One lung or two

<< < (6/6)

biro:
  ???

That post would be even better if you had just gone to sleep.

ialmisry:
Quote from: Asteriktos on March 22, 2013, 10:16:11 AM

Quote from: TheTrisagion on March 20, 2013, 04:02:44 PM

Before Roman Catholics start using our lung, maybe they should try focusing on the cancerous outgrown known as protestantism in their own lung.  ;D


And Orthodoxy can work on their own, like the Nestorians and Non-Chalcedonians (though at least the latter are benign)...?

If Nestorians were Orthodoxy's cancer, that would mean that the Vatican is no more than a cancerous outgrowth as well.

At worst, the Non-Chalcedonians are a collapsed lung.

TheTrisagion:
Quote from: ialmisry on March 26, 2013, 08:06:24 PM

Quote from: Asteriktos on March 22, 2013, 10:16:11 AM

Quote from: TheTrisagion on March 20, 2013, 04:02:44 PM

Before Roman Catholics start using our lung, maybe they should try focusing on the cancerous outgrown known as protestantism in their own lung.  ;D


And Orthodoxy can work on their own, like the Nestorians and Non-Chalcedonians (though at least the latter are benign)...?

If Nestorians were Orthodoxy's cancer, that would mean that the Vatican is no more than a cancerous outgrowth as well.

At worst, the Non-Chalcedonians are a collapsed lung.


This is one deranged person.  Three lungs, one good, one cancerous and one collapsed.  We should get them to ICU and then off to Ripley's Believe it or Not.

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance):
Quote from: podkarpatska on March 22, 2013, 10:25:28 AM

Quote from: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on March 21, 2013, 03:05:03 PM

I have the suspicion that Constantinople has not only bought into the two lung theory, she also believes that the lungs must be headed by only two people, the bishops of Rome and Constantinople. This is from Patriarch Bartholemew's response to Pope Francis at the Wednesday do.

"As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ..."

http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Not a surprise certainly, but very discouraging.


I posted this yesterday in another thread, but it is pertinent here as well.

Here is the official transcript of the Patriarch's formal address yesterday from the Patriarchal website. http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress

So yes, he did say the quoted phrase. BUT  I would urge those upset by this to read the whole speech. In the context of the speech, the phrase in question seems to me NOT to be a royal like "we" but rather an awkward phrasing where he is expressing his personal best wishes and the best wishes on behalf of the Orthodox community at large.

He was the only speaker at the public event, speaking for all of the non-Catholics there. Would it have been preferable for him NOT to include his regards on behalf of all of Orthodoxy? "I can't speak for any other autochephalous or autonomous Orthodox Church whose representatives are here in this room with us but ...."

Like it or not, he is the 'primus', he was asked to speak as such and he conveyed the good wishes of the Orthodox to the new Pope. There were after all delegations from at least ten of the Orthodox national Churches in attendance. They certainly weren't attending to cast anathemas upon Pope Francis.


I suppose that HAH's erudition and mastery of language must have deserted him for once. He could have said ""As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ...", or ""As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and on behalf of the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ..." But, he merely used a phrase that is in line with his approach to Orthodox ecclesiology that has been rebuffed by Archbishop Paul of Finland, Patriarch Alexei of Moscow and many others. That said, there is no question that he should have answered the Pope's address on behalf of all Orthodox churches, to include the two that were placed in the "Other Representations" category. I do wonder, however, what theory makes him the spokesman for the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and non-Orthodox Christian leaders in the room. The imperial "we" was stretched very far and wide there, wasn't it? BTW, did you also sense the irony of HAH praising the HF's humility with language that did not even have an ounce of humility?

Peter J:
Quote from: Father H on March 20, 2013, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: podkarpatska on March 20, 2013, 11:01:29 PM

The lung thing aside, the last paragraph is the part that was frank and honest. Good feelings and charitable thoughts are one thing, unity remains elusive.


The last paragraph was frank.  However, Rome's approach has changed.  Then, it was "conform to Latin dogma."  


I can't confidently say you're wrong; but if you're right then I really need to re-read the Union of Brest.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page