OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 02:37:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What do Orthodox think when people say the Pope is the antichrist?  (Read 2116 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BVMFatima
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Church
Posts: 28



« on: June 24, 2013, 09:41:48 PM »

The question is above Smiley

God Bless!
Logged

All men are brothered In Jesus Christ

~ Pope Pius XII
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 2,988



« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2013, 10:23:48 PM »

Can't speak for others, but I roll my eyes and move on.
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2013, 10:27:03 PM »

When my patron saint says it I nod respectfully, though in embarrassment. Otherwise I just shake my head.  police
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2013, 10:48:47 PM »

I laugh.  I do this because it keeps me from crying about the growing ignorance of the human race.  Then I ask, "Which one?"
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 10:49:06 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,359


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2013, 11:45:37 PM »

I start praying for those people.

Most of those who think that the Pope is the antichrist are those Protestants who are anxiously awaiting the Rapture.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,023


Lion of Judah, Lion of Arabs, Lion of Everyone


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2013, 12:00:18 AM »

I don't think because they're obviously not.  I just smile and try to approximate the expression of that Willy Wonka meme. 
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: <Insert your favourite patriotic attribute here> Orthodox
Posts: 5,941



« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2013, 12:28:57 AM »

Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2013, 12:57:37 AM »

Most of those who think that the Pope is the antichrist are those Protestants who are anxiously awaiting the Rapture.
Not just "Rapture Christians" (Dispensationalists); notably Martin Luther held the pope was the antichrist; the Missouri Synod still affirms this while e.g. the Ohio Synod has categorized it as an "open question." http://www.wels.net/about-wels/doctrinal-statements/antichrist (though note they still remain shy of openly rejecting Luther!).

I regard Luther's actual argument as having been completely undermined by later historical scholarship in his key assumption that the early bishops of Rome looked more or less like the later papacy in the same manner that many amateur RC apologists still presume,[1] but which presumption is completely lacking historical basis for the earliest centuries of the undivided Church.

The Missouri Synod, combining biblical inerrancy with a firm conviction that Martin Luther rightly interpreted the scriptures is for that reason a hair's breadth from regarding Luther as being inerrant, though confidence in Luther theologically has completely disintegrated among all major Pauline scholars e.g. on law, merit etc. http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/did-luther-get-it-wrong-most-major-contemporary-pauline-scholars-say-yes/

___________
[1]
Luther woodcut depicting the whore of Babylon with papal tiara. Other Reformers, e.g. Calvin and Knox, also held the pope was the whore of Babylon.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 01:27:47 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2013, 01:01:43 AM »

I start praying for those people.

Most of those who think that the Pope is the antichrist are those Protestants who are anxiously awaiting the Rapture.
I disagree with this statement, but this is not the thread to delve deep into the topic.  I will simply say a lot of people who are not Rapturists  think the Pope is evil and many who are do not feel the Pope is a bad person at all.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2013, 03:25:39 AM »

Which Orthodox say the Pope is the Antichrist?

You can speak of "antichrists" with a small "a" to mean precursors of Antichrist with a big "A". The Pope (all of them since the schism) would be "antichrists"; they aren't the real thing, but they foreshadow it.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2013, 03:47:17 AM »

Which Orthodox say the Pope is the Antichrist?

You can speak of "antichrists" with a small "a" to mean precursors of Antichrist with a big "A". The Pope (all of them since the schism) would be "antichrists"; they aren't the real thing, but they foreshadow it.
With "the" ahead of anitchrist, I assume it meant the main one.
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,150


« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2013, 03:55:28 AM »

Here's a thread on it: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31294.0/viewResults.html

It's a bit more complex than "lolno."
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,392



WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2013, 04:44:43 AM »

Which Orthodox say the Pope is the Antichrist?

You can speak of "antichrists" with a small "a" to mean precursors of Antichrist with a big "A". The Pope (all of them since the schism) would be "antichrists"; they aren't the real thing, but they foreshadow it.
With "the" ahead of anitchrist, I assume it meant the main one.

Yes. "The" ahead of "antichrist" is pretty much assumed to mean the "Beast" from the Apocalypse of St John.

What I found funny about that as a very young Evangelical was that in all the other Apocalyptic literature in the Bible (the prophecies of Daniel, specifically) any time a "beast" is referred to, the usual reference means an entire empire rather than one person.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2013, 04:47:03 AM »

Not sure there is a difference...
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,392



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2013, 05:04:48 AM »

Not sure there is a difference...

The difference between Ceasar (referring to all from Julius to St. Constantine and beyond) and Nero.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 05:05:11 AM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 2,988



« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2013, 10:34:20 AM »

Most of those who think that the Pope is the antichrist are those Protestants who are anxiously awaiting the Rapture.

To complement xariskai's post, the Seventh-day Adventists also tend to have strong feelings about the Papacy. They believe the Roman Church to be (at least part of) the Whore of Babylon, and often teach (even if unofficially) that the Pope has been/is/or will be a/the antichrist(s), and that the RC will help usher in the end times through enforcing "Sunday-worship laws" throughout the world to make the good "remnant church" that observes the Sabbath come into the Sunday fold. A bit simplified maybe, but makes sense doesn't it? angel
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,605


« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2013, 11:30:17 AM »

St. Gregory the Great said:
Quote
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”

The Pope is a precursor to the Antichrist, and the Antichrist will occupy a similar position in the universal religion of the future that the Pope of Rome occupies in the Roman Catholicism of today.  Whether or not the Antichrist will actually be a Catholic Pope, however, is a different question.  Since Vatican II, Roman Catholicism has taken on more and more of the appearance of a "universal religion" that places obedience to a single human figure over dogmatic fidelity and dogmatic unity.  This can be seen in the Eastern Rite where one can be Orthodox in theology and disagree with Roman Catholic teaching as long as one doesn't express their disagreement vocally and as long as they remain "under the head".  Also, since Vatican II, there has been an increasing involvement of Roman Catholic "religious" (monastics) in Eastern non-Christian mysticism so that we have Jesuits who are Zen Roshis, Benedictine Abbots who have ashrams in India and try to adopt the philosophy of the Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism, where Trappist abbots invite Zen Buddhists to teach their Catholic monks how to do zazen, etc., etc.  There have already been many spiritual leaders within Roman Catholicism, such as Fr. Bede Griffiths in India, who have spoken of the "complementarity" of religions and advocated a perhaps sophisticated form of religious syncretism.  This universalism will open up to, and is preparing for, the universal religion of the Antichrist; but it is hard to know exactly how things will develop to this point.  The Antichrist will be recognized by all religions, and the Jews will consider him to be their Messiah.  He will also be an earthly ruler, a Jew himself, of the tribe of Dan, and will rule from Jerusalem.  So, will he also be a Roman Catholic Pope?  Or, will the Pope of that time defer to the authority of the Antichrist?  Will Roman Catholicism still exist in any meaningful way?  It remains to be seen, but the Pope of Rome is in some way a type and precursor of the Antichrist as St. Gregory the Great said. 
Logged
BVMFatima
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Church
Posts: 28



« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2013, 11:35:24 AM »

St. Gregory the Great said:
Quote
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”

The Pope is a precursor to the Antichrist, and the Antichrist will occupy a similar position in the universal religion of the future that the Pope of Rome occupies in the Roman Catholicism of today.  Whether or not the Antichrist will actually be a Catholic Pope, however, is a different question.  Since Vatican II, Roman Catholicism has taken on more and more of the appearance of a "universal religion" that places obedience to a single human figure over dogmatic fidelity and dogmatic unity.  This can be seen in the Eastern Rite where one can be Orthodox in theology and disagree with Roman Catholic teaching as long as one doesn't express their disagreement vocally and as long as they remain "under the head".  Also, since Vatican II, there has been an increasing involvement of Roman Catholic "religious" (monastics) in Eastern non-Christian mysticism so that we have Jesuits who are Zen Roshis, Benedictine Abbots who have ashrams in India and try to adopt the philosophy of the Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism, where Trappist abbots invite Zen Buddhists to teach their Catholic monks how to do zazen, etc., etc.  There have already been many spiritual leaders within Roman Catholicism, such as Fr. Bede Griffiths in India, who have spoken of the "complementarity" of religions and advocated a perhaps sophisticated form of religious syncretism.  This universalism will open up to, and is preparing for, the universal religion of the Antichrist; but it is hard to know exactly how things will develop to this point.  The Antichrist will be recognized by all religions, and the Jews will consider him to be their Messiah.  He will also be an earthly ruler, a Jew himself, of the tribe of Dan, and will rule from Jerusalem.  So, will he also be a Roman Catholic Pope?  Or, will the Pope of that time defer to the authority of the Antichrist?  Will Roman Catholicism still exist in any meaningful way?  It remains to be seen, but the Pope of Rome is in some way a type and precursor of the Antichrist as St. Gregory the Great said. 

Looks like its time to look into Orthodoxy then!
Logged

All men are brothered In Jesus Christ

~ Pope Pius XII
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,023


Lion of Judah, Lion of Arabs, Lion of Everyone


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2013, 01:36:28 PM »

There have already been many spiritual leaders within Roman Catholicism, such as Fr. Bede Griffiths in India, who have spoken of the "complementarity" of religions and advocated a perhaps sophisticated form of religious syncretism. 

Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but I don't know how fair it is to lump people like Griffiths together with Trappists in Kentucky interested in Buddhism.  For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.  They're not doing it like St Paul, to be sure: they could look to the Orthodox Church for clues on how better to inculturate (heck, they could've simply not destroyed us back in the 1600's and they would've seen 1500 years' worth of inculturation in practice), but the basic idea is not a bad one. 

That's different from Western monastics in the West exploring non-Christian Eastern monastic traditions from the outside because it's "hip" and Latin's boring.   
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: <Insert your favourite patriotic attribute here> Orthodox
Posts: 5,941



« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2013, 01:53:39 PM »

For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.

But now you forgot the first rule of Orthodox internet discussion: It's good when we do it but bad when the others do it.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 01:53:54 PM by Alpo » Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2013, 02:01:00 PM »

Orthodox Pope St. Gregory the Great, wrote that anyone who calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the Antichrist.

Wink

For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.

But now you forgot the first rule of Orthodox internet discussion: It's good when we do it but bad when the others do it.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,777


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2013, 02:17:09 PM »

I don't deny their statement, but I find it rather humorous and at the same time saddening, since they are just as deluded by heresy.
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
BVMFatima
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Church
Posts: 28



« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2013, 02:23:49 PM »

Orthodox Pope St. Gregory the Great, wrote that anyone who calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the Antichrist.

Wink

For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.

But now you forgot the first rule of Orthodox internet discussion: It's good when we do it but bad when the others do it.

I think if you took it in its proper context he is talking about other Bishops claiming his title in their patriachate.
Logged

All men are brothered In Jesus Christ

~ Pope Pius XII
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2013, 03:20:07 PM »

I did read the whole letter and I'm aware of the context. Nothing there suggests that. Pretty bluntly Saint Gregory is scandalized by the title per se, not about any usurpation.

Orthodox Pope St. Gregory the Great, wrote that anyone who calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the Antichrist.

Wink

For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.

But now you forgot the first rule of Orthodox internet discussion: It's good when we do it but bad when the others do it.

I think if you took it in its proper context he is talking about other Bishops claiming his title in their patriachate.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 03:21:24 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
WPM
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,777


« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2013, 03:57:07 PM »

Could be a perpetuated myth, not really sure.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2013, 04:08:41 PM »

 Poll 
Question: Is the Papacy anti-Christ?

Yes!!!!  2 (3.6%)
Maybe...  10 (18.2%)
Nope  14 (25.5%)
Oh Please, Do we really have to go over this again???!!!  29 (52.7%)
 
Total Voters: 55

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=31294.0
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,605


« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2013, 04:14:35 PM »

There have already been many spiritual leaders within Roman Catholicism, such as Fr. Bede Griffiths in India, who have spoken of the "complementarity" of religions and advocated a perhaps sophisticated form of religious syncretism. 

Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but I don't know how fair it is to lump people like Griffiths together with Trappists in Kentucky interested in Buddhism.  For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.  They're not doing it like St Paul, to be sure: they could look to the Orthodox Church for clues on how better to inculturate (heck, they could've simply not destroyed us back in the 1600's and they would've seen 1500 years' worth of inculturation in practice), but the basic idea is not a bad one. 

That's different from Western monastics in the West exploring non-Christian Eastern monastic traditions from the outside because it's "hip" and Latin's boring.   

Yes, I would lump Dom Bede Griffiths in India with Trappists in Kentucky interested in Buddhism.  It is true that Fr. Bede initially went to India with the belief in Christ as the fulfillment of all religions, much in the same way as Fr. Damascene and Fr. Seraphim of Platina have written (i.e. Fr. Damascene’s “Christ the Eternal Tao”).  He was not properly prepared spiritually to encounter the non-Christian East with its own mystical traditions and various phenomena.  The result is that he began to see something deeper and more “spiritual” in Eastern non-Christian experience than what he had experienced from his own spiritually barren monastic formation as a Roman Catholic Benedictine.  Being formed under scholastic theology with imaginative prayer (i.e. Ignatian Exercises), having no exposure to or understanding of the patristic hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy, he saw the drastic contrast between his rational and cerebral approach to prayer and the more contemplative experience of Hinduism.  Feeling somewhat betrayed by the poverty of his own formation, he tried to create a Hindu-Christian synthesis, adopting as much Hindu mysticism as he could while maintaining at least formal allegiance to a Christianity of his own making.  This left him with a Christian theology which was subservient to the Hindu experience and essentially antithetical to the hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy.

Similarly, since you mentioned Kentucky, the Trappist monk Thomas Merton became increasingly dissatisfied with the spiritually arid formation he had received and began looking to the non-Christian East to fill the void.  He associated his Roman Catholicism with “Christianity”, and not finding fulfillment there, looked outside of Christianity for that fulfillment.   This led him to a growing interest in Zen Buddhism and eventually he went to Tibet seeking tantric initiation by a Buddhist Lama, after which he died a rather frightful and untimely death.

Fr. Thomas Keating, another Trappist, when abbot of St. Joseph’s Abbey in Massachusetts invited a Zen Buddhist to teach zazen meditation to his monks.  This was not because of some fad, but because of the spiritual aridity of Roman Catholic monastic tradition and the same dissatisfaction experienced by Bede Griffiths and Thomas Merton before him.  

Like Bede Griffiths, the Jesuit missionary priest Robert Kennedy and many other Catholic religious have gone to Japan, perhaps with good intentions initially.  Yet, like others, they did not have the spiritual formation to understand what appeared to be the “spiritual” depth of Zen Buddhism.  The consequence is that, while retaining formal ties to Roman Catholicism, many like Robert E. Kennedy have also become Zen Roshis and their teachings are mostly Zen with Christian terms thrown in here and there, or Christian terms with a worldview that renders Christian dogma and theology subservient to the experience of zazen.  

You also have those like Dom Bede Griffiths who started off as an Augustinian, left the religious order, met a Swami, learned mantra meditation with the Swami, became a Benedictine monk, and later began to spread the Swami’s teaching on meditation using Christian terminology as “Christian meditation”.  Again, this is not out of a fad, but because he experienced something “deeper” with the Swami than what he knew in his Roman Catholic religious experience.  Similarly, his teaching on “Christian Meditation” is essentially Hindu in worldview and in experience of God (mistaking one’s own created spirit of the Uncreated God), yet clothed in Christian terminology that is made subservient to the mantra meditation experience of Hinduism.

Of course, many similar examples could be provided, but what we are speaking of is not the intention of these people, but rather the spiritual ramification of the Great Schism, which itself is the result of Papism (belief in the centrality of the Pope above theological/dogmatic continuity and unity).  With Papism came the Great Schism, and with both came the separation of the West from the patristic and hesychastic experience.  Roman Catholic religious, associating their Roman Catholic formations with “Christianity”, have not had the spiritual preparation or phronema (patristic worldview) to understand and encounter the mysticism of the non-Christian East.  As a consequence, upon encountering the non-Christian East, many sense the poverty of their own tradition and begin to open up to the “spiritual treasures” of non-Christian mysticism.  In doing so, they open themselves up to spiritual delusion, dogmatic relativism, and syncretism.  These movements attempt to leave behind dogma, which is associated with scholastic rationalism, and emphasize instead the Hindu “experience of the Absolute”, which is not the experience of the Uncreated God but rather the contemplation of the apparent boundlessness of one’s own created spirit.  As Elder Sophrony of Essex says, mistaking this experience of one’s own created spirit for the Uncreated God is a greater obstacle to knowing the true God than the grossest passions.  One ends up contemplating their own created spiritual beauty and falling into delusion, following the path of Lucifer.

The mystical traditions of all non-Christian religions share this similar experience of the created human spirit, but only in Orthodoxy has been preserved the experience of the Uncreated Energies of God and the hesychastic method.  The various religions, exalting this experience of the Absolute above dogma and theology, will easily unite into a universal religion along with the Christians whose Christianity has become subservient to non-Christian mystical experience.  Only in the patristic and hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy is there the sober understanding of true and false spiritual experience and the difference between true and demonic spirituality.  The place of the Pope in Roman Catholicism provides the structural foundation for the Antichrist, allegiance to a single head over dogmatic continuity and dogmatic unity; and the spiritual aridity and increasing syncretism found in contemporary Roman Catholicism provides the spiritual foundation for a syncretistic universal religion of the Antichrist which would absolutize some kind of spiritual experience that is accessible to all over adherence to dogmatic teaching.    
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2013, 04:15:43 PM »

Orthodox Pope St. Gregory the Great, wrote that anyone who calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the Antichrist.
I think if you took it in its proper context he is talking about other Bishops claiming his title in their patriachate.
Please provide documentation for your ludicrous assertion, Fatima.

I did read the whole letter and I'm aware of the context. Nothing there suggests that. Pretty bluntly Saint Gregory is scandalized by the title per se, not about any usurpation.
+1
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 04:26:05 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2013, 04:28:32 PM »

There have already been many spiritual leaders within Roman Catholicism, such as Fr. Bede Griffiths in India, who have spoken of the "complementarity" of religions and advocated a perhaps sophisticated form of religious syncretism. 

Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but I don't know how fair it is to lump people like Griffiths together with Trappists in Kentucky interested in Buddhism.  For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.  They're not doing it like St Paul, to be sure: they could look to the Orthodox Church for clues on how better to inculturate (heck, they could've simply not destroyed us back in the 1600's and they would've seen 1500 years' worth of inculturation in practice), but the basic idea is not a bad one. 

That's different from Western monastics in the West exploring non-Christian Eastern monastic traditions from the outside because it's "hip" and Latin's boring.   

Yes, I would lump Dom Bede Griffiths in India with Trappists in Kentucky interested in Buddhism.  It is true that Fr. Bede initially went to India with the belief in Christ as the fulfillment of all religions, much in the same way as Fr. Damascene and Fr. Seraphim of Platina have written (i.e. Fr. Damascene’s “Christ the Eternal Tao”).  He was not properly prepared spiritually to encounter the non-Christian East with its own mystical traditions and various phenomena.  The result is that he began to see something deeper and more “spiritual” in Eastern non-Christian experience than what he had experienced from his own spiritually barren monastic formation as a Roman Catholic Benedictine.  Being formed under scholastic theology with imaginative prayer (i.e. Ignatian Exercises), having no exposure to or understanding of the patristic hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy, he saw the drastic contrast between his rational and cerebral approach to prayer and the more contemplative experience of Hinduism.  Feeling somewhat betrayed by the poverty of his own formation, he tried to create a Hindu-Christian synthesis, adopting as much Hindu mysticism as he could while maintaining at least formal allegiance to a Christianity of his own making.  This left him with a Christian theology which was subservient to the Hindu experience and essentially antithetical to the hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy.

Similarly, since you mentioned Kentucky, the Trappist monk Thomas Merton became increasingly dissatisfied with the spiritually arid formation he had received and began looking to the non-Christian East to fill the void.  He associated his Roman Catholicism with “Christianity”, and not finding fulfillment there, looked outside of Christianity for that fulfillment.   This led him to a growing interest in Zen Buddhism and eventually he went to Tibet seeking tantric initiation by a Buddhist Lama, after which he died a rather frightful and untimely death.

Fr. Thomas Keating, another Trappist, when abbot of St. Joseph’s Abbey in Massachusetts invited a Zen Buddhist to teach zazen meditation to his monks.  This was not because of some fad, but because of the spiritual aridity of Roman Catholic monastic tradition and the same dissatisfaction experienced by Bede Griffiths and Thomas Merton before him.  

Like Bede Griffiths, the Jesuit missionary priest Robert Kennedy and many other Catholic religious have gone to Japan, perhaps with good intentions initially.  Yet, like others, they did not have the spiritual formation to understand what appeared to be the “spiritual” depth of Zen Buddhism.  The consequence is that, while retaining formal ties to Roman Catholicism, many like Robert E. Kennedy have also become Zen Roshis and their teachings are mostly Zen with Christian terms thrown in here and there, or Christian terms with a worldview that renders Christian dogma and theology subservient to the experience of zazen.  

You also have those like Dom Bede Griffiths who started off as an Augustinian, left the religious order, met a Swami, learned mantra meditation with the Swami, became a Benedictine monk, and later began to spread the Swami’s teaching on meditation using Christian terminology as “Christian meditation”.  Again, this is not out of a fad, but because he experienced something “deeper” with the Swami than what he knew in his Roman Catholic religious experience.  Similarly, his teaching on “Christian Meditation” is essentially Hindu in worldview and in experience of God (mistaking one’s own created spirit of the Uncreated God), yet clothed in Christian terminology that is made subservient to the mantra meditation experience of Hinduism.

Of course, many similar examples could be provided, but what we are speaking of is not the intention of these people, but rather the spiritual ramification of the Great Schism, which itself is the result of Papism (belief in the centrality of the Pope above theological/dogmatic continuity and unity).  With Papism came the Great Schism, and with both came the separation of the West from the patristic and hesychastic experience.  Roman Catholic religious, associating their Roman Catholic formations with “Christianity”, have not had the spiritual preparation or phronema (patristic worldview) to understand and encounter the mysticism of the non-Christian East.  As a consequence, upon encountering the non-Christian East, many sense the poverty of their own tradition and begin to open up to the “spiritual treasures” of non-Christian mysticism.  In doing so, they open themselves up to spiritual delusion, dogmatic relativism, and syncretism.  These movements attempt to leave behind dogma, which is associated with scholastic rationalism, and emphasize instead the Hindu “experience of the Absolute”, which is not the experience of the Uncreated God but rather the contemplation of the apparent boundlessness of one’s own created spirit.  As Elder Sophrony of Essex says, mistaking this experience of one’s own created spirit for the Uncreated God is a greater obstacle to knowing the true God than the grossest passions.  One ends up contemplating their own created spiritual beauty and falling into delusion, following the path of Lucifer.

The mystical traditions of all non-Christian religions share this similar experience of the created human spirit, but only in Orthodoxy has been preserved the experience of the Uncreated Energies of God and the hesychastic method.  The various religions, exalting this experience of the Absolute above dogma and theology, will easily unite into a universal religion along with the Christians whose Christianity has become subservient to non-Christian mystical experience.  Only in the patristic and hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy is there the sober understanding of true and false spiritual experience and the difference between true and demonic spirituality.  The place of the Pope in Roman Catholicism provides the structural foundation for the Antichrist, allegiance to a single head over dogmatic continuity and dogmatic unity; and the spiritual aridity and increasing syncretism found in contemporary Roman Catholicism provides the spiritual foundation for a syncretistic universal religion of the Antichrist which would absolutize some kind of spiritual experience that is accessible to all over adherence to dogmatic teaching.    


It's unfair to say that Thomas Merton merely looked to "the East" to fill a void.

I think he looked to a particular person to the same end with more successful results.

In any case, Gethsemane is a nice place to visit.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,023


Lion of Judah, Lion of Arabs, Lion of Everyone


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2013, 04:55:41 PM »

Yes, I would lump Dom Bede Griffiths in India with Trappists in Kentucky interested in Buddhism.  It is true that Fr. Bede initially went to India with the belief in Christ as the fulfillment of all religions, much in the same way as Fr. Damascene and Fr. Seraphim of Platina have written (i.e. Fr. Damascene’s “Christ the Eternal Tao”).  He was not properly prepared spiritually to encounter the non-Christian East with its own mystical traditions and various phenomena.  The result is that he began to see something deeper and more “spiritual” in Eastern non-Christian experience than what he had experienced from his own spiritually barren monastic formation as a Roman Catholic Benedictine.  Being formed under scholastic theology with imaginative prayer (i.e. Ignatian Exercises), having no exposure to or understanding of the patristic hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy, he saw the drastic contrast between his rational and cerebral approach to prayer and the more contemplative experience of Hinduism.  Feeling somewhat betrayed by the poverty of his own formation, he tried to create a Hindu-Christian synthesis, adopting as much Hindu mysticism as he could while maintaining at least formal allegiance to a Christianity of his own making.  This left him with a Christian theology which was subservient to the Hindu experience and essentially antithetical to the hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy.

In other words, he wasn't Orthodox, that poor SOB, it's no wonder he went off the deep end.  Stupid Catholics.   

Western people always misunderstand India.  I give Griffiths credit for trying to inculturate Christianity in an Indian context, even if I think he eventually "got it wrong".  I give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't simply trying to supplement his allegedly arid Catholic scholastic formation with Hindu mysticism because of what he tried to accomplish.  He came as a Roman and eventually became an Eastern Catholic because that tradition was already more inculturated.  What he did after this was more of an attempt at a genuinely Indian Christianity, not something that is ritually Antiochene or Roman, but Indian.  If anything, he made the mistake of thinking that there is one phenomenon called "Indian", a typically Western mistake, and that led to a lot of the syncretistic stuff.  Christianity was already inculturated in India for 75% of Christian history, what killed that was the Catholics and later the Protestants.  And the way they (Western Christians) tried to "fix" the problem also aggravated things, but at least they saw that there was a "problem", even if it wasn't as dire as they thought, even if the problem they saw wasn't the actual problem.           

Quote
Similarly, since you mentioned Kentucky, the Trappist monk Thomas Merton...

I brought up Trappists in KY not as a jab at Merton, whom I like a lot, but as a convenient "stereotype".  I think at that time there was an openness to the "exotic" East because of how different its spiritual tradition was from that of the Christian West.  They would've been better served, IMO, if they had gone back to the sources of their own tradition, because that would've led them past "arid scholasticism" et. al. and toward the Orthodox Catholicism of the pre-schism West. 

But again, that's a different matter from trying to understand India in order to bring Christ to India in a more Indian way.  If Christianity is really to take hold in India, this kind of engagement needs to happen.  We've been there for two thousand years, we know how challenging it is, and we were always there.  Now that Christianity is often labelled a "foreign" religion, it's that much worse, and it's considered by these people a foreign religion because of the aggression of the colonialists who divided and conquered the native Church and replaced it with something else.     
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
spyridon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Enquirer to Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 68



« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2013, 05:31:53 PM »

Antichrist, antichrist, maybe antichrist, precursor to antichrist, mini antichrist.....
There is no answer other than the subjective opinion of others with this.
Just Pray, read the scriptures, study the Fathers, attend the services and build your faith.- The only way I can think of to get real perspective.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2013, 06:43:11 PM »

In Koine Greek the word antichrist is a compound word combining the prefix αντί- (anti) with the word Χριστός (Christos). Αντί- can mean "instead of" or "in place of" as well as "against."

Since the term "vicar" (from the Latin vicarius, "substitution") carries the former meaning of the Greek prefix αντί- it is literally correct to say that Roman Catholicism itself teaches the pope is the anti- ("instead-of") Christ,[1] but not that the pope is the anti- ("against" or "opposed to") Christ.

Commentators are unsure which meaning of αντί- is intended in NT usage of the compound αντίxριστός.

Orthodox Christians have, of course, traditionally rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine that their pope is the Vicar of Christ; humorously (*ducks head in case others do not see the humor*) we can also consider this an explicit Orthodox denial of the Roman Catholic pope as the antichrist in the former sense of the prefix αντί- where Roman Catholic doctrine affirms it.
__________
[1] Cf. also "Vicar of Christ," New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

"In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head." -Vatican II/ Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964  http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” CCC, 882

“...our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth...He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth... They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it... the person of Jesus Christ is represented by the Supreme Pontiff... Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end..." -Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 07:06:02 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2013, 08:19:16 PM »

Well, it's a silly statement.

First off, which pope? Will a pope be the actual antichrist? Probably not. But by usurping a supremacy over all the churches, as St. Gregory the Great alludes, he makes himself a forerunner of Antichrist. He is a sort of type. But there are many types.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2013, 08:22:35 PM »

Orthodox Pope St. Gregory the Great, wrote that anyone who calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the Antichrist.

Wink

For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.

But now you forgot the first rule of Orthodox internet discussion: It's good when we do it but bad when the others do it.

I think if you took it in its proper context he is talking about other Bishops claiming his title in their patriachate.

Nope. St. Gregory never called himself an ecumenical patriarch either.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
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: 1,473



« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2013, 04:57:50 AM »

Orthodox Pope St. Gregory the Great, wrote that anyone who calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the Antichrist.

Wink

For all the syncretist and even heretical excesses to which Catholics are prone in their attempts at inculturation in India, I believe their starting point is basically a good one--it's basically how St Paul approached the Athenians.

But now you forgot the first rule of Orthodox internet discussion: It's good when we do it but bad when the others do it.

I think if you took it in its proper context he is talking about other Bishops claiming his title in their patriachate.

Nope. St. Gregory never called himself an ecumenical patriarch either.

It is funny if not even somewhat ironic, that the very see which Pope St. Gregory rebuked for what he thought to be a pretension to power simply contented itself with taking the title while never becoming what the title might imply, while the very Roman See of Pope St. Gregory would go on never to take such a title, but to become what Pope St. Gregory feared Constantinople was attempting to become.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
lovetzatziki
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2013, 09:42:59 AM »

I thought the Pope was Jesus Christ on earth. It depends on the Pope. One thing is sure there is no Patriarch like the Pope.
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,954


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2013, 09:43:47 AM »

I thought the Pope was Jesus Christ on earth. It depends on the Pope. One thing is sure there is no Patriarch like the Pope.

Wut?
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
lovetzatziki
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2013, 09:45:45 AM »

I thought the Pope was Jesus Christ on earth. It depends on the Pope. One thing is sure there is no Patriarch like the Pope.

Wut?

What?
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2013, 10:17:16 AM »

St. Gregory the Great said:
Quote
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”

The Pope is a precursor to the Antichrist, and the Antichrist will occupy a similar position in the universal religion of the future that the Pope of Rome occupies in the Roman Catholicism of today.  Whether or not the Antichrist will actually be a Catholic Pope, however, is a different question.  Since Vatican II, Roman Catholicism has taken on more and more of the appearance of a "universal religion" that places obedience to a single human figure over dogmatic fidelity and dogmatic unity.  This can be seen in the Eastern Rite where one can be Orthodox in theology and disagree with Roman Catholic teaching as long as one doesn't express their disagreement vocally and as long as they remain "under the head".  Also, since Vatican II, there has been an increasing involvement of Roman Catholic "religious" (monastics) in Eastern non-Christian mysticism so that we have Jesuits who are Zen Roshis, Benedictine Abbots who have ashrams in India and try to adopt the philosophy of the Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism, where Trappist abbots invite Zen Buddhists to teach their Catholic monks how to do zazen, etc., etc.  There have already been many spiritual leaders within Roman Catholicism, such as Fr. Bede Griffiths in India, who have spoken of the "complementarity" of religions and advocated a perhaps sophisticated form of religious syncretism.  This universalism will open up to, and is preparing for, the universal religion of the Antichrist; but it is hard to know exactly how things will develop to this point.  The Antichrist will be recognized by all religions, and the Jews will consider him to be their Messiah.  He will also be an earthly ruler, a Jew himself, of the tribe of Dan, and will rule from Jerusalem.  So, will he also be a Roman Catholic Pope?  Or, will the Pope of that time defer to the authority of the Antichrist?  Will Roman Catholicism still exist in any meaningful way?  It remains to be seen, but the Pope of Rome is in some way a type and precursor of the Antichrist as St. Gregory the Great said. 

Looks like its time to look into Orthodoxy then!
LOL.
Logged
BVMFatima
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Church
Posts: 28



« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2013, 10:37:48 AM »

St. Gregory the Great said:
Quote
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”

The Pope is a precursor to the Antichrist, and the Antichrist will occupy a similar position in the universal religion of the future that the Pope of Rome occupies in the Roman Catholicism of today.  Whether or not the Antichrist will actually be a Catholic Pope, however, is a different question.  Since Vatican II, Roman Catholicism has taken on more and more of the appearance of a "universal religion" that places obedience to a single human figure over dogmatic fidelity and dogmatic unity.  This can be seen in the Eastern Rite where one can be Orthodox in theology and disagree with Roman Catholic teaching as long as one doesn't express their disagreement vocally and as long as they remain "under the head".  Also, since Vatican II, there has been an increasing involvement of Roman Catholic "religious" (monastics) in Eastern non-Christian mysticism so that we have Jesuits who are Zen Roshis, Benedictine Abbots who have ashrams in India and try to adopt the philosophy of the Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism, where Trappist abbots invite Zen Buddhists to teach their Catholic monks how to do zazen, etc., etc.  There have already been many spiritual leaders within Roman Catholicism, such as Fr. Bede Griffiths in India, who have spoken of the "complementarity" of religions and advocated a perhaps sophisticated form of religious syncretism.  This universalism will open up to, and is preparing for, the universal religion of the Antichrist; but it is hard to know exactly how things will develop to this point.  The Antichrist will be recognized by all religions, and the Jews will consider him to be their Messiah.  He will also be an earthly ruler, a Jew himself, of the tribe of Dan, and will rule from Jerusalem.  So, will he also be a Roman Catholic Pope?  Or, will the Pope of that time defer to the authority of the Antichrist?  Will Roman Catholicism still exist in any meaningful way?  It remains to be seen, but the Pope of Rome is in some way a type and precursor of the Antichrist as St. Gregory the Great said. 

Looks like its time to look into Orthodoxy then!
LOL.
Tongue
Logged

All men are brothered In Jesus Christ

~ Pope Pius XII
scamandrius
Dr., Rdr. Scamandrius to you :)
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,322



« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2013, 11:14:09 AM »

THe only people who say this are hard-core Lutherans who believe every word Martin Luther ever said.  Since I know only a few hard-core Lutherans of this variety, I just smile politely and walk away.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2013, 12:43:24 PM »

That's what I believe. Every messianic figure, from sect leaders to individual manipulators in daily life to governments that put themselves in the messianic role are types of antichrist.


Well, it's a silly statement.

First off, which pope? Will a pope be the actual antichrist? Probably not. But by usurping a supremacy over all the churches, as St. Gregory the Great alludes, he makes himself a forerunner of Antichrist. He is a sort of type. But there are many types.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2013, 01:33:58 PM »



True story (I don't know why).
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 01:34:36 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2013, 09:56:16 AM »

The Pope is a precursor to the Antichrist, and the Antichrist will occupy a similar position in the universal religion of the future that the Pope of Rome occupies in the Roman Catholicism of today.  Whether or not the Antichrist will actually be a Catholic Pope, however, is a different question.  Since Vatican II, Roman Catholicism has taken on more and more of the appearance of a "universal religion" that places obedience to a single human figure over dogmatic fidelity and dogmatic unity.  This can be seen in the Eastern Rite where one can be Orthodox in theology and disagree with Roman Catholic teaching as long as one doesn't express their disagreement vocally and as long as they remain "under the head".  

Right, right. Because, as we all know, the Union of Brest and the Union of Uzhhorod happened at Vatican II.
[/biting_sarcasm]
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 09:57:15 AM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2013, 10:38:28 AM »

My answer - BS. Worry less about when the Bridegroom comes, for we know He is coming,  always be prepared. That is the real lesson of the Gospels.

Too many waste their time looking for signs. Scripture and the fathers elaborate on that as well with the parable of the Rich Man Lazarus.
Logged
JoeS2
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 995


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2013, 11:37:09 AM »

I cant imagine any Orthodox Christian thinking the Pope is the AntiChrist......
Logged
lovetzatziki
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2013, 11:43:44 AM »

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Iustin Popović (Serbian Cyrillic: Jустин Поповић) (6 April 1894, Vranje - 7 April 1979, Ćelije Monastery, Lelić)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2013, 11:54:45 AM »

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Iustin Popović (Serbian Cyrillic: Jустин Поповић) (6 April 1894, Vranje - 7 April 1979, Ćelije Monastery, Lelić)

Interesting ... but also open to different interpretations.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lovetzatziki
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2013, 12:31:02 PM »

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Iustin Popović (Serbian Cyrillic: Jустин Поповић) (6 April 1894, Vranje - 7 April 1979, Ćelije Monastery, Lelić)

Interesting ... but also open to different interpretations.

you can read it in details here : http://razilazenje.blogspot.ro/2007/02/st-justin-of-elije-three-principal.html

you can also read his view on ecclesiology and papacy here:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papism.aspx
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2013, 12:41:54 PM »

And like those of the Pope, the writings of a Saint are not infallible.
Logged
lovetzatziki
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #50 on: July 02, 2013, 12:52:39 PM »

And like those of the Pope, the writings of a Saint are not infallible.

Are you saying St Justin Popovitch was not inspired and moved by the Holy Ghost when he wrote this :

Quote
In the European West, Christianity has gradually transformed into humanism. For a long time and arduously, the God-Man diminished, and has been changed, narrowed, and finally reduced to a man: to the infallible man in Rome and the equally "infallible" man in London and Berlin. Thus did papism come into being, taking everything from Christ, along with Protestantism, which asks the least from Christ, and often nothing. Both in papism and in Protestantism, man has been put in the place of the God-Man, both as the highest value and as the highest criterion. A painful and sad correction of the God-Man's work and teaching has been accomplished. Steadily and stubbornly papism has tried to substitute the God-Man with man, until in the dogma about the infallibility of the pope—a man, the God-Man was once and for all replaced with ephemeral, "infallible" man; because with this dogma, the pope was decisively and clearly declared as something higher than not only man, but the holy Apostles, the holy Fathers, and the holy Ecumenical councils. With this kind of a departure from the God-Man, from the ecumenical Church as the God-Man organism, papism surpassed Luther, the founder of Protestantism. Thus, the first radical protest in the name of humanism against the God-Man Christ, and his God-Man organism—the Church—should be looked for in papism, not in Lutheranism. Papism is actually the first and the oldest Protestantism.

We should not do this ourselves. Papism indeed is the most radical Protestantism, because it has transferred the foundation of Christianity from the eternal God-Man to ephemeral man. And it has proclaimed this as the paramount dogma, which means: the paramount value, the paramount measure of all beings and things in the world. And the Protestants merely accepted this dogma in its essence, and worked it out in terrifying magnitude and detail. Essentially, Protestantism is nothing other than a generally applied papism. For in Protestantism, the fundamental principle of papism is brought to life by each man individually. After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It can be said: Protestantism is a vulgarized papism, only stripped of mystery (i.e., sacramentality), authority and power.

Through the reduction of Christianity, with all its eternal God-Man qualities, to man, Western Christianity has been turned into humanism. This may seem paradoxical, but it is true in its irresistible and unerasable historical reality. Because Western Christianity is, in its essence, the most decisive humanism; and because it has proclaimed man as infallible, and has turned the God-Man religion into a humanist religion. And that this is so is shown by the fact that the God-Man has been driven to the heavens, while his place on earth has been filled with his replacement, Vicarius Christi—the pope. What a tragic piece of illogic: to establish a replacement for the everywhere-present God and the Lord Christ! But this piece of illogic has been incarnated in Western Christianity: the Church has been transformed into a state, the pope has become a ruler, bishops have been proclaimed princes, priests have become leaders of clerical parties, the faithful have been proclaimed papal subjects. The Gospel has been replaced with the Vatican’s compilation of canon law; Evangelical ethic and methods of love have been replaced with casuistry, Jesuitry and the "holy" Inquisition. What does all this mean? With the systematic removal and destruction of everything that does not bow to the pope, even with forced conversions to the papal faith, and the burning of sinners for the glory of the meek and the mild Lord Jesus!

There is no doubt that all these facts converge into one irresistibly logical conclusion: in the West there is no Church and no God-Man, which is why there is no true God-Man society in which men are mortal brothers and immortal fellows. Humanistic Christianity is actually the most decisive protest and uprising against the God-Man Christ and all the Evangelical, God-Man values and norms. And even here is evident European man’s favored tendency, to reduce everything to man as the fundamental value and the fundamental measure. And behind that stands one idol: Menschliches Allzumenschliches. With the reduction of Christianity to humanism, Christianity has been no doubt, simplified, but also at the same time—destroyed! Now that the "gleischaltung" of Christianity with humanism has been accomplished, some in Europe are seeking a return to the God-Man Christ. However, the cries of individuals in the Protestant world—"Zuruck zum Jesus! Back to Jesus!"—are empty cries in the dark night of humanistic Christianity, which has abandoned the values and the measures of God-Man and is now suffocating in desperation and impotence. While from the depths of centuries past reverberate the bitter words of the melancholic prophet of God, Jeremiah: "Accursed is the man who puts his confidence in man!..."

In a broader historical perspective, the Western dogma about man’s infallibility is nothing other than an attempt to revive and immortalize dying humanism. It is the last transformation and final glorification of humanism. After the rationalistic Enlightenment of the 18th century and the shortsighted positivism of the 19th century, nothing else was left to European humanism than to fall apart in its own impotence and contradictions. But in that tragic moment, religious humanism came to its aid with its dogma about the infallibility of man saved European humanism from imminent death. And, although dogmatized, Western Christian humanism could not help absorbing all the fatal contradictions of European humanism, which are united in one single desire: to exile God-Man from the earth. Because the most important thing for humanism is for man to be the highest value and the highest measure. Man, not God-Man.

According to our own Orthodox feeling: Christianity is only Christianity through the God-Man, through His God-Man ideology and God-Man methods. That is the fundamental truth for the sake of which no compromises can be made. Only as the God-Man is Christ the highest value and the highest measure. One should be truthful and consistent to the end: if Christ is not the God-Man, then he is the most impudent fraud, because he proclaimed himself as God and the Lord. But the Evangelical historical reality irrefutably shows and proves that Jesus Christ is in everything and in all things the perfect God-Man. Therefore, one cannot be a Christian without a belief in Christ as God-Man and in the Church as His God-Man Body, in which He left His entire Miraculous Person. The saving and life-giving power of Christ’s Church lays in the eternally-living and all-present personality of the God-Man. Any substitution of the God-Man with a man, and any winnowing of Christianity in order to pick out only that which pleases a man’s individual preference and reason, turns Christianity into shallow and impotent humanism.


Do you disagree with him?
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #51 on: July 02, 2013, 12:54:01 PM »

Like I said...

When my patron saint says it I nod respectfully, though in embarrassment. Otherwise I just shake my head.  police
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
lovetzatziki
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #52 on: July 02, 2013, 12:56:56 PM »

Like I said...

When my patron saint says it I nod respectfully, though in embarrassment. Otherwise I just shake my head.  police

Your patron saint being?
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #53 on: July 02, 2013, 12:58:34 PM »

St. Justin Popovich
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,777


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #54 on: July 02, 2013, 12:58:51 PM »

THe only people who say this are hard-core Lutherans who believe every word Martin Luther ever said.  Since I know only a few hard-core Lutherans of this variety, I just smile politely and walk away.

I've met Calvinists who've said the same thing. But then again, Calvinists are a rather unusual bunch altogether. Give me Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, or the non-existent American atheist bogeyman, but keep the Calvinists away. Former I could handle, but something about the latter really creeps me out. I'm not trying to be offensive, but I get a really strange, uncomfortable vibe whenever I'm around Calvinists.
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
lovetzatziki
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #55 on: July 02, 2013, 01:04:47 PM »

St. Justin Popovich

To my knowledge there are many other Orthodox fathers who wrote on this topic and against the Papacy.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 02, 2013, 01:44:47 PM »

St. Justin Popovich

To my knowledge there are many other Orthodox fathers who wrote on this topic and against the Papacy.

There is a universe of distinction between solid Orthodox  opposition to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, including Papal supremacy and infallibility and blithely proclaiming "the" pope as anti-Christ.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 01:45:29 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,511



« Reply #57 on: July 02, 2013, 02:18:37 PM »

The pope was obviously influenced by demons when he declared himself universal, certainly when also proclaiming himself infallible!
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #58 on: July 02, 2013, 08:17:13 PM »

And like those of the Pope, the writings of a Saint are not infallible.

I'm sure St. Justin is glad to receive your complaints about things he wrote.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,912


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #59 on: July 02, 2013, 08:30:03 PM »

The pope was obviously influenced by demons when he declared himself universal, certainly when also proclaiming himself infallible!

That'll shut 'em up!  Tongue
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #60 on: July 03, 2013, 09:51:06 AM »

And like those of the Pope, the writings of a Saint are not infallible.

I'm sure St. Justin is glad to receive your complaints about things he wrote.

And just what is incorrect in my statement? If you take all of the apologetics and polemical writings of all known saints - and cherry pick quotes you like, you no doubt could form your own sect. I didn't "complain" about St. Justin's writings, I just noted that they don't necessarily stand as a definitive response to the OPs question.

Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 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 0.207 seconds with 88 queries.