OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 11:39:43 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did the Pope miss this passage?  (Read 15153 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
DennyB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


Moving Toward Orthodoxy


« on: December 05, 2004, 08:56:23 PM »

 1 Peter 5:1-4

The Elders who are among you I exort you,I who am a FELLOW ELDER and a witness of the sufferings of Christ,and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you,serving as overseers,not by compulsion but willingly not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being LORDS over those entrusted to you,but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears,you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.

 Even if I believed in the Papal Supremecy,why would I want to submit to someone who wasn't like the Elder mentioned above. This is the Greatest err of the Roman Rite that I can think of. All of their doctrinal "Speculations" stem from this one error.

If we ever have a pope who will repent of these grave errors,He would be one who's authority I would gladly submit too.
Logged
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2004, 09:21:16 PM »


 Although I am Orthodox, I respect the Pope and think he is a holy man.  It always rather makes me cringe when I hear a layman demanding that the Pope "repent his errors" Smiley  It is just rather silly and at worst , a little like Ian Paisley railing '"Antichrist" as he did to the Pope at the European Parliament several years ago.

    As for the Pope acting as a "Lord" or "lording it over others", indeed Popes in the past have done that but I believe our Orthodox objections to Papal Infallibility rest on stronger grounds then just a fear of "papal monarchy"   We hold to the ancient view of the Church in Council being infallible.
 I think this Pope certainly lives up to one of his titles "Servus Servorum Dei"
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
DennyB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


Moving Toward Orthodoxy


« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2004, 10:28:47 PM »

Doesn't the very Idea of Papal Monarcy rest in Papal Infallibility,ands its assertion on the Faithful?


I'm just calling it like I see it,I would be the last one to tell the Pope He needs to Repent.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2004, 10:31:18 PM by DennyB » Logged
SnowFlaps
Roman Catholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


OC.net


« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2004, 11:41:44 PM »

Quote
Even if I believed in the Papal Supremecy,why would I want to submit to someone who wasn't like the Elder mentioned above. This is the Greatest err of the Roman Rite that I can think of. All of their doctrinal "Speculations" stem from this one error.

If we ever have a pope who will repent of these grave errors,He would be one who's authority I would gladly submit too.

Yes, indeed the Pope is a fellow elder among the other bishops.  But it is a non-sequitur to then go on to claim that the pope is not the visible head of the church on earth.
Logged

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
iconophile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


OC.net


« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2004, 12:08:59 AM »

And it is not only the Popes who have imitated the monarchic model; the patriarchs of the East have done so, too. The Patriarch  of Constantinople, for instance, during the rule of the Ottoman Empire, which recognized him as practically the Emporer of the Christians, adopted many of the trappings of  the Byzantine imperial court.
We really should be able, at this point, to distinguish  the cultural trappings from the essential theological elements. Surely this Pope has shown that he understands both the limits and the inherent power of the papacy.
-Daniel
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2004, 12:36:30 AM »

Surely this Pope has shown that he understands both the limits and the inherent power of the papacy.

Well, I'm not so sure about that.   It seems to me that he still clings to dogmas about papal supremacy.   He seems quite intransigent on some issues.   On the other hand, I think he's  gone further in reaching out to the Orthodox than anyone thought he would.  It's hard to deny his obviously sincere intentions.  My thought is that his hands are often tied by the curial bureaucracy around him, which does not, from my POV, have the same sincere intentions.   I think he wants to do even more, but it is politically difficult for him.  I really admire him, like others who have posted here.  I wonder, will the next Pope be as willing to reach out as much as he has?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2004, 12:43:40 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2004, 04:11:17 AM »

The big question is can the Latin's go back the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is the Orthodox Church?

The fact of the matter is that they still have not returned to that which they used to believe in accordance with the Orthodox Churches teachings. They have different teachings on several things that are significant that they could work on changing but have not changed to date. My sincere hope is that as time goes by they will come to understand the serious errors of their ways and distorted teachings that they have learned to continue to rationalize. I have noticed some that seem to be opposed to the liturgical changes but only goes so far as to say that they would like to go back to the way things had been with the Latins 40 years ago or so. They think things had been fine then, at least it looked and seemed better at that time.

They hold fast to that which is detrimental to many even when basic common sense strongly suggests otherwise. I'm not optimistic about it at all, for when the sexual abuse thing came out the idea of a married clergy was looked at and seems to have been quickly dismissed as an inappropriate possibility by means of claims along the lines of the Latin clergy are typically and traditionally not married. The faithful remain subject to the error of Latin thinking even as children are abused. Some traditions are ok to change and some are not. Married clergy-No however liturgical changes-Yes. I don't mean to sound too harsh now as I' holding back but with children being abused and other wrong things one has to think well why is the married clergy thing so terrible? I'm the son of an Orthodox Priest and I can say without reservation that we don't have those problems anywhere near the degree that the Latins do.

It wasn't very long ago when the Latins began to Latinize the uniates as they removed the Icons from the uniated and thus attacked the tradition. The uniates had placed or allowed or had been deceived into placing a sacred tradition into the hands of either the ignorant or arrogant or cunning. This sort of behavior is also the result of arrogance and ignorance and when they are combined Orthodox Christianity continues to groan from the heart. As long as they arrogantly believe in Papal Infallibility Supremacy and too many other distortions for me to list they will continue refuse to accept the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church we will continue to see the sorry effects. It is important to mention that prior to the Latins embracing Papal Infallibility and Supremacy of today and so many other heresies the Bishop of Rome defended the Orthodox faith including our beloved iconography. There is a relationship between that which people believe and that which people do. Orthodoxy can't accept that which is heretical. These things are done right in front of our eyes which we can see with and our ears which we can hear with. The Latins have removed much within their liturgy because they have distorted much within their theology. They will continue to go their way and the Orthodox Church will remain faithful to our Holy traditions including the correct understanding of the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28: 18-20

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen

We may notice that as the eleven disciples heard these words Christ the Son of God did not say that all authority has been given to Peter and to observe all things that Peter has commanded you and that Peter is with you always.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: December 13, 2004, 10:19:03 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
iconophile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


OC.net


« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2004, 06:02:14 PM »

Well Matthew, your approach is most inimical to reunion or even constructive dialogue: calling people heretics and insisting that they denounce those things with which you disagree, etc. I'd like to set you in a room with a couple of die-hard Latin traditionalists and sit back and watch the fireworks.
Rome is not about to apologize for its doctrines or admit error. She can, though, frame those doctrines in ways that are less triumphalistic, more nuanced and charitable. The essence of a doctrine is not identical to the ways it is expressed in particular cultural contexts, and sometimes can be reframed and expressed in other ways. And sometimes, beneath the disagreements a deeper unity can be discerned. Note that some of the Oriental Churches are no longer estranged from the Catholic Church. Often in polemical exchange both sides hardern their hearts and their viewpoints. I believe that this has happened between East and West too often.  There are people on this forum that continue in this hardness of head and heart, and there are those who proceed in a more irenic, charitable mode.
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2004, 06:15:53 PM »

[Rome is not about to apologize for its doctrines or admit error. She can, though, frame those doctrines in ways that are less triumphalistic, more nuanced and charitable. ]

You mean like double talk?  Example:   Even though we say AND the Son we really mean THROUGH the Son.  So since we are making you aware of this we will continue to say AND to save face  rather than omit it.  So  when we say AND you can think THOUGH and we'll all be happy and can convince ourselves we believe the same thing even though we express it differently?

Either we all are of one mind or we're not.  The papal Catholic word game will never be acceptable to Orthodoxy.  That's why we are Orthodox.

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2004, 08:26:52 PM »

Dear Daniel,

I think you are confusing much like hardness of head and heart with love of the Orthodox faith and the Truth. If a delegation of Papal supporters showed up at an Orthodox Church to remove our Icons or mess around with our Liturgy such an action would be opposed not out of lack of charity or hardness of heart but respect for our traditions and love of the Orthodox Church. If we experienced the scandal that the Latins have suffered we would not just listen to some nice words, we would appropriately demand that everything that is possible be done to protect our innocent children from the hands of the abusers. While you would like to see me "in a room with a couple of die-hard Latin traditionalists and sit back and watch the fireworks" I would like to see you embrace the Orthodox faith and not pretend to be something you are not. I admit that I'm firm in believing what the Orthodox Church teaches even though I fail often in many ways. You know Daniel, I and others here don't spend our free time going out to pet stores and buying cardinals and giving them names like Papist and heretic and then begin feeding them to pet snakes for kicks.

You think that "Rome is not about to apologize for its doctrines or admit error" you are right they are more likely to write more contradictions which the uniated will have no problem accepting since that is what they are while the Orthodox will remain faithful to the faith of our Holy traditions including the correct understanding of the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You may call that being uncharitable or hard hearted or headed I call it obedience to the Spirit of Truth. There is a strange thing that often happens to the Orthodox when stating what we believe. We are often accused of slander or lacking love or charity by the Latins for they want to negotiate that which can not be negotiated, namely the Orthodox faith. The unia is an insult to the Orthodox faith, that is why they remain such an obstacle even in the most simple talks, hence I think it is best for the Latins and the Orthodox that the uniates remain excluded from discussions. For some of the Latins deep down inside know they have "boxed" themselves in many odd and strange positions and the Orthodox are well aware of this and understand that repentance is available to all of them including the Bishop of Rome. When heresy is not recognized it is accepted and continues to be promoted by the Latins. Repentance is not possible as long as the Latins believe that heresy is truth. The Bishop of Rome is only a mere man. We know Papal infallibility not to be so for the Orthodox Church correctly believes that the Latins remain in heresy. If you believe that I'm being uncharitable by using the heresy word and not sugar coating it I can understand why it would not taste good. For me if you had been granted your expressed desire which I hope is not of your heart "I'd like to set you in a room with a couple of die-hard Latin traditionalists and sit back and watch the fireworks." you would have been greatly disappointed for it wouldn't be much of a show because what they believe also contradicts Holy Writ and the correct Orthodox understanding of Holy Writ hence their words would be easy for me to dismiss as yours are. Perhaps a less uncharitable response would have been more acceptable to you, but charity is not just a word uttered from the mouth it comes from the heart. I know that I do not have a golden mouth or heart but I believe and know that the Orthodox faith is the "pearl of great price".

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: December 13, 2004, 10:20:42 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
iconophile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


OC.net


« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2004, 09:00:02 PM »

Matthew- fortunately for both our Churches there are many Orthodox who do not see it as black and white as you do. Of course, to you they are not True Orthodox, even if they are Patriarchs. Dialogue can only proceed from mutual respect; as you obviously have nothing but scorn for the Catholic Church, I really don't see the point in conversing with you.
My comment about setting you in a room with a couple diehard Latin trads was not a serious proposal to see you in battle; it was a humorous suggestion that it might be funny observing the Only True Catholics arguing with the Only True Orthodox. Actually, I hope I never have to see such a sad exchange...
peace, Daniel the Byzantine Papist
« Last Edit: December 12, 2004, 09:01:38 PM by iconophile » Logged
CatholicEagle
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


HH St.Pius X, Pope of Rome, Ecumenical Pontiff


« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2004, 09:03:42 PM »

it was a humorous suggestion that observing the Only True Catholics arguing with the Only True Orthodox. Actually, I hope I never have to see such a sad exchange...
peace, Daniel the Byzantine Papist

When that happened the Greek Catholics rejected their schism and became TRUE Catholics[according to your definition].

Now, y'all better don't tell me that Fr.Peter Skarga SJ[he was one of the planners of the Union of Brest] called the Orthodox a brother or sister church or separated brethren.. Now the Unia Of Brest was true dialogue
If you call the Orthodox schismatics one more time, I will personally ban you for life. Ok?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2004, 09:04:57 PM by CatholicEagle » Logged
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2004, 09:11:52 PM »

Dear Daniel,

You are putting words in my mouth and saying things that are not so for your conclusions are very inaccurate.

Be advised that your below statements are incorrect.

"Of course, to you they are not True Orthodox, even if they are Patriarchs."

"as you obviously have nothing but scorn for the Catholic Church"

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: December 12, 2004, 09:12:46 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
iconophile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


OC.net


« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2004, 10:28:47 PM »

Matthew- that is the impression you give. So then: what do you think of the more ecumenical Orthodox, who think that Peter did have primacy in the Church, and that this was passed on to his successors? What do you think of the Ecumenical Patriarch [God grant him many years] and his approach to Rome, considerably friendlier than yours? And what is it that you admire about the Roman Church? What gifts does it bring to the wider Church?
And Eagle: if they allow you to continue to post here, they are very charitable and tolerant. You seem determined to offend...
-Daniel
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2004, 10:58:45 PM »

Daniel, since you are contrasting Matthew to His Holiness Patriarch Bartholemew, I thought you would like to hear the Patriarch in his own words; he is very polished and very friendly but he is very clear that Orthodox dogma is true because it is that which has been shown to be true by experience and is not the possession of men to change.  This speach totally shockedthe likes of Fr Richard John Nehaus and others. I got it off of the webpage

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

...and it is also referenced in Clark Carlton's book The Truth.  A priest I know was also there at the time:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Address Of His All Holiness
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
Phos Hilaron
(Joyful Light)
Georgetown University, Washington, DC
21 October 1997

Your Eminences, Your Excellencies and Graces, Father O'Donovan, President of this University, Honored Guests, Beloved children in the Lord:

It is a special honor that this distinguished University confers the title of Honorary Doctor upon my Modesty. This is an opportunity for us to approach one another and communicate in the spirit of brotherhood. Although we proclaim that we worship the one and same Lord Jesus Christ, whose name we bear as Christians, we seek in common the causes of our divergence.

In the distant past, great attempts have been made by both sides to prove, and motivated by a different spirit, each side has judged the other as being divergent from the true faith.

This deeply rooted conviction of our divergence has led us to a thousand years of separate and autonomous courses. We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, are indeed different. Our heart is opposed to the specter of an everlasting separation. Our heart requires that we seek again our common foundations, and the original starting point that we share. So that, retrospectively we can discover the point and the reasons for our divergence that led to separate courses, and be able, by lifting blame, to proceed thereafter on the same road leading to the same common goal.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive.

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

No one ignores the fact that the model for all of us is the person of the Theanthropos (God-Man) Jesus Christ. But which model? No one ignores the fact that the incorporation in Him is achieved within His body, the Church. But whose church?

Because of the varying responses to these basic questions, we marched on divergent courses. This is easily understood and unavoidable. For whether we comprehend this or not, our existence is ontologically shaped in symphony and harmony with our inner self. According to the description of our Lord, in Matthew 15:11, not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth. This means that our essence is in continuous transformation [Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18] by the renewing of your mind, and in the reflected glory of the Lord.

A characteristic detail, that cannot be understood without special attention, just as is described in the Old Testament, is that Jacob succeeded in having his flock bear multicolored lambs by placing before them multicolored rods [Genesis 30:37-43]. In a similar way, the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians says that we are being transformed into the likeness of the image of the glory of the Lord, which we reflect. Consequently the glory of the Lord, which we see, as in a mirror, is that which transforms us. This glory is that to which we are likened. The reflection of the divine glory recreates or otherwise regenerates us into something other or different in essence than our previous nature. Therefore, transformation into the image of the Lord and the image of His body becomes the fundamental pursuit of our life, accomplished in essence by the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore we do not engage in idle talk and discuss intellectual concepts which do not influence our lives. We discuss the essence of the Being who truly is, to whom we seek to become assimilated by the grace of God, and because of the inadequacy of human terms, we call this the image of the glory of the Lord. Based on this image, and in the likeness of this image, we become partakers of the divine nature [2 Peter 1:4]. We are truly changed, although neither earth, nor voice, nor custom distinguish us from the rest on mankind. [To Diognetos 2, P.G. 2,1173]

This change, which is bestowed on us from the right hand of the Most High, remains hidden, secret and mystical to many. And thus, a life which is directed toward Him is called mystical. That which leads to divine grace are called mysteries. The entire change of both language and intellect is beyond comprehension and when directed by God leads to unspeakable mysteries.

However, the change of man's essence, theosis by grace, is a fact that is tangible for all the Orthodox faithful. Grace is not only obtained through the transformed relics of the saints, which is totally inexplicable without acceptance of the divine. Grace also radiates from living Saints who are truly in the likeness of the Lord [Luke 8:46]. This change is also obtained through Holy Baptism which through grace transforms the neophyte. The transformation may only be grasped and discerned by the senses of those, who have been baptized, and who are receptive to it without external persuasion. According to the trustworthy testimony of devout Christians, divine grace even infuses the inanimate. This too, is discerned by those who are sensitive and pure of heart. Grace can also be obtained by the presence of the Saints who have influenced and sanctified, and to a degree transformed, natural objects and places.

Therefore, the Orthodox Christian does not live in a place of theoretical and conceptual conversations, but rather in a place of an essential and empirical lifestyle and reality as confirmed by grace in the heart [Hebrews 13:9]. This grace cannot be put in doubt either by logic or science or other type of argument.

Our conception of Holy Tradition moves upon the same track. Holy Tradition for the Orthodox Christian is not just some collection of teachings, texts outside the Holy Scriptures and based on their oral tradition within the Church. It is this, but not only this. First and foremost, it is a living and essential imparting of life and grace, namely, it is an essential and tangible reality, propagated from generation to generation within the Orthodox Church. This transmittal of the faith, like the circulation of the sap of life from the tree to the branch, from the body to the member, from the Church to the believer, presumes that one is grafted to the fruitful olive tree [Romans 11:23-25], the embodiment in the body (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 12:12-27).

Membership in the Church is not an act of cataloging a person as a member of a group but it is the true rebirth of this person in a new world, the world of grace. From that moment forward, he or she is nourished and grows a new body which is of different substance than the body of the flesh, and is joined with the body of Christ through baptism.

The relevant baptismal Hymn, Whoever is baptized in Christ, has been clothed in Christ is not simply symbolism or a poetic allegory. It is a real fact that brings change in the substance of the human being.

Those baptized as infants, whose Orthodox parents grafted them into the body of the Church, are unable to express in words the change that took place in them, but they feel it. However, those present at the moment of baptism who have purity of heart see the grace that surrounds them. Those baptized at a more mature age and with depth of faith are able to describe the liberating feeling of renouncing the devil and joining Christ.

This ontological view of the life in Christ entails a substantial element of the experience of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glow of its light illumines all facets of our ecclesiastical and personal life in the Church and disposes of the need for foolish inquires. The Master himself knocks on the door, and seeks that we open to him the door of our entire being, so that he may enter and break bread with us. This is the foundational issue and posture for us as Orthodox. Understanding this opens the door for communication and makes dialogue possible.

The same ontological position of the Orthodox Church brings us to the difficult issues before us.

Let us look at some:

Regarding Dogma, the Orthodox Church maintains an apparently opposing position. On the one hand, Orthodoxy has never started a dogmatic dialogue, on the other hand, the Church has never neglected one. And let me explain why.

As we have said, the Orthodox faithful awaits and desires to become the reflection of the glory of God and through the grace of the Holy Spirit he becomes an image of our Lord Jesus Christ. He desires, in other words, to immediately know one person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, and through him the remaining two, the unapproachable person of the Father, and through the Son alone, the person of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Christian strives towards purity of Heart for the visitation of grace, and having been fulfilled, is able to behold the sought-after glory of God. Being thus transformed, from glory to glory, the Orthodox Christian approaches God. On the spiritual journey a dogmatic description of the manifestation of the Lord and his Body, the Church, is not required because our experienced guide at every moment protects us from deception, and allows us to accept the Glory of the Lord in any appearance it takes. Therefore, experiencing the Dogma of the Church is not something that is taught through intellectual teachings, but it is learned through the example of him who, through incarnation, joined Himself to us. To this point, dogma is life and life is the expression of dogma. However, a mere theoretical discussion on the meaning of life and dogma is unnecessary.

However, the evil opponent of man tries to interject between the enlightened faithful and the illuminating glory, his own distorted filter, that is a doctrine, a false glory, so that he might deceive the faithful as being the same. In this case, the Church, like a good shepherd, hurries to guide the faithful towards right glory. The entire body of the Church rises and vigorously warns that the said doctrine is false and that, by embracing it, it separates us from the true glory of God, leads us off the track resulting in the loss of our desired goal. The Church therefore, to protect the faithful from missing the mark, battles the distortions of the glory of God, that cunning spirits continuously plant.

Consequently, this difference in dogmatic theory does not lend itself to systematic analysis. Because, a systematic exposure of this dogmatic teaching could be understood only spiritually and therefore could harm the purity of the pure vision that the faithful has, by the voluntary import of all distortions. That is, immediate empirical and living knowledge of the only true glory of God and not the epistemological enumeration of a multitude of false imitations. This is summarized in the recognition that for those who have an immediate personal knowledge of the Lord, any description of him is rendered needless. For those that are on the road to knowing him, but still do not, a correct presentation of the basic elements of His glory is useful to have and particularly as much as it is necessary so that they do not engage in false beliefs.

Concerning those that have freely chosen to shun the correct Glory of God, the Orthodox Church follows the Apostle Paul's recommendation which is a man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject (Titus 3,10). The same, of course, does not hold true for those who ask you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15). Therefore the Orthodox Church is always open for every good-faith dialogue but declines to partake in planted squabbles, because there is always a danger to be misunderstood in such a context.

If time and your kindness permit, let us examine one such case so you can better discern our position.

The nature of the Church, viewed in the light of the Orthodox Faith, is a reality which is recognized spiritually and not descriptively. Each one of us knows the members of his own body not because he has been taught about them or because they have been described in detail by anyone. He knows them, in a special way, because of the direct and living bond with them, even if he does not understand this scientifically.

The Church is our body. As a result of the existence of its Head, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, before all time, and before creation, the Church co-exists with Him before all time. The Church is not an imaginary entity, is not a legal entity, a mere gathering of the faithful, or a worldly establishment or creation. The Church is Christ and those that He chooses, in one body with him for all ages.

The comprehension of the meaning of this, as much as is possible, assumes living this reality fully. That is, what our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life (1 John 1:1), without exception, a sense of the union of all things in Christ, in Whom all things surmised, not pantheistically, but christologically.

All this leads to the conclusion that the organization, the goals, the functions and all aspects of the life of the Church are not determined by human judgment, but the real and unchanging nature of the Church. Thus, the steadfastness of the Orthodox Church on ecclesiastical assumptions of every type is not the product of any narrow perception, but the natural result of our living ecclesiastical experience. We are not talking about an object, subjected to our free manipulation, but of an existence independent of our desires and directed by him who governs all things and Who bestowed upon us limited responsibility or ministry. The starting point of the occasionally misunderstood position of the Orthodox Church concerning ecclesiological matters is rediscovered in the essence of this ministry in this real body directed by its head, the Lord Jesus Christ.

So much for this.

Time is passing and the subject cannot be exhausted. However, in these few words your judgment is expected regarding my thoughts about our hope, a hope starting from a living experience rather than an intellectual conception.

We thank you for your patience and attention. Our love towards you is warm. Let not the simplicity of my words cloud your judgment regarding their truth. You are able to understand the words of the divine Logos through the uttering of human words. Let us always hear the words of the divine Logos so that His grace may always be with us. For this indeed is our wish for you.

Thank you.

Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2004, 11:01:34 PM »

If the Catholic Church is unwilling to reform its papal teachings, we can meet each other in brotherly love and work together for common Christian causes but there can be no ecclesiastical communion between the two Churches.  The Catholic Church ultimately says similar about Orthodoxy. It's better to give up utopian dreams of "church union" and rather work for unity on a personal level between one person and the next.

Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2004, 02:44:24 AM »

Thank you very much for this post, Anastasios.  I think you've uncovered the key here.  His Holiness expresses succinctly here, I think, and really, in great charity and love as well, all the agony and the frustration experienced by the Orthoodox in attempting to dialogue with the West. 

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different."

Ironically, Cardinal Congar voiced very similar sentiments years ago when he said something to the effect that the faith was the same in the East and the West, but "we have become different men."  (Not that I agree that the faith was the same, mind you.)

I think that this is a challenge issued in love that no Western Christian who is truly honest and thoughtful can refuse to respond to, if s/he truly seeks some kind of rapprochement with the Orthodox.

Bob
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2004, 01:11:54 PM »

[Matthew- that is the impression you give. So then: what do you think of the more ecumenical Orthodox, who think that Peter did have primacy in the Church, and that this was passed on to his successors? ]
[Matthew
Iconophile:

The Orthodox Catholic Church has never denied a 'primacy'  to either Peter or the church of Rome.  The problem occurred when the Pope was no longer was satisfied with 'primacy' and opted for 'supremacy'!

Contrary to claims made by papal Catholics both here and elsewhere that we Orthodox Catholics refuse to answer the Popes question on how we would invision his role in a reintegrated Church, we have been very clear  in our response.  From a book called 'Orthodoxy In Conversation',  here are some of the Orthodox responses regarding 'papal primacy' -

"The  Church is the communion of believers living in Jesus Christ with the Father.  It has its origins and prototype in the Trinity in which there is both distinction of persons and unity based on love, NOT SUBORDINATION."

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy.  Within a reintegrated Christiandom the bishop of Rome will be considered as primus inter pares serving the unity of the church in love.  HE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SET UP OVER THE CHURCH AS A RULER whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction.  His authority must be understood , not acccording to standards of  earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25-27).

In a reintegrated Christiandom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares  within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole church.  The bishop of Rome, will of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic Church and in times of need be its spokesman.  The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierachal order within the Church, still less to a single see.  In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

Orthodoc


   
   
Logged

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

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2004, 01:19:28 PM »

Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but if this reintegration did happen, what would happen to the many Councils held without the Orthodox Church?  Wouldn't the Roman Church have to deny them as being ecumenical?
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2004, 01:28:36 PM »

[Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but if this reintegration did happen, what would happen to the many Councils held without the Orthodox Church?  Wouldn't the Roman Church have to deny them as being ecumenical? ]

Yes.

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2004, 01:31:21 PM »

If the Roman Catholic Church were reintegrated, theoretically those councils that did not contradict Orthodoxy could be accepted as local councils in the west perhaps, but councils such as Vatican I well there's no way that can be integrated.

Anastasios
« Last Edit: December 13, 2004, 01:32:00 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
CatholicEagle
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


HH St.Pius X, Pope of Rome, Ecumenical Pontiff


« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2004, 04:32:25 PM »



When that happened the Greek Catholics rejected their schism and became TRUE Catholics[according to your definition].

Now, y'all better don't tell me that Fr.Peter Skarga SJ[he was one of the planners of the Union of Brest] called the Orthodox a brother or sister church or separated brethren.. Now the Unia Of Brest was true dialogue
If you call the Orthodox schismatics one more time, I will personally ban you for life. Ok?
Okay i'll only use Orthodox or separated brethren next time.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2004, 04:44:32 PM »


Okay i'll only use Orthodox or separated brethren next time.

That will work. Thank you for your cooperation.

Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2004, 06:14:19 PM »

Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but if this reintegration did happen, what would happen to the many Councils held without the Orthodox Church? Wouldn't the Roman Church have to deny them as being ecumenical?

The only way to resolve it would be an ecumenical council with the bishops from both sides present.
Logged

NULL
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2004, 08:54:54 PM »

I think before any council of the nature you are speaking of was to be called much preliminary work would be required. For starters if the bishop of Rome called a council for his see alone and that council went through a complete list of the issues that separate the Latins from the Orthodox and Peter spoke from the chair and renounced all of those things except Papal infallibility and then after reonouning all those things finally spoke from the chair and even renounced Papal infallibility there would still be much work to be done. Such an action of course would be laden with contradictions but a strong enough statement that the Orthodox would be obligated to embrace the humility behind such an action and east and west would still not be one. That is because any power coming out of any contradiction is limited. The reason for that is indicated in the speech conveyed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at Georgetown University that Anastasioshas presented. It is a matter of Orthodox praxis or the living out of the Orthodox life. I and many others would find many things difficult to accept like Fatima and much more. A simple example would be the movie the Passion of Christ, the way that the Passion is concentrated on in the West is not done in the East and the effects are different. I watched the movie with an good Orthodox friend at my home a few weeks ago and about half the way through it he said turn it off. I did and agreed not because we don't realize that the crucifixion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was not brutal but because we don't share in the Corpus way of looking at the crucifixion. We look at the humility of the Son of God and in a different way that is more of a way that boggles the minds of mere men.Orthodoxy really does have a different perspective on many things but part of that perspective and life includes following tradition in accordance with our Patristic reliance. There simply is not as much free thinking or speculation with ideas of a very serious nature that are encouraged in the Latin way of thinking. However, both east and west know that forgiveness is certainly a common virtue among the Orthodox and Roman Catholics as well.

If you read the words of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at Georgetown University that Anastasios has posted in this thread you will hear the living grace filled words of an Orthodox Patriarch. I'm reminded of the Epistle;  

"The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."

I don't believe that the Orthodox have served the evil one by promoting a schism because the Latins used to share the same faith and the pearl of a great price, but they believe in a developing sort of a way of looking at things that is not the way that we who are Orthodox look at things, hence our differences.

I hope that you and others are not offended by what I have said my words fall well short of the above Epistle and hence it's best that I remain silent for a season.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
« Last Edit: December 13, 2004, 10:15:45 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2004, 01:41:02 AM »

.... His Holiness Patriarch Bartholemew, I thought you would like to hear the Patriarch in his own words...

I really meant it when I said that I thought that His Holiness's words were a challenge issued in love to those in communion with Rome and others.  I think he really puts forward the Orthodox feelings on dialogue without mincing words here.  In all humility, I do wish that those in the West and those in communion with Rome would try to understand his words and respond to them on this board and elsewhere.  Thank you.

Bob
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
CatholicEagle
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


HH St.Pius X, Pope of Rome, Ecumenical Pontiff


« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2004, 11:34:27 PM »

If the Roman Catholic Church were reintegrated, theoretically those councils that did not contradict Orthodoxy could be accepted as local councils in the west perhaps, but councils such as Vatican I well there's no way that can be integrated.

Anastasios
How about those councils are reconvened? Trent 2004, Latern I- V 2005!!
Logged
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2004, 12:15:47 AM »

I think Ware said in The Orthodox Church that Ecumenical Councils can not be reopened.  I would assume to do so the group would have to deny that first council as truly being Ecumenical.  Can I assume the RCC perspective is the same as well?
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2004, 03:53:21 PM »

I think before any council of the nature you are speaking of was to be called much preliminary work would be required. For starters if the bishop of Rome called a council for his see alone and that council went through a complete list of the issues that separate the Latins from the Orthodox and Peter spoke from the chair and renounced all of those things except Papal infallibility and then after reonouning all those things finally spoke from the chair and even renounced Papal infallibility there would still be much work to be done. Such an action of course would be laden with contradictions but a strong enough statement that the Orthodox would be obligated to embrace the humility behind such an action and east and west would still not be one. That is because any power coming out of any contradiction is limited. The reason for that is indicated in the speech conveyed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at Georgetown University that Anastasios has presented. It is a matter of Orthodox praxis or the living out of the Orthodox life. I and many others would find many things difficult to accept like Fatima and much more. A simple example would be the movie the Passion of Christ, the way that the Passion is concentrated on in the West is not done in the East and the effects are different. I watched the movie with an good Orthodox friend at my home a few weeks ago and about half the way through it he said turn it off. I did and agreed not because we don't realize that the crucifixion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was not brutal but because we don't share in the Corpus way of looking at the crucifixion. We look at the humility of the Son of God and in a different way that is more of a way that boggles the minds of mere men. Orthodoxy really does have a different perspective on many things but part of that perspective and life includes following tradition in accordance with our Patristic reliance. There simply is not as much free thinking or speculation with ideas of a very serious nature that are encouraged in the Latin way of thinking. However, both east and west know that forgiveness is certainly a common virtue among the Orthodox and Roman Catholics as well.

If you read the words of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at Georgetown University that Anastasios has posted in this thread you will hear the living grace filled words of an Orthodox Patriarch. I'm reminded of the Epistle;   

"The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."

I don't believe that the Orthodox have served the evil one by promoting a schism because the Latins used to share the same faith and the pearl of a great price, but they believe in a developing sort of a way of looking at things that is not the way that we who are Orthodox look at things, hence our differences.

I hope that you and others are not offended by what I have said my words fall well short of the above Epistle and hence it's best that I remain silent for a season.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

I realize that reunion and reconciliation isn't something you favor, short of the Catholic Church becoming Orthodox.  What I was doing was replying to a question pertaining to what the mechanics of such a reconciliation and reunion might involve.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2004, 03:55:59 PM »

I think Ware said in The Orthodox Church that Ecumenical Councils can not be reopened. I would assume to do so the group would have to deny that first council as truly being Ecumenical. Can I assume the RCC perspective is the same as well?

Well, you can't reopen ecumenical councils, no.  But Vatican II is considered to be a continuation, in a way, of Vatican I.  And subsequent concils can expand on and clarify previous councils.
Logged

NULL
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2004, 05:34:01 PM »

Dear Jack,

I think the first preliminary mechanical element would be for Rome to express the desire to return to the Orthodox faith. I think love of the Truth of the Catholic Orthodox faith which the Latins used to share with the Orthodox would be a good thing to develop. As indicated below by Pope Leo III regarding the filoque. 

These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).8  Pope Leo III  809

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Logged
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2004, 02:47:14 AM »

Dear Jack,

You are right I'm not for reunion now, aside from the many serious theological matters I would have many other serious concerns.

Would you be in a hurry for reunion with this sort of stuff happening in a predominantly Catholic nation?

Pope defrocks two priests
By Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin
December 17, 2004

POPE John Paul II has defrocked two Catholic priests convicted of sexually abusing children in Ireland, an unprecedented move in this predominantly Catholic nation, church officials confirmed today.

"The diocese confirms that two priests, previously convicted of child sexual abuse, have been dismissed from the clerical state," said the Reverand John Carroll, spokesman for Ireland's southeast Ferns diocese, which has been particularly hard hit by sex abuse scandals.

The church declined to identify either man, but only two priests from the Ferns diocese have been convicted of such abuse: Donal Collins and James Doyle. Collins received a four-year sentence in 1998 for abusing several boys, while Doyle received a one-year suspended sentence in 1990 for abusing one boy.

The church rarely defrocks priests, even those found guilty of crimes. But announcements of defrockings have been on the rise since 2002 in the United States, where bishops have suffered the greatest public pressure to crack down on those who abuse children.

While bishops have the power to suspend priests from duty - a much more common practice - only the pope has the power to remove them from the priesthood. The Vatican provides no global statistics on the number of priests it has dismissed.

In this case, Ferns Bishop Eamonn Walsh sent a file to the Vatican requesting the two men's dismissal, a request granted last month by the pope in what Carroll called "a supreme decision" that cannot be appealed.

The announcement came shortly before the government's expected publication of an investigation into how state agencies and church leaders mishandled abuse allegations in Ferns from the 1970s to 1990s.

In the most prominent case, the Reverand Sean Fortune committed suicide in 1999 while awaiting trial on 66 criminal counts of molesting and raping boys over nearly two decades.

Ferns' previous bishop, Brendan Comiskey, resigned in 2002 after admitting he had done too little to stop the abuse being committed by Fortune and about a half-dozen other priests.

Sex-abuse scandals have taken their toll on the Catholic Church from Canada to Australia. But nowhere has been harder hit than Ireland, which specialised in exporting priests worldwide until the 1980s.

The church's moral standing, Mass attendance and enrollments to the priesthood have plummeted in Ireland since 1994, when the first major scandal involving a paedophile priest triggered the collapse of the government of then-Prime Minister Albert Reynolds.

Since then, both church and state have struggled to come to terms with the scale of abuse being committed by parish priests and in church-run schools, orphanages and workhouses.

Prime Minister Bertie Ahern in 2001 apologised on behalf of the state for its failure to oversee church-run institutions adequately and opened a system for victims to claim financial compensation.

The Residential Institutions Redress Board, which is investigating claims of physical and sexual abuse from the 1940s to the 1980s, said last month it has paid nearly 2000 claimants an average Gé¼77,000 ($135,444) each. The board estimated it could eventually face up to 7000 claims and pay out Gé¼650 million ($1.14 billion).

As part of a controversial 2001 deal, the church is paying a maximum Gé¼127 million ($223.4 million), much of it in properties donated to the state, while taxpayers pick up the bulk of the bill.

But the deal doesn't cover the cost of lawsuits being pursued by hundreds of alleged victims against parish priests and their superiors. In Ferns, Bishop Walsh last month said the diocese and its insurers had paid out nearly Gé¼2.8 million ($4.93 million) to settle 17 cases, but several more are pending.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2004, 02:53:59 AM »

Matthew, but couldn't someone just as easily post www.pokrov.org?
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 17, 2004, 10:28:10 AM »

Matthew, but couldn't someone just as easily post www.pokrov.org?

Exactly. While the incidence of child sexual abuse may be lower amongst the Orthodox clergy, it still exists. People in glass houses...

I think it should also be noted that the Pope did exactly what he should have done...defrocked the priests in question, as should be done for every priest convicted of such a crime.  The same goes for any bishop guilty of covering such an act up, as well.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2004, 10:30:26 AM by Schultz » Logged

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

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2004, 12:06:19 PM »

Dear Anastasios,

Yes, someone could post pokrov.org. However the suggestion from such a posting would be very inaccurate. Pokrov.org is a site from a group of people who seek to limit or cut the relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They have just been denied an appeal regarding a case they lost. It is very pathetic as they are capable of many gross distortions to get what they want.

I will tell you a little about the glass house. I'm the son of an Orthodox Priest and have known very well some of the individuals mentioned by pokrov.org since my youth which was quite some time ago. For instance Metropolitan Isaiah was a very close friend with my father for many years and I know him very well, I don't know of a more compassionate and fair minded person on the planet so the accusations thrown at him by pokrov are way out there.

I asked my mother a while ago how many pedophile Orthodox Priests she has known in her life. She mentioned that she thinks she has known somewhere around a few hundred and not one that's right zero had been pedophiles. Those Matushka's and Presvytera's are on the telephone quite a bit and see what is happening in the glass house, if fact they will clean it particularly if children are at risk. She did mention that in some monasteries she has heard of problems but usually it is homosexuality. My point being that pedophiles are not comfortable around married men with children who would protect their families from any aggressor, they are comfortable around other pedophiles. I remember when we used to have the Orthodox Christian Clergy picnic at our Church when I was a teenager. When usually around 20 to 35 Priests and their families would get together for a day. I can tell you the married Orthodox clergy are normal. Anyone suggesting that there is an accurate comparison between the behavior of the married Orthodox clergy and the Latins who are not married in this regard is not addressing things from a realistic perspective.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 

« Last Edit: December 17, 2004, 01:21:10 PM by MatthewPanchisin » Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2004, 12:37:21 PM »

Matthew,

I appreciate your thoughts & openess on this sin that has no boundaries, I think there needs to be a marriage/celibate option for priests in the Latin Church. Offenders & ones that try to cover/veil these sins should be immediately be confined to a monastery or expelled from the Church if warranted.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2004, 01:24:53 PM »

Matthew,

I agree that the incidents in the Orthodox Church are less frequent.  However, I think we all have to be on guard and also have to be aware that there are priests who are sick in the Orthodox Church--even if they are few and far between.

I also share your disdain for certain political machinations of the Pokrov group.

Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2004, 06:15:20 PM »

Dear Jack,

You are right I'm not for reunion now, aside from the many serious theological matters I would have many other serious concerns.

Would you be in a hurry for reunion with this sort of stuff happening in a predominantly Catholic nation?

Pope defrocks two priests
By Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin
December 17, 2004

POPE John Paul II has defrocked two Catholic priests convicted of sexually abusing children in Ireland, an unprecedented move in this predominantly Catholic nation, church officials confirmed today.

"The diocese confirms that two priests, previously convicted of child sexual abuse, have been dismissed from the clerical state," said the Reverand John Carroll, spokesman for Ireland's southeast Ferns diocese, which has been particularly hard hit by sex abuse scandals.

The church declined to identify either man, but only two priests from the Ferns diocese have been convicted of such abuse: Donal Collins and James Doyle. Collins received a four-year sentence in 1998 for abusing several boys, while Doyle received a one-year suspended sentence in 1990 for abusing one boy.

The church rarely defrocks priests, even those found guilty of crimes. But announcements of defrockings have been on the rise since 2002 in the United States, where bishops have suffered the greatest public pressure to crack down on those who abuse children.

While bishops have the power to suspend priests from duty - a much more common practice - only the pope has the power to remove them from the priesthood. The Vatican provides no global statistics on the number of priests it has dismissed.

In this case, Ferns Bishop Eamonn Walsh sent a file to the Vatican requesting the two men's dismissal, a request granted last month by the pope in what Carroll called "a supreme decision" that cannot be appealed.

The announcement came shortly before the government's expected publication of an investigation into how state agencies and church leaders mishandled abuse allegations in Ferns from the 1970s to 1990s.

In the most prominent case, the Reverand Sean Fortune committed suicide in 1999 while awaiting trial on 66 criminal counts of molesting and raping boys over nearly two decades.

Ferns' previous bishop, Brendan Comiskey, resigned in 2002 after admitting he had done too little to stop the abuse being committed by Fortune and about a half-dozen other priests.

Sex-abuse scandals have taken their toll on the Catholic Church from Canada to Australia. But nowhere has been harder hit than Ireland, which specialised in exporting priests worldwide until the 1980s.

The church's moral standing, Mass attendance and enrollments to the priesthood have plummeted in Ireland since 1994, when the first major scandal involving a paedophile priest triggered the collapse of the government of then-Prime Minister Albert Reynolds.

Since then, both church and state have struggled to come to terms with the scale of abuse being committed by parish priests and in church-run schools, orphanages and workhouses.

Prime Minister Bertie Ahern in 2001 apologised on behalf of the state for its failure to oversee church-run institutions adequately and opened a system for victims to claim financial compensation.

The Residential Institutions Redress Board, which is investigating claims of physical and sexual abuse from the 1940s to the 1980s, said last month it has paid nearly 2000 claimants an average Gé¼77,000 ($135,444) each. The board estimated it could eventually face up to 7000 claims and pay out Gé¼650 million ($1.14 billion).

As part of a controversial 2001 deal, the church is paying a maximum Gé¼127 million ($223.4 million), much of it in properties donated to the state, while taxpayers pick up the bulk of the bill.

But the deal doesn't cover the cost of lawsuits being pursued by hundreds of alleged victims against parish priests and their superiors. In Ferns, Bishop Walsh last month said the diocese and its insurers had paid out nearly Gé¼2.8 million ($4.93 million) to settle 17 cases, but several more are pending.

Yep.  We've got some serious housecleaning to do here.  Matthew, this, at least, is a reason for not wanting reunion that makes sense to me.  The theological gymnastics do not make sense to me.  But if you're saying that you don't want to be part of something that lets itself get infiltrated by perverts, I don't really have a response except to say that the present scandal involves only a miniscule fraction of Church history, and that safeguards have been put in to, hopefully, prevent this sort of thing from happening again, at least on this scale.
Logged

NULL
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2004, 12:56:12 AM »

Dear Jack,

Let us leave the pervesion matter aside as the theological matters are not just gymnastics as I find them very serious as well. Since children are relevant to this subject matter and not just in a involving only a miniscule fraction of Church history, do keep in mind that in the Latin traditon children are denied the Eucharist and that has not changed for quite some time. Somethings are very serious.

It's very simple is it not? I tend to think so especially if one is a parent.

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Matthew 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Matthew 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Logged
gphadraig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 220

OC.net


« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2004, 04:08:14 PM »

"The erroneous beliefs and unlawful customs of the Latins and the other heretics we ought to abhor and shun. But if there be something in them that is correct and verified by the Canons of the holy Councils, this we ought not to abhor." Saint Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain." Eortodromion, Venice, 1836, p. 584.

The Church is rightly often likened to a hospital, and an encounter with our Bishop, priest or confessor likened to the encounter of one who sick with his or her physician. Which of us were we to be aware that a dear one one was attending a hospital or physician who had strayed from the right practice of medicine would not speak up? Would doing so be an act of love, of regard for their health. Yet, here while the Latins have strayed far many would have us be silent. Why? Because it undiplomatic or unfriendly. As a clinician I had a responsibility if one of my colleagues were to stray, a responsibility to act in the interests of others and toward him or her. If I had such a responsibility in that, why do I or others have a lesser responsibility in this the most important element in our eathly lives?

"Your soul seeks true life and its natural food. The food of the mind is truth; the food of the heart is peace, and blessedness; the food of the will is lawfulness. Go to the Church; she will give you all this in plenty, for she possesses it superabundantly. She is 'the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim 3, 15), because in her is the Word of God, manifesting the origin of all things --- the origin of the human race, how man was created after the image and likeness of God, how he fell, and has been restored through the Redeemer of mankind; in her also is revealed the means of salvation, faith, hope and love. She affords us peace and blessedness through her divine service, above all through the sacraments. She calls us: 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11, 28). She teaches us the true way which leads to eternal life --- they way of God's commandments."

Spiritual Counsels of Father John of Kronstadt, edited by W Jardine Grisbrooke, London 1966, p. 73

The Church is not sundered, nor is some of the Word of God found in one and some in the other. She is 'the pillar and ground of the truth' to this very day. Love demands sometimes we address painful and difficult issues. To address them openly and with candour. (Without taking Dr Ian Paisley as a model either).

'Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.' (Matthew 10, 34-36)

The Blessed Theophylact interpretes this as follows:

Harmony is not always a good thing, while speration sometimes is. The sword, then, is the word faith which severs our bond to our families and relatives when they hinder our piety towards God. For He does not tell simply to seperate ourselves from them, but only when they will not come with us, and especially when they hinder us in faith.

If this be true of our mother or father, who gave us life itself how much more so when it one who is so far from us, such a the Pope or any other? For our we not bound to love God first and all others second? This seperation is exceedingly painful, even bitter. It is not about as was written previously geography, history, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, status whether real or imagined but about clinging to that 'pillar and ground of truth'.


Logged

Age is honourable and youth noble
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #40 on: December 18, 2004, 08:08:34 PM »

Dear Jack,

Let us leave the pervesion matter aside as the theological matters are not just gymnastics as I find them very serious as well. Since children are relevant to this subject matter and not just in a involving only a miniscule fraction of Church history, do keep in mind that in the Latin traditon children are denied the Eucharist and that has not changed for quite some time. Somethings are very serious.

It's very simple is it not? I tend to think so especially if one is a parent.

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Matthew 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Matthew 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin



Well by saying that the current priest scandal is a miniscule portion of Church history, I'm not minimizing the importance of the scandal by any means.  As a parent myself I am outraged by the whole matter.  What I'm saying is that this isn't what the Catholic Church has been doing for 2000 years, and whereas it is good grounds for being outraged by the behavior of some of the bishops (not to mention the pedophile priests), it is not grounds for rejecting the Catholic Church.

What I mean by theological gymnastics is that, frankly, I often read on this site distinctions between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church that literally make no sense to me at all.  I don't mean that I disagree with them.  I mean that they make no sense to me.  For example, I have often read that even if all the doctrinal differences were ironed out there still would be no basis for reunion because there is some undefined way of being that exists in Orthodoxy.  I can never respond to that because I don't know what it means.

As for children taking communion, I actually agree with the Orthodox position on that.  Jesus said, "Let the children come to me."  How can I argue with that?
Logged

NULL
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #41 on: December 18, 2004, 11:15:57 PM »

Dear Jack,

We all know that the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that such matters are a terrible sin and that people sin.

I did not mean to sound overly harsh in my last post it is nevertheless a valid concern.  To be quite frank, I think that if the Latins move towards conservative Orthodox theology the door would begin to open for the undefined way of being that exists in Orthodoxy.

Your friend,

Matthew who very much respects your opinions.
Logged
gphadraig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 220

OC.net


« Reply #42 on: December 20, 2004, 05:58:50 AM »

I have some grave concern about bringing into this thread the matter of abuse by Latin clergy of children. There are many differences of great import between us, and these should be addressed. However, how does bringing these matters help save to confuse matters?

The terrible problem of the abuse of the innocent has been with us from earliest times, and Our Lord spoke out unequivocally concerning it. In the Orthodox tradition instructive tales specifically tell of such events concerning monks or priests and using their fates as a warning. None of us should be quick to caste a stone on this issue.

I speak with some feeling having worked with those abused, and less willingly those who abused.

In Ireland there continues to run a deeply wounding and troubling scandal. The actions or failure to act of some is indefensible. However I sense at times the machinations of some, like pariahs, who are driven by a hatred of Christianity or any established religion who welcome this and use it as a golden opportunity to attack. Their target today is the Roman Catholic church. And whom tomorrow?

The matter between us is one of standing for Truth and Faith, not of a contest as amongst men trying to demonstrate which of us is better or more correct than the other. We all share one thing, our imperfection in all its forms.
Logged

Age is honourable and youth noble
MatthewPanchisin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


OC.net


« Reply #43 on: December 20, 2004, 12:21:12 PM »

Dear gphadraig,

You are right, I of all men shouldn't even dare to consider casting any stone. Rather pathetic on my part to mine boulders for a collective throw at our Latin
freinds.

Sorry. Thanks for the heads up.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Logged
gphadraig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 220

OC.net


« Reply #44 on: December 20, 2004, 01:42:56 PM »

Dear brother in Christ Matthew Panchism,

God forgives.......... May I remember this.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2004, 01:44:07 PM by gphadraig » Logged

Age is honourable and youth noble
Tags: Valid Sacraments 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.158 seconds with 72 queries.