on: February 01, 2012, 06:09:45 PM »

I still don't understand why you people give them the time of day.

Because the "you people", like the "them" are Christians?
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 (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #157 on: February 01, 2012, 06:11:17 PM »


This thread isn't even a week old, yet it seems to have traveled the world and back.  I am saddened to hear that an American priest would judge you on heresay of a week's old thread on some Internet Forum.

Liza, he is not judging me, quite the opposite in fact.  He goes on to ask me if I want the matter placed on the clergy list, and priests who want to vouch for my good character can write something for OC.net.  So if there's an influx of priests as new forum members, I take the credit.   laugh
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #158 on: February 01, 2012, 06:11:22 PM »

Stones can either dull a blade or sharpen it.  It all depends on the angle... and the stone.

I still don't understand why you people give them the time of day.
Yet the RC's that post on this board for a long time aren't really interested in joining the Orthodox Church. Shouldn't you wipe the dust off your shoes and focus on those that are interested in salvation in the Orthodox Church?