Author Topic: On Francis.....  (Read 75955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #225 on: December 06, 2013, 02:08:46 PM »
Here is his name and his statement of faith :

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:

"'As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, 'Thou art Peter, etc. . . .' 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.'"
And this came from where?

The Eastern Churches and the Papacy", S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)


Note: S. Herbert Scott, who was an Anglican if I'm not mistaken, cites for this quote Pere Salaville in an article in Echos d'Orient, 1910, pg. 171. He also says it was discovered & published in an Armenian version in Etchmiadzin (1896), although Scott says the original was probably published first in Greek.
I have to say, I'm impressed.  I'm used to those getting their fare from Vatican quote mines never to go beyond them.

Yes, it's from an Armenian manuscript, which is an odd context.  There were, and are, Armenian Chalcedonians, but they were not the majority among the Armenians in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and certainly not in Etchmiadzin.  Patriarch John, as you correctly dated, presided over the Patriarchate of Jerusalem well after not only the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, but the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II as well, by which time the EO/OO split was well established.  How did the words of Patriarch John, a Chalcedonian (the OO never established a Patriarchate of Jerusalem of their own, as they did in Alexandria and Antioch and Armenia; Pat. John himself was a Sleepless Monk from Chalcedon itself), end up preserved by non-Chalcedonians? (why it would be the words of a Patriarch of Jerusalem is not an issue: both Armenia and Georgia had close ties to Jerusalem, such that reconstructions of the Jerusalemite rite depend on Armenian and Georgian sources for reconstruction).  That Scott's source confuses Georgians and Caucasian Albanians doesn't change much-except that Armenian sources perhaps preserve more Albanian sources than Georgians ones.

Unfortunately, Fr. Salaville continued the interest in the quote only as a proof text: he came across it in the Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie (1 1910, p. 219) where R. P. Hurter, S. J. put it in Latin translation for Fr. Salaville to read, having received it from K. P. Aristaces Vardanian, Mkhitarist (i.e. an Armenian in submission to the Vatican, and therefore no doubt on the look out for any justification of that apostasy in the actual tradition of his spurned forefathers).  Who got it from the published edition of M. Karapet Vardapet, an Apostolic Armenian Orthodox. Fr. Salaville makes a lot of that point.

The source we want then is "Letter de Jean, patriarche de Jérusalem (575- 593), au catholicos d'Albanie" Etchmiadzin. 1896, where the whole thing is published, but in Armenian.  

If one can read French, they can read the letter here:
L'Église arménienne et le grand schisme d'Orient  By Nina G. Garsoïan
http://books.google.com/books?id=z61wGcjprnsC&pg=PA490&dq=%22Lettre+de+Jean,+patriarche+de+J%C3%A9rusalem+(575-593)%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=__yhUpnnO4G9yAGcioGwDw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Pierre&f=false

She has references to another Latin translation, etc.

The passage in point comes in the midst of a tirade against the opponents of Chalcedon, Armenian settling at the time in that camp, and Georgia and Albania on the other side.  So M. Karapet wouldn't be bothered with the text in question: being opposed to Chalcedon, he could easily attribute this error on papal infallibility to Pat. John's "error" on accepting Chalcedon, a school of thought among OOs that Fr. Romanides of blessed memory and others (not all Orthodox) have noted.  So when Fr. Salaville presumes that M. Karapet "who, as we have said, belongs to the Gregorian [i.e. Apostolic Orthodox] Church and not one of ours [i.e. in submission to the Vatican]...we can be grateful for his scientific impartiality which he proved with in publishing this attestation so clearly of the catholic [sic] doctrine," he just shows his ignorance of M. Karapet's opinions.  M. Karapet might be impartial, but this isn't proof of it, as he would have no problem whatsoever anathamatizing Pat. John and his opinions of Rome along with the Chalcedonian Albanians (whom the non-Chalcedonian Armenians suppressed) and dismissing all of the above along with Pope St. Leo's Tome and the Council of Chalcedon.

Pat. John error in debate he does not commit alone.  Bp. Theodore Abu Qurrah two centuries later would commit something similar, with a polemical point that resembles the Vatican's definition of an Ecumenical Council as one approved by the Pope of Rome. Unfortunately for your argument, he doesn't leave it at that, and goes into detail over the various Ecumenical Councils to make this claim, with such manifest historical absurdities that he succeeds only to disprove the idea.  Tellingly, when he isn't arguing with non-Chalcedonians, he doesn't say much about Rome, its Archbishop or St. Peter (although he was in the Antiochian Patriarchate).

So it was a cheap polemical point trying to make more of the fact that Rome alone had no opponents of Chalcedon in its Patriarchate, than it was (Bp. Theodore is curiously silent about Pope Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, although he was writing well over a century after it; then Jerusalem was the Patriarchate which acted as Orthodoxy's last bastion).  Nothing more.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 02:09:10 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #226 on: December 06, 2013, 02:19:21 PM »
I would not personally have a problem with Patriarch Sviatoslav someday succeeding to the title Patriarch of Kyiv and All Ukraine in the Orthodox Church, if he and the (majority of) the UGCC reunite with the Orthodox Church.  From what I know of him he is a good man who strives to know God and lead his flock.  He recently met with His All Holiness in Constantinople, reflecting the ancient ties between that see and the lands of Ukraine.  

But by elevating St Josaphat's methods as a bridge to unity, it makes me wonder how serious the RCs are at renouncing the old methods to achieve union which are supposed to be rejected as improper.  
As I always point out in this matter: when someone says "I never did that," what he means is "give me another chance, and I'll do it to you again."

Don't be fooled by such "renunciations."  True colors are being shown here.  And they are yellow and white, not yellow and light blue.

Their Major Archbishop Sviatopolk is in the same mold as his predecessor Met. Sheptyskyi, who, was considered as candidate for the All Ukraine Sabor, but made it clear when he received the "feelers" that he would accept to be elevated to "Patriarch of Kyiv and All Ukraine" but that would entail submitting "Kyiv and All Ukraine" to the Vatican.  As I've pointed out before:
Quote
Patriarch Filaret of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP) spoke about the relations between the UOC-KP and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in an interview to NG Religions...Unification with them will be possible when the Ukrainian Orthodox community is united in one church recognized by the world’s Orthodoxy. The thing is that the Greek Catholic Church appeared in the 16th century when Ukraine, which had lost its independence, became part of the Polish kingdom and the Orthodox bishops were put in an unequal position with the Catholic bishops. Now, we have our own state. There are grounds for unification as the cause of the divide has been liquidated. But I do not think that the whole UGCC is ready to unite in one Orthodox Church. Even if this unification happens, part of the Uniate clergy will simply join the Roman Catholic Church,” said the head of the UOC-KP.
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/47464/

This analysis stinks of nationalism.

I know it is a historical fact that one's religion was often dictated by the religion of the nobleman to whom one paid taxes, but one would hope that it is issues of doctrine which now keep the so-called "Ukrainian Greek Catholics" separated from the Church of Christ, rather than where the borders of the Ukrainian state are drawn.

If any part of the so-called Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church wishes to rejoin the Church of Christ, acknowledging it as being such, that part should do so immediately, not at some indefinite future point when certain diplomatic niceties are sorted out.

Am I misunderstanding?
No, but the UGCC myth has it Orthodox Russia prevented the Ukrainian Orthodox from flocking en mass to the Vatican, so they assUme that now that Russia is across the border, Kiev will march west.  Case in point the memoires of Lototsky, Ukrainian minister of religious affairs in the short lived Hetmanate, among other things:
Quote
Another matter in which Lototsky achieved success was the return from exile of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky. Following the arrest of the metropolitan in 1915, Lototsky had begun looking for ways to secure his freedom or ease his exile. Working with two Greek Catholic priests in the capital, Lototsky attempted to write about Sheptytsky in the Petrograd press, but found editors generally reluctant to permit such an appeal. Aleksandr Kerensky, who was then justice minister, issued instructions in March 1917 to free the metropolitan in response to appeals made by Lototsky in his capacity as president of the Ukrainian National Council. The council prepared to greet Sheptytsky on his return from exile on 18 March. Lototsky not only welcomed the metropolitan, but was also the first non-cleric officially to greet him in Petrograd. In his remarks, Lototsky praised. Sheptytsky for his devotion to his flock, the Ukrainian people, for whom he had been a good shepherd willing to give up his life. On 24 April, Sheptytsky left Petrograd for Kyiv and later Lviv to to enthusiastic greetings in both cities.

In his memoirs, Lototsky provides some important details about the life, arrest, exile, and return of Metropolitan Sheptytsky. For Lototsky, the arrest of the metropolitan violated international standards of conduct. An Orthodox Christian, Lototsky considered the exile of Metropolitan Sheptytsky an injustice against the entire Ukrainian nation, and not one committed against a particular Ukrainian church. Thus, the enthusiasm for the return of the metropolitan on the part of all Ukrainians, according to Lototsky, was not motivated by particular confessional concerns but by national and human ones. After his release, Sheptytsky was a guest at the Lototsky home...Lototsky was not without his personal views concerning the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine. Father Stepan luryk, a close associate of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, had remarked to Lototsky that now, after the fall of the Russian Empire,there remained no further obstacle to establishing the Greek Catholic Church as the national church of the Ukrainian people. Lototsky notes in his memoirs that he tried to persuade the priest otherwise, stating that his desire to see Metropolitan Sheptytsky free should not be interpreted as an invitation to the Greek Catholic Church to attempt to convert Ukrainian Orthodox Christians to Catholicism. Lototsky rejected any attempt to challenge what he termed the ancestral Orthodox faith of the Ukrainian people. Such attempts, he believed, would change the nature of the feelings Orthodox Ukrainians had for Sheptytsky and his church, renewing "the ugly scenes already experienced in our medieval history."

Between Kyiv and Constantinople: Oleksander Lototsky and the quest for Ukrainian Autocephaly By André Partykevich
http://books.google.com/books?id=SEXsJ1CzdvEC&pg=PA22&dq=%22Another+matter+in+which+Lototsky%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aGBxT42iIKTX0QHhu-WyAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Another%20matter%20in%20which%20Lototsky%22&f=false
a little added emphasis.

IOW, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav is willing to act as the tool of the Vatican.  He should be viewed as such.  He pursuit of the title "Patriarch" isn't to raise up Ukraine, but to raise the UGCC up in the Vatican hierarchy.  He prefers the Vatican, not Kiev, over Moscow.  His chumminess with Constantinople is towards that end.  Nothing more.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 02:24:56 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #227 on: December 06, 2013, 02:20:30 PM »
Here is his name and his statement of faith :

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:

"'As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, 'Thou art Peter, etc. . . .' 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.'"
And this came from where?

The Eastern Churches and the Papacy", S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)


Note: S. Herbert Scott, who was an Anglican if I'm not mistaken, cites for this quote Pere Salaville in an article in Echos d'Orient, 1910, pg. 171. He also says it was discovered & published in an Armenian version in Etchmiadzin (1896), although Scott says the original was probably published first in Greek.
I have to say, I'm impressed.  I'm used to those getting their fare from Vatican quote mines never to go beyond them.

Yes, it's from an Armenian manuscript, which is an odd context.  There were, and are, Armenian Chalcedonians, but they were not the majority among the Armenians in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and certainly not in Etchmiadzin.  Patriarch John, as you correctly dated, presided over the Patriarchate of Jerusalem well after not only the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, but the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II as well, by which time the EO/OO split was well established.  How did the words of Patriarch John, a Chalcedonian (the OO never established a Patriarchate of Jerusalem of their own, as they did in Alexandria and Antioch and Armenia; Pat. John himself was a Sleepless Monk from Chalcedon itself), end up preserved by non-Chalcedonians? (why it would be the words of a Patriarch of Jerusalem is not an issue: both Armenia and Georgia had close ties to Jerusalem, such that reconstructions of the Jerusalemite rite depend on Armenian and Georgian sources for reconstruction).  That Scott's source confuses Georgians and Caucasian Albanians doesn't change much-except that Armenian sources perhaps preserve more Albanian sources than Georgians ones.

Unfortunately, Fr. Salaville continued the interest in the quote only as a proof text: he came across it in the Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie (1 1910, p. 219) where R. P. Hurter, S. J. put it in Latin translation for Fr. Salaville to read, having received it from K. P. Aristaces Vardanian, Mkhitarist (i.e. an Armenian in submission to the Vatican, and therefore no doubt on the look out for any justification of that apostasy in the actual tradition of his spurned forefathers).  Who got it from the published edition of M. Karapet Vardapet, an Apostolic Armenian Orthodox. Fr. Salaville makes a lot of that point.

The source we want then is "Letter de Jean, patriarche de Jérusalem (575- 593), au catholicos d'Albanie" Etchmiadzin. 1896, where the whole thing is published, but in Armenian.  

If one can read French, they can read the letter here:
L'Église arménienne et le grand schisme d'Orient  By Nina G. Garsoïan
http://books.google.com/books?id=z61wGcjprnsC&pg=PA490&dq=%22Lettre+de+Jean,+patriarche+de+J%C3%A9rusalem+(575-593)%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=__yhUpnnO4G9yAGcioGwDw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Pierre&f=false

She has references to another Latin translation, etc.

The passage in point comes in the midst of a tirade against the opponents of Chalcedon, Armenian settling at the time in that camp, and Georgia and Albania on the other side.  So M. Karapet wouldn't be bothered with the text in question: being opposed to Chalcedon, he could easily attribute this error on papal infallibility to Pat. John's "error" on accepting Chalcedon, a school of thought among OOs that Fr. Romanides of blessed memory and others (not all Orthodox) have noted.  So when Fr. Salaville presumes that M. Karapet "who, as we have said, belongs to the Gregorian [i.e. Apostolic Orthodox] Church and not one of ours [i.e. in submission to the Vatican]...we can be grateful for his scientific impartiality which he proved with in publishing this attestation so clearly of the catholic [sic] doctrine," he just shows his ignorance of M. Karapet's opinions.  M. Karapet might be impartial, but this isn't proof of it, as he would have no problem whatsoever anathamatizing Pat. John and his opinions of Rome along with the Chalcedonian Albanians (whom the non-Chalcedonian Armenians suppressed) and dismissing all of the above along with Pope St. Leo's Tome and the Council of Chalcedon.

Pat. John error in debate he does not commit alone.  Bp. Theodore Abu Qurrah two centuries later would commit something similar, with a polemical point that resembles the Vatican's definition of an Ecumenical Council as one approved by the Pope of Rome. Unfortunately for your argument, he doesn't leave it at that, and goes into detail over the various Ecumenical Councils to make this claim, with such manifest historical absurdities that he succeeds only to disprove the idea.  Tellingly, when he isn't arguing with non-Chalcedonians, he doesn't say much about Rome, its Archbishop or St. Peter (although he was in the Antiochian Patriarchate).

So it was a cheap polemical point trying to make more of the fact that Rome alone had no opponents of Chalcedon in its Patriarchate, than it was (Bp. Theodore is curiously silent about Pope Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, although he was writing well over a century after it; then Jerusalem was the Patriarchate which acted as Orthodoxy's last bastion).  Nothing more.


Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no? As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #228 on: December 06, 2013, 02:48:17 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 02:52:30 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #229 on: December 06, 2013, 03:40:09 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

Lol intellectual honesty is clearly A trait some lack. Historical gymnastics is much appreciated by yourself, I see... Im done here :)
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,856
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #230 on: December 06, 2013, 04:28:20 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

Lol intellectual honesty is clearly A trait some lack. Historical gymnastics is much appreciated by yourself, I see... Im done here :)

IOW: "This is too hard, I'm going home, I don't want to play with you anymore."
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #231 on: December 06, 2013, 04:35:39 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

Lol intellectual honesty is clearly A trait some lack. Historical gymnastics is much appreciated by yourself, I see... Im done here :)

IOW: "This is too hard, I'm going home, I don't want to play with you anymore."
or "I'm tired of witnessing people downplay blatant evidence in front of them. I have better things to do with my time"
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #232 on: December 06, 2013, 04:48:22 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

Lol intellectual honesty is clearly A trait some lack. Historical gymnastics is much appreciated by yourself, I see... Im done here :)

IOW: "This is too hard, I'm going home, I don't want to play with you anymore."
or "I'm tired of witnessing people downplay blatant evidence in front of them. I have better things to do with my time"
or "I got what I want and I don't facts and context to endanger that."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #233 on: December 06, 2013, 04:49:59 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

Lol intellectual honesty is clearly A trait some lack. Historical gymnastics is much appreciated by yourself, I see... Im done here :)
Yes, I'm afraid both Pat. John and Bp. Theodore showed some lack of intellectual honesty in their historical gymnastics.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #234 on: December 06, 2013, 06:35:34 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

LOL! These threads crack me up. I can't make head or tails of the arguments or even the questions, but I suppose you are right given everyone's consensus. And that I would hate to have to sift through all your evidences, so I would never try to argue anyway.

I just want to know, did you ever let one of your sons get the better of you in a debate? My dad never gave me a break in ping-pong, not once. It didn't help my game.

I just gotta know.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 06:36:06 PM by orthonorm »

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #235 on: December 07, 2013, 09:41:59 AM »
(the OO never established a Patriarchate of Jerusalem of their own, as they did in Alexandria and Antioch and Armenia;

Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #236 on: December 07, 2013, 02:04:12 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

Lol intellectual honesty is clearly A trait some lack. Historical gymnastics is much appreciated by yourself, I see... Im done here :)
Yes, I'm afraid both Pat. John and Bp. Theodore showed some lack of intellectual honesty in their historical gymnastics.

Trust the fathers over your opinion :) context can't change the fact that he said the popes are infallible. That's the fact of the matter. Context gives an unsratansimg as to why he said so nut cannot contradict what he said or else that is ahistorical
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #237 on: December 07, 2013, 02:32:18 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

Lol intellectual honesty is clearly A trait some lack. Historical gymnastics is much appreciated by yourself, I see... Im done here :)
Yes, I'm afraid both Pat. John and Bp. Theodore showed some lack of intellectual honesty in their historical gymnastics.

Trust the fathers over your opinion :)
I always do:
Quote
The other most distinguished theologian who has recently discussed apologetically the case of Honorius is more candid, probably because much better informed, than Archbishop Manning; and consequently his apology, because more honest, is more futile. M. le P. Dom Prosper Gueranger, in his first and second replies to Pore Gratry, thus attempts to ward off his opponent's appeal to Honorius. He allows that the judgments of Honorius on the monothelite doctrine were 'ex cathedra;' that they were condemned by the sixth Council; but he thinks to save the infallibility of Honorius by the fact that Pope Leo II. does not class Honorius with Sergius and others, but places him apart and anathematizes him in a separate sentence (i. page 17). As if an anathema were not'the stronger from being concentrated on one head, or Honorius ceased to be a heretic because he is distinguished from all others in a special clause, by reason of the dignity of his apostolic office and the greater treachery of his defection from the faith. And again, Pope Leo not only repeated, of himself, the anathemas of the sixth Council, with the alteration we have noted, but he sanctioned and confirmed all its decrees; and it was in its decrees, as we have shown, that the .Council pronounced its judgment on Honorius and excommunicated him from the Church. No subterfuge accordingly, or brazen-toned denial, has served to prevent the universal condemnation of Honorius by the Church being cited as an infallible witness against Infallibility.

'Ideirco et nos et per nostrum officium haec veneranda sedes Apostolica concorditer ac unanimiter his quae definita sunt ab ea (Synodo) et Petri auctoritate confirmat, sicut supra solidam pctram qui Christus est, ab ipso Domino adeptis firmitatem:' a passage which is interesting as showing how, even in Roman speech, Christus is the Petra, and the decrees of the Council received their certainty from the Lord himself.

The British quarterly review, Volumes 57-58 By Robert Vaughan
http://books.google.com/books?id=T55PghGi79kC&pg=RA1-PA47&lpg=RA1-PA47&dq=Ideirco+et+Nos+et+per+nostrum+officium+haec+veneranda+Sedes+Apostolica+his+quae+definita+sunt,&source=bl&ots=LC1TRKa4pz&sig=R3P4SLns8exQRGBiGtD5jHnfNRE&hl=en&ei=iNAnTdGeMoTWnAeih9mzAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ideirco%20et%20Nos%20et%20per%20nostrum%20officium%20haec%20veneranda%20Sedes%20Apostolica%20his%20quae%20definita%20sunt%2C&f=false
Thirdly anathemas to persona are not infallible,

Arius and Nestorius are no doubt pleased you think so.
only anathemas to doctrines.
is that ex cathedra de fide?

"The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith.  But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.  Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod; for, according to the sentence spoken of God, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” the present holy and Ecumenical Synod faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands as well the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of ancient Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one will and one operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ who is our very God, has likewise adopted that other synodal suggestion which was sent by the Council holden under the same most holy Pope, composed of 125 Bishops, beloved of God, to his God-instructed tranquillity, as consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and to the Tome of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the same old Rome, which was directed to St. Flavian, which also this Council called the Pillar of the right faith; and also agrees with the Synodal Epistles which were written by Blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental Bishops."-Definition of Faith of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

"And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."-Sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!-Acclamation of the Holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

"we overturned the tower built up by these followers of this most impious heresy; and we slew them with anathema, as lapsed concerning the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God, that we may express ourselves after the manner of David, in accordance with the sentence already given concerning them in your letter, and their names are these:  Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter."-Letter of the Holy Father of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in response to the letter of Pope St. Agatho to them.

"We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent."-Preamble of the Definition of the Faith of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.


The Holy Spirit with the Church has spoken. The case is closed.
context can't change the fact that he said the popes are infallible
Nor that he said it can change the fact that context shows he was in error. And why.
That's the fact of the matter.
That he was disingenuous or mistaken in the matter-particularly given the facts of the Fifth Council, held within his lifetime-that's a fact.
Context gives an unsratansimg as to why he said so nut cannot contradict what he said or else that is ahistorical
read the rest of the letter.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #238 on: December 07, 2013, 02:45:07 PM »
(the OO never established a Patriarchate of Jerusalem of their own, as they did in Alexandria and Antioch and Armenia;


Quote
The head of the Church is Jesus Christ. The Supreme Spiritual and Administrative leader of the Armenian Church is His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, who is the worldwide spiritual leader of the Nation, for Armenians both in Armenia and dispersed throughout the world. He is Chief Shepherd and Pontiff to 9,000,000 Armenian faithful. The spiritual and administrative headquarters of the Armenian Church, the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, located in the city of Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia, was established in 301 AD and seventeen centuries later continues to guide our devoted nation and people on the luminous paths of fulfilling the primary mission of our Church - leading people to God.The Armenian Church has changed and developed to meet the needs of the faithful over her 1700 year history... Led by His Holiness, Karekin II, the spiritual and administrative work of the Armenian Church is carried out in the Republic of Armenia in the areas of Religion, Preparation of Clergy, Christian Education, Construction of new Churches, Social Services, and Ecumenical activities. Underneath this administrative structure are the hierarchal Sees:  X The Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia located in Antelias, Lebanon, is a regional See with current jurisdiction of the Dioceses of Lebanon, Syria and Cyprus as temporarily granted to her by the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 1929, led by His Holiness Catholicos Aram I.  X The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem which has jurisdiction over all of the Holy Lands and the Diocese of Jordan, led by His Beatitude Archbishop Torgom Manoogian...The three historic aforementioned hierarchal sees administer to the Dioceses under their jurisdiction as they see fit, however, the supremacy of the Catholicosate of All Armenians in all spiritual matters remains pre-eminent...
http://www.armenianchurch.org/index.jsp?sid=1&id=7746&pid=3&lng=en
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #239 on: December 08, 2013, 07:43:08 PM »
Francis, the pope, backtracking a bit?  ???

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-11-26
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #240 on: December 09, 2013, 01:54:07 PM »
Whether or not Francis is great pope or a poor one, I suspect the Catholic Church will survive... "I will be with you always..."
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,305
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #241 on: December 09, 2013, 02:02:34 PM »
Francis, the pope, backtracking a bit?  ???

You are twisting things more than the media do. And they are at least often out of their depth when it comes to religion. What's your excuse?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #242 on: December 09, 2013, 02:02:41 PM »
Whether or not Francis is great pope or a poor one, I suspect the Catholic Church will survive... "I will be with you always..."
Of course we will survive.  Christ is with us always, and we are not saddled with another head called Francis.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #243 on: December 09, 2013, 02:10:16 PM »
Whether or not Francis is great pope or a poor one, I suspect the Catholic Church will survive... "I will be with you always..."
Of course we will survive.  Christ is with us always, and we are not saddled with another head called Francis.
Oh Isa, you are too cute.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #244 on: December 09, 2013, 02:28:35 PM »
Whether or not Francis is great pope or a poor one, I suspect the Catholic Church will survive... "I will be with you always..."
Of course we will survive.  Christ is with us always, and we are not saddled with another head called Francis.
Oh Isa, you are too cute.
I missed you too.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #245 on: December 10, 2013, 10:59:57 AM »
Francis, the pope, backtracking a bit?  ???

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-11-26

Which begs the question: Why wasn't Pope Francis up front on the clarity of his pronouncements, but instead led some to interpret for themselves what he said instead of knowing exactly what he meant on social issues?  I would expect someone of his stature to be very exacting in his choice of words especially in a world ever-so-ready to pounce on anything that smacks of Christian principles.  Then again, this may not be him so much as his speech writer who is to blame.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 11:01:10 AM by JoeS2 »

Offline Misplaced Book

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 268
  • Don't mind me......
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: EP
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #246 on: December 11, 2013, 11:51:33 PM »
Whether or not Francis is great pope or a poor one, I suspect the Catholic Church will survive... "I will be with you always..."

Why is this even a question?

There is this general sense that the Church needs a "restoration"....a "renewal."   As if the last attempt at "renewal" went wrong, and this time it will work...

Definition of Insanity:  Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

This mentality is confusing...why does the ebb and flow of the Church depend on one guy?  "Everything will be ok if we get the right Pope in there..."

Really?
"A positive thought is worth more than a vigil service on Mt. Athos." -St. Paisios the Athonite

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,849
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #247 on: December 13, 2013, 09:39:16 AM »
Quote
Pope Francis has used his message for the annual World Day of Peace, released Thursday, to call for better treatment of the poor and suffering based on the Christian message that all people are brothers and sisters.

Mentioning over and over the relationship of God as a parent to humanity, the pope states: "All men and women enjoy an equal and inviolable dignity. All are loved by God."

"All have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, who died on the Cross and rose for all," the pope continues. "This is the reason why no one can remain indifferent before the lot of our brothers and sisters."
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #248 on: December 14, 2013, 07:08:02 PM »
Something eerily creepy when the whole world loves you like a rock star and you're the Vicar of Christ....... ::)

Everybody Loves Francis





No comments needed, just a few quotes from Holy Scripture:

•"Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets." (Lk 6:26)
•"Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you." (Mt 5:11-12)

•"And you shall be hated by all men for my name' s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved." (Mt 10:22)
•"If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you." (Jn 15:18)
•"And they adored the dragon, which gave power to the beast: and they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall be able to fight with him?" (Apoc 13:4)



http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm#.Uqtf47QUahk
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,664
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #249 on: December 14, 2013, 07:09:20 PM »
Martel are you a Seventh Day Adventist?
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #250 on: December 14, 2013, 07:11:23 PM »
Notice how the tips of the "M" form horns around his funny pope yarmulke...!

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Άλιεύς Ἰχθύων
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,010
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #251 on: December 14, 2013, 07:12:20 PM »
Is that the cover they're using?

Surely they could have found something a little bit more flattering.
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,849
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #252 on: December 14, 2013, 07:13:45 PM »
Something eerily creepy when the whole world loves you like a rock star and you're the Vicar of Christ....... ::)
....
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #253 on: December 14, 2013, 07:14:23 PM »
Now this is just getting really weird......... ???

"Pope" Francis is MTV College Channel's
"Man of the Year"



The above video is pretty self-explanatory -- not much comment needed. Here's a link to the accompanying article at mtvU, the college channel of MTV.

All the "conservative" Novus Ordo pundits and apologists will tell you that MTV just doesn't "get" Francis, but.... no, they get him only too well....



"By their Fruits you shall know them" (Mt 7:16)...



http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm#.Uqtf47QUahk
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #254 on: December 14, 2013, 07:15:46 PM »
Martel are you a Seventh Day Adventist?
Uhh.......no.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #255 on: December 14, 2013, 07:16:21 PM »
Notice how the tips of the "M" form horns around his funny pope yarmulke...!
Ha! Good observation. ;)
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,664
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #256 on: December 14, 2013, 07:16:46 PM »
Something eerily creepy when the whole world loves you like a rock star and you're the Vicar of Christ....... ::)
....

oh, wait, JPII was the neocons' man. Or so they thought at least.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline dzheremi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,371
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #257 on: December 14, 2013, 07:25:03 PM »
Ok and all this goes to show? That John of Jerusalem still believed in an infallible papacy no?
No. Read the rest of the letter. (btw, another hint of what is going on that is that the terminology is not the usual Armenian theological terms, but ones used in the Armenian translation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon's Acts).

As I noted earlier about him and other easterners in the first millennium.
No, the second half of the first millennium (and not even that): the issue came up as an attempt to disuse the deriding of the Chalcedonians as Melkites "Emperor's Men."  Another polemic of the OO's which has its Ultramontanist counterpart, namely "Caesaro-Papism."  Bp. Theodore, for instance, writes against the Maronites, i.e. the Monothelites, passing over Pope Honorius in silence.  btw, an article by C.A. Kneller, S.J. on Bp. Theodore's conciliar ideas appeared in the same volume of ZfKTh as the Latin translation of John.

On this, see Sidney Griffith (one of your priests, and a scholar) "The Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah," in Biblica Et Apocrypha, Orientalia, Ascetica  edited by Elizabeth A. Livingston
http://books.google.com/books?id=B42h3mgVkWcC&pg=PA297&dq=%22Melkites+from+the+charge+of+an+emperor-based+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yh-iUqqbB8T-qAHIzIDoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Melkites%20from%20the%20charge%20of%20an%20emperor-based%20faith%22&f=false

Lol intellectual honesty is clearly A trait some lack. Historical gymnastics is much appreciated by yourself, I see... Im done here :)

IOW: "This is too hard, I'm going home, I don't want to play with you anymore."
or "I'm tired of witnessing people downplay blatant evidence in front of them. I have better things to do with my time"

Sheesh...it's one lie after another with these people! ;)

Offline dzheremi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,371
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #258 on: December 14, 2013, 07:27:04 PM »

This mentality is confusing...why does the ebb and flow of the Church depend on one guy?  "Everything will be ok if we get the right Pope in there..."

Really?

Because they've invested all that power in one guy.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #259 on: December 14, 2013, 07:28:50 PM »
Something eerily creepy when the whole world loves you like a rock star and you're the Vicar of Christ....... ::)
....

oh, wait, JPII was the neocons' man. Or so they thought at least.
so did Time
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline dzheremi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,371
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #260 on: December 14, 2013, 07:36:29 PM »
Maybe someday one of the more conservative Roman Catholic groups like the SSPX will canonize Reagan for all he supposedly did to beat the godless commie nazis. They both seem(ed) to have in common an idealization of a 1950s, Norman Rockwell-esque America (though the SSPX for more strictly liturgical reasons).

You're fairly conservative, Isa...do you think that would make you warm up to the Romanists even a little bit? ;)

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,664
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #261 on: December 14, 2013, 07:38:50 PM »

This mentality is confusing...why does the ebb and flow of the Church depend on one guy?  "Everything will be ok if we get the right Pope in there..."

Really?

Because they've invested all that power in one guy.
That's a strawman . I bet a Coptic bishop if he wants to can be way more despotic in his diocese than the roman pope will ever be in any given RC diocese.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline dzheremi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,371
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #262 on: December 14, 2013, 07:42:13 PM »

This mentality is confusing...why does the ebb and flow of the Church depend on one guy?  "Everything will be ok if we get the right Pope in there..."

Really?

Because they've invested all that power in one guy.
That's a strawman . I bet a Coptic bishop if he wants to can be way more despotic in his diocese than the roman pope will ever be in any given RC diocese.

You'd have to bet, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go away, troll.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #263 on: December 14, 2013, 07:43:29 PM »

This mentality is confusing...why does the ebb and flow of the Church depend on one guy?  "Everything will be ok if we get the right Pope in there..."

Really?

Because they've invested all that power in one guy.


That's a strawman . I bet a Coptic bishop if he wants to can be way more despotic in his diocese than the roman pope will ever be in any given RC diocese.

You'd have to bet, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go away, troll.

Folks, let them have their Pope, we have the true faith, and when all is said and done, this is what really counts.   They can enjoy all the worldly publicity and the like but when you get right down to the nitty gritty, its Orthodoxy or nothing at all.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 07:45:13 PM by JoeS2 »

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #264 on: December 14, 2013, 07:47:10 PM »
Folks, let them have their Pope, we have the true faith, and when all is said and done, this is what really counts.

I'm pretty sure what really counts is that those who disagree with us know that they're wrong and feel bad about it.


They can enjoy all the worldly publicity and the like but when you get right down to the nitty gritty, its Orthodoxy or nothing at all.

Our specific brand of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, to be precise. Let's not be too inclusive, now. ;)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 07:50:33 PM by lovesupreme »

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,664
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #265 on: December 14, 2013, 07:48:35 PM »

This mentality is confusing...why does the ebb and flow of the Church depend on one guy?  "Everything will be ok if we get the right Pope in there..."

Really?

Because they've invested all that power in one guy.


That's a strawman . I bet a Coptic bishop if he wants to can be way more despotic in his diocese than the roman pope will ever be in any given RC diocese.

You'd have to bet, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go away, troll.

Folks, let them have their Pope, we have the true faith, and when all is said and done, this is what really counts.   They can enjoy all the worldly publicity and the like but when you get right down to the nitty gritty, its Orthodoxy or nothing at all.
my gawd ::)
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,664
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #266 on: December 14, 2013, 07:49:49 PM »

This mentality is confusing...why does the ebb and flow of the Church depend on one guy?  "Everything will be ok if we get the right Pope in there..."

Really?

Because they've invested all that power in one guy.
That's a strawman . I bet a Coptic bishop if he wants to can be way more despotic in his diocese than the roman pope will ever be in any given RC diocese.

You'd have to bet, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go away, troll.
trust me an ethnarch can be way more despotic within his own millyiet, than the Roman pope. Let me repeat it for ya'. It's a smaller pond.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 07:51:59 PM by augustin717 »
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline dzheremi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,371
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #267 on: December 14, 2013, 07:52:14 PM »
Don't bother. Isn't there someone in a top hat somewhere you should be beating up on?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #268 on: December 14, 2013, 07:55:12 PM »
Maybe someday one of the more conservative Roman Catholic groups like the SSPX will canonize Reagan for all he supposedly did to beat the godless commie nazis. They both seem(ed) to have in common an idealization of a 1950s, Norman Rockwell-esque America (though the SSPX for more strictly liturgical reasons).

You're fairly conservative, Isa...do you think that would make you warm up to the Romanists even a little bit? ;)
Depends on which ones.  Collaborate? Yes. Join? No.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,664
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Francis.....
« Reply #269 on: December 14, 2013, 07:57:15 PM »
Don't bother. Isn't there someone in a top hat somewhere you should be beating up on?
top hat as opposed to the black turban?
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."