Primacy and jurisdiction of Rome in the Early Church
Alban Mosher
Greetings,
One of the main disagreements between the Orthodox Church and the Roman
Catholic Church is over the issue of the primacy and jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Rome. Please feel free to offer comments on the two texts below
and on the issue of Roman primacy and jurisdiction.
But since it would be too long to enumerate m such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they lake thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.
I have underlined the portions of the above texts that I would appreciate comments to made on.
Your unworthy servant,
Reader Alban Mosher
St. Catherine of Sinai Greek Orthodox Church
St. Louis, Missouri
Alban Mosher
> To Alban Mosher:
>
> My only question is, based upon the irrefragable quotes you provided, how can
> you defend being a Greek Orthodox?
>
> BAM
>
The basis for the unity of the Church is found in the truth of the confession of
St. Peter the Apostle. When Rome upheld the Orthodox confession of the faith, it
was the first among equals, and had the right to hear cases appealed to it. Rome
never had origial jurisdiction in any other territory or diocese than its own,
just like any other bishop. However, when Old Rome, through the influence of the
Franks, introduced deviations from the Orthodox Faith and practises, they were
rightly rebuked by the Orthodox bishops and faithful of the East. One Pope of Old
Rome (Honorius) was condemned as a heretic (so much for Papal Infallibility) by
an Ecumenical Council. It was Rome in the 11th century which severed the unity of
the Church and created the Great Schism, which lasts up to this day.
Kevin Beach
It was my understanding that in the 1960's the Roman Catholic and
Orthodox Churches mutually repealed/rescinded/renounced the anathemas
that they had pronounced on each other centuries beforehand?
Kevin
Gerard F. Bugge
Alban Mosher wrote
One of the main disagreements between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is over the issue of the primacy and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Please feel free to offer comments on the two texts below and on the issue of Roman primacy and jurisdiction.
But since it would be too long to enummerate such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (3,3,2)
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they lake thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.St. Cyprian, Letter to Cornelius of Rome
I have underlined the portions of the above texts that I would appreciate comments to made on.
Dear Alban,
Some confusion here in the format you used for your posting; and as I reply it looks like I have a different-than-usual program for composing this reply. Hope it works! I'm using another font even (this may be fun!).
Regarding the two underlined quotes, it does seem to give to the Roman Church a pre-eminence and some role in determining both apostolicity and orthodoxy. No mention is made that what is said is "contingent" on Rome's remaining faithful--that seems to be a "given."
Regarding St Irenaeus' quote: the Latin used is, I believe, propter principaliter principium (or something like that!): which even in Latin gives some indication of a preeminence and even a special role in the Church. I note that Irenaeus seems to be passing on what he was taught and hardly innovating here--simply stating, affirming, and not defending or arguing to those who may disagree.
He says that with this Church all others must agree--stating that in her the apostolic tradition has been preserved faithfully. And the history of the Church points over and over to Rome's "orthodoxy" when most Churches fell into various heresies, etc. (Vladimir Soloviev writes powerfully about this historical and verifiable reality).
Of course, critics can point to Honorius, Vigilius, and at least one other (can't remember name right now)--but these are definitely the exceptions and even need to be nuanced and "contextualized"--to use a newer word!--and they ultimately do not take away from this witness of Rome to orthodoxy..... it was after these Popes who did err, that the Eastern Patriarch wrote to the Pope, in the name, I believe, of a Council, that in Rome alone "the apostolic faith has been preserved pure and uncontaminated." (I quote from memory and may not be exact--but that is definitely the substance of what was written).
At any rate, this testimony of St Irenaeus seems to have some significance and meaning and I'm glad you point it out. Of course, not all would agree with my own reading of it. But at least we can all read it here!
Regarding St Cyrian. He is a great saint. He seems to bounce back and forth between assigning a special role to the Roman Church (and I believe there are two extant manuscripts of his On the Unity of the Church, which give two somewhat different versions of his thinking on the relationship of St Peter to Rome and to all the Bishops--and, from my readings, the one that gives more to Rome is the later edition! But be that as it may.....
It seems that Cyprian had his run-ins with Pope St Stephen. And in their dispute, at least for the entire west (and I believe for the east too in its mainstream), the Pope's view prevailed over the question of rebaptism, etc. At other times, when the need was there: Cyprian appealed to Rome!
The Catholic understanding of the role of Peter and the Petrine Office took time to unfold and to be clarified (as with all the great dogmas really). We can't take what we have now in the organic development--as understood by the Catholic Church--and put it back into the earlier centuries. But perhaps some can at least see the signs of the truth of this later unfolding in earlier testimonies such as the two quotations you shared with us for comment. Both selections are striking in their own way.
But neither are nearly as explicit as some of the words of St Maximus the Confessor regarding Rome and her primacy and jurisdiction (actually posted on this list by Dr George not too long ago!)!
This issue is deep and complex. I hope my remarks are at least a testimony to the respect I have for what you posted and for your request for response. (But then maybe you were looking only for comments from Orthodox? I hope not!).
Gerard Serafin
A Catholic Page for Lovers: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com
D-J Wilkey
> It was my understanding that in the 1960's the Roman Catholic and
> Orthodox Churches mutually repealed/rescinded/renounced the anathemas
> that they had pronounced on each other centuries beforehand?
>
> Kevin
Whether that is true or not I can't say for sure. It does sound familiar
however. Yet that mutual statement would apply only to the Papal Bull
laid down in Constantinople in 1054 and the Patriarch's response to it,
and perhaps other divisive encyclicals since. It would not have any
bearing on Pope Honorius, for example. Yet, having said that, there is
still strong theological differences between Rome and the Orthodox.
Differences which do not allow us simply to proclaim that all is
forgiven, we are at one and thus, in communion. Because we are not at
one, doctrinally. And so the dialogue continues. I, for one, have no
great hopes that it will be resolved.
Dan
Christopher Beattie
> To all NG members:
In both alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox and
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic it should
be pointed out, especially since you have also
redirected BAM's comments on arcrc alone to
both groups.
The use of such crossposts is a keg of dynamyte waiting to
explode. Many people don't look at the crossposted headers.
They assume that the person is writing for their own newsgroup,
and what may be locical church argument in one newsgroup may
be unacceptable in the other, because the philosophy between
east and west is on occasion vast, and because of poor
assumptions on the part of one side about the other.
> One of the main disagreements between the Orthodox Church and the
> Roman Catholic Church is over the issue of the primacy and
> jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Please feel free to offer comments
> on the two texts below and on the issue of Roman primacy and
> jurisdiction.
One of the problems with this approach, as some members of the
eastern orthodox newsgroup have pointed out a long time ago is
that you simply can't take text out of context. If we as
Roman Catholic complain when Protestants do this to scripture,
Eastern Orthodox have just as much right when we seemingly
take proof texts out of the Early Church Fathers.
I believe that you can take context and text together, but
I am not a learned schollar, so what I believe I cannot prove.
> But since it would be too long to enumerate m such a volume
> as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall
> confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through
> self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and
> wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by
> pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the
> greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
> organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter
> and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith
> which comes down to us after having been announced to men by
> the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior
> origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful
> in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful
> everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
> St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (3,3,2)
I have a hard time trying to figure out what your point is in this
quote. It really doesn't say much, only that up to the time of
Irenaeus, all the Church must agree that Rome has kept the true
faith, and maintained the Apostolic tradition.
St. Irenaeus lived long beofre the first ecumencial council, and
his comments must be seen in that light.
> With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics,
> they dare even to set sail and carry letters from
> schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the
> principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source;
> nor did they lake thought that these are Romans, whose faith
> was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is
> not possible for perfidy to have entrance.
> St. Cyprian, Letter to Cornelius of Rome
Cyprian too is pre ecumencial council, and his notion that
"sacerdotal unity has its source" in Rome must be seen in
it's proper context not any context derived from future
understanding of the Church.
Now having said that, let's try to put the context into these
texts and then perhaps we can proceed together in a better
understanding of the faith.
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
Kevin Beach
I know about the "FILIOQUE" dispute, and obviously the Orthodox churches
reject the supremacy of the Pope, but can you tell me what the other
theological differences are, please? i agree that the present situation
is a bit depressing. After the fall of Communism, we all hoped that the
Eastern European Orthodox churches would emerge into the light of
freedom and be looking fo rhelp from the West. Instead, they seem to
have adopted a strong anti-Rome attitude and even to have fallen out
between themselves. In addition, the Constantinopalean Church in
Istanbul appears to be distracted by having to protect itself against
the threat of persscution by Muslim fundamentalist in Turkey.
Let us pray...........
Kevin
durak
Kevin Beach wrote in message <35D8AE0...@mcmail.com>...
. After the fall of Communism, we all hoped that the
>Eastern European Orthodox churches would emerge into the light of
>freedom and be looking fo rhelp from the West
Yea, I remember as a youngster being told by my R.C. best friend that they
were praying in their R..C. church for the....."conversion of Russia". What
kind of help from the West were you hoping to provide to Russia?
D-J Wilkey
> reject the supremacy of the Pope, but can you tell me what the other
> theological differences are, please? i agree that the present situation
> Eastern European Orthodox churches would emerge into the light of
> have adopted a strong anti-Rome attitude and even to have fallen out
> between themselves. In addition, the Constantinopalean Church in
> Istanbul appears to be distracted by having to protect itself against
> the threat of persscution by Muslim fundamentalist in Turkey.
> Let us pray...........
>
> Kevin
Hello Kevin,
Well, off the top of my head, besides what you mentioned above, there is
the Roman teaching of the immaculate conception of Mary, the veneration
of the... oh shoot. I forgot what it is called, perhaps others can help
me here, but I've seen Roman icons of Mary and Christ with their hearts
shown outside of their bodies, or by itself altogether. As I said I
don't remember what the exact term for it is, but basically it is a
reverence for the heart (loving) of both Christ and Mary in and of
itself. The Orthodox do not divide an individual up in to their
requisite parts. A person is a person, body, soul and spirit. Remove
any part and you don't have a whole person. There is also the issue of
reception of communion in both elements - body and blood (bread and
wine). The manner of delivery is not really a big deal (as far as I
know). There is also the doctrine of Purgatory that must be hurdled.
As far as your comment concerning the Russian Church's response to Rome
I think I have a good view of what that is all about. Once religious
freedom was granted to churches in the former U.S.S.R. the government
allowed churches to reclaim former Church properties from the State.
The Orthodox Church, after 70 years of domination with no legal support
allowed from the state, and that from individuals being discouraged and
those who did give money being hounded and, dare I say it, persecuted,
the Church didn't have the where with all to reclaim the properties.
However, Rome has all kinds of money. They quickly moved in and bought
up properties and undertook an aggressive program of prosylitism of
those Orthodox in the adjoining communities. This I know because one
bishop of the Russian far east and a year latter the Patriarch himself
came here (to Alaska) to protest the practice with the Roman Archbishop
Hearly (sp). The Russian Church also issued a communiqué of protest to
Rome. There has since been a joint letter of respect issued from both
sees regarding the issue. Yet the Orthodox in Russia have been leery of
Rome ever since.
I hope this helps.
Dan
Brian Delaney
Communist tyranny not Orthodoxy! I'm sure that is something we can all agree
on.
Peace,
Brian
durak wrote:
> Kevin Beach wrote in message <35D8AE0...@mcmail.com>...
> . After the fall of Communism, we all hoped that the
> >Eastern European Orthodox churches would emerge into the light of
Fr. John Morris
Brian Delaney wrote in message <35D9AAD9...@ix.netcom.com>...
>The prayer for the "conversion of Russia" had to do with liberation from
>Communist tyranny not Orthodoxy! I'm sure that is something we can all
agree
>on.
>
appearances of Our Lady to several Portuguese children beginning in May,
1917, which was before the Russian Revolution. Rome has long had a goal to
convert Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. There is a college in Rome called
the Russicom (sp) devoted specifically to training Roman Catholic clergy to
look and act like Orthodox clergy. The idea was to send in Roman Catholics
to infiltrate the Orthodox Church and convert it to the Unia.
Archpriest John W. Morris
durak
Brian Delaney wrote in message <35D9AAD9...@ix.netcom.com>...
>The prayer for the "conversion of Russia" had to do with liberation from
>Communist tyranny not Orthodoxy! I'm sure that is something we can all
agree
>on.
You must be kidding. If they meant ...."liberation from Communist tyranny"
why
didn't they pray for the ...."liberation from Communist tyranny"?
Conversion of Russia means conversion of Russia. There's nothing vague,
indefinite or not clear in that phrase. All of my RC friends at the time
knew what it meant. When did the spin begin?
Robert G. Tallick
> Communist tyranny not Orthodoxy! I'm sure that is something we can all agree
> on.
>
>
> Brian
Now thats funny. When I was growing up ALL of my Roman Catholic friends
told me they were praying for the conversion of Russia to Roman
Catholicism cause the 'blessed mother' told them to. Do you suppose
they didn't realy understand the meaning of the prayer words they were
reciting?
durak
Fr. John Morris wrote in message ...
>>
>Not really. It began as part of the devotions associated with Fatima, the
>appearances of Our Lady to several Portuguese children beginning in May,
>1917, which was before the Russian Revolution. Rome has long had a goal to
>convert Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. There is a college in Rome called
>the Russicom (sp) devoted specifically to training Roman Catholic clergy to
>look and act like Orthodox clergy. The idea was to send in Roman Catholics
>to infiltrate the Orthodox Church and convert it to the Unia.
This is exactly the understanding fifty years ago.
Brian Delaney
prayer for Russia's conversion were explained as being conversion from Communist
error. It was not considered conversion to RC from Orthodoxy, indeed Orthodoxy was
never thought of or mentioned in this context. This and the remark about the
Russicum from Father John is just blind prejudice and paronoia against the RC
Church. I tend to see this as similar to the petition added to the Litany of Peace
in the ROCOR about "deliverance from the godless rule". Do you all think that Rome
is at the center of all evil and error? Titus Oates would have been proud!
Peace,
Brian
Alban Mosher
> Not really. It began as part of the devotions associated with Fatima, the
> appearances of Our Lady to several Portuguese children beginning in May,
> 1917, which was before the Russian Revolution. Rome has long had a goal to
> convert Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. There is a college in Rome called
> the Russicom (sp) devoted specifically to training Roman Catholic clergy to
> look and act like Orthodox clergy. The idea was to send in Roman Catholics
> to infiltrate the Orthodox Church and convert it to the Unia.
>
> Archpriest John W. Morris
>
Dear Fr. John;
You are right on the mark. The 'appearence' of the Mother of God to these
children was before the Russian Revolution. And the language they used was one
of conversion, not liberation. Nor was it a prayer for the suffering Russian
land and the Orthodox faithful, or for the Orthodox espiscopate of the
persecuted Russian Church as was liturgical usage of the ROCOR. Conversion
means one thing, that is to be converted from something to something. In the
case of Russia, it was for the conversion of the Russian from Orthodoxy to
Roman Catholicism. It has been the desire of the Papacy for centuries to tear
the Russians away from the Orthodox Church and into the Roman Catholic Church
(so much for "sister churches").
Lane Core Jr.
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:12:58 GMT, "Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net>
wrote the following:
>Brian Delaney wrote in message <35D9AAD9...@ix.netcom.com>...
>>The prayer for the "conversion of Russia" had to do with liberation from
>>Communist tyranny not Orthodoxy! I'm sure that is something we can all
>agree
>>on.
>>
>Not really. It began as part of the devotions associated with Fatima, the
>appearances of Our Lady to several Portuguese children beginning in May,
>1917, which was before the Russian Revolution. Rome has long had a goal to
>convert Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. There is a college in Rome called
>the Russicom (sp) devoted specifically to training Roman Catholic clergy to
>look and act like Orthodox clergy. The idea was to send in Roman Catholics
>to infiltrate the Orthodox Church and convert it to the Unia.
>Archpriest John W. Morris
Oh, come on, Fr. John. That is as stupid as the idea that Protestants have
had for generations that "Rome" has tried to infiltrate their churches to
undermine them. (Do you really want to sound so much like Jack Chick?) Like
we don't have anything else to do.
For instance, Jill B used to tell everybody on Usenet that Cardinal Newman
was a secret Jesuit who funded Hort and Wescott to destroy the authority of
KJV. What balderdash.
And, I might add, what an uncharitable accusation of bad faith.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lane Core Jr. elc...@sgi.net http://users.sgi.net/~elcore
I welcome e-mail replies. :) But I have no time for e-mail debates. :(
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is but one real Antagonist of the world, and that is the faith of
Catholics;--Christ set that faith up, and it will do its work on earth,
as it ever has done, till He comes again."
John Henry Newman, "Saintliness the Standard of Christian Principle" (1849)
Robert G. Tallick
> is at the center of all evil and error? Titus Oates would have been proud!
>
> Peace,
>
> Brian
I can only relate what was told to me by friends who were all Roman
Catholic and thought they were praying for the conversion of Russia to
Roman Catholicism cause the nuns told them. Of course, these were also
the same people who were also told they couldn't come into my 'Russian
Orthodox Church' because it would be a sin and they would go to hell.
Some of them actually believed that we had an American flag on the floor
that we stepped and spit on cause the nuns told them so.
As for Rome being the center of evil and error...after reading its
history of aggression against Orthodoxy during the last 1000 years, I
certainaly don't believe its the model for the christian church or the
seat of the 'Infallible Vicar of Christ on earth."
> > Not really. It began as part of the devotions associated with Fatima, the
> > appearances of Our Lady to several Portuguese children beginning in May,
> > 1917, which was before the Russian Revolution.
Speaking of Fatima, can anyone explain what has happened to one of the
most sacred Icons in Russia....'Our Lady of Kazan". The Icon was kept
in the Church in Fatima until recently where it has mysteriously
disappeared. If you read some Roman Catholic literature going back
twenty years or so you will hear Roman Catholic statements that the Icon
will be returned to the Russian people when communism was abolished and
the Church it was kept in Red Square was rebuilt.
Whats funny is that now that the above has been accomplished the Icon is
no where in sight and every Roman Catholic you ask has no idea where it
is. Saw a program on EWTN last year where the 'Roman Catholic Blue
Army' stated that twice the Icon was for sale and the 'Russians Abroad'
raised the $3 millions dollars asking price and the money dissappeared.
Point they were making was it was the 'Blessed Mothers' way of saying
she didn't want to return to Russia.
Another rumor has it now in the Pope's private Chapel and its being held
as his ticket to visit Russia.
Could some Roman Catholics or Uniates please enlighten us as to where
one of most sacred Russian Orthodox Icons is?
Legatus
> Speaking of Fatima, can anyone explain what has happened to one of the
> most sacred Icons in Russia....'Our Lady of Kazan".
> Could some Roman Catholics or Uniates please enlighten us as to where
> one of most sacred Russian Orthodox Icons is?
I saw it on ebay...it's going for $25!
FORGIVE ME!!!! I couldn't help myself! It's just with EVERY other icon
showing up there lately...
--
Steve
"We are in schism." Fr. John Hardon, July 11, 1998
Fr. John Morris
>
>Oh, come on, Fr. John. That is as stupid as the idea that Protestants have
>had for generations that "Rome" has tried to infiltrate their churches to
>undermine them. (Do you really want to sound so much like Jack Chick?) Like
>we don't have anything else to do.
It is not a stupid idea. It is historical fact. Have you never heard of the
Jesuits, about as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed. Rome has
used dishonest methods to bring Orthodoxy under its power for centuries. I
suggest that you read Runciman's THE GREAT CHURCH IN CAPTIVITY for an
account of how they created the Melkite Schism within the Patriarchate of
Antioch.
Look at what the Uniates are doing in Eastern Europe, how they have resorted
to violence to take buildings from the Orthodox Churches there.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Alban Mosher
When the Emperor Saint Constantine transfered the capital of the Empire
to the city of Constantinople, it was natural that the Church of Constantinople
would take on an Ecumenical nature. That is, since Constantinople was to
the Ecumenical city for the empire, as Old Rome had been, so too the Church
of Constantinople would become the Ecumenical Church, as Old Rome had been.
The Father, however, when they established the order of the patriarchal
sees still placed Old Rome first because of its history and that it was
the city in which the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred, but they
decreed that the Archbishop of the Ecumenical City of Constantinople
was to have equality in honour and priviledges as the Archbishop (the Pope)
of Old Rome. This was decreed in the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council
held in Chalcedon:
CANON XXVIII Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metro-politan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him.
Terrence McGillicuddy
which would be spilled of millions of people. This is why Mary directed the
people to pray for the conversion of Russia, not to pray that it would
convert to RC.
Fr. Terrence McGillicuddy
Fr. John Morris wrote in message ...
>
>Brian Delaney wrote in message <35D9AAD9...@ix.netcom.com>...
>>The prayer for the "conversion of Russia" had to do with liberation from
>>Communist tyranny not Orthodoxy! I'm sure that is something we can all
>agree
>>on.
>>
>Not really. It began as part of the devotions associated with Fatima, the
>appearances of Our Lady to several Portuguese children beginning in May,
Terrence McGillicuddy
Robert G. Tallick wrote in message <35D9F3...@village.ios.com>...
>> The prayer for the "conversion of Russia" had to do with liberation from
>> Communist tyranny not Orthodoxy! I'm sure that is something we can all
agree
>> on.
>>
>>
>> Brian
>
>Now thats funny. When I was growing up ALL of my Roman Catholic friends
>told me they were praying for the conversion of Russia to Roman
>Catholicism cause the 'blessed mother' told them to. Do you suppose
>they didn't realy understand the meaning of the prayer words they were
>reciting?
{Now that's even more funny. I grew up as a Roman Catholic, went to
parochial school, prayed the Rosary everyday. We never prayed for Russia to
convert to RC. We prayed for Russia to be delivered and liberated from the
evil of Communism! Your RC friends duped you!}
Fr. Terrence McGillicuddy
J.McEachen
Fordham University, Fr. John Meyendorff returned from teaching at
Fordham one day to our class in Patristics. Fr. George Maloney, S.J.
(author of books on Eastern christendom), was a prominent personage at
the center. Fr. Meyendorff suddenly stopped lecturing, turned to the
class with a puzzled look and said, "I never cease to be amazed by a
bunch of Irishmen at Fordham who speak better Russian than we do!" Such
are/were the Jesuits. Fr. Morris' "gist" is well taken, and well
illustrated in my short life. And I think it is the "Russicum", which
has the same mission to the Russians as St. Athanasios College has to
the Greeks.
Fr. Joel McEachen
Fr. John Morris wrote:
>
> Brian Delaney wrote in message <35D9AAD9...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >The prayer for the "conversion of Russia" had to do with liberation from
> >Communist tyranny not Orthodoxy!
> >
Alban Mosher
It is not a stupid idea. It is historical fact. Have you never heard of the
Jesuits, about as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed. Rome has
used dishonest methods to bring Orthodoxy under its power for centuries. I
suggest that you read Runciman's THE GREAT CHURCH IN CAPTIVITY for an
account of how they created the Melkite Schism within the Patriarchate of
Antioch.
Look at what the Uniates are doing in Eastern Europe, how they have resorted
to violence to take buildings from the Orthodox Churches there.Archpriest John W. Morris
The attempts of the Roman Church to subvert the Patriarchate of Antioch
are historical. Here is a quote from THE GREAT CHURCH IN CAPTIVITY:
It was in the Patriarchate of Antioch that Rome enjoyed its greatest success. While the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem seemed to have worked well during the sixteenth and seventeenth centufles with their brothers of Constantinople, the Patriarchs of Antioch seem to have felt some jealousy and preferred to go their own way. It was an area in which Catholic missionaries had worked since the time of the Crusades and in which they were well established. In 1631 the Patriarch Ignatius II of Antioch made an informal act of submission to Rome. His successors, Euthymius II and Euthymius III, were both on the friendliest terms with Roman missionaries; and Euthymius III's successor, Macarius III, who reigned from 1647 to 1672, not only sent his secret submission to Rome in 1662 but also publicly toasted the Pope as his Holy Father at a dinner at the French Consulate at Damascus later that year. The Patriarch Athanasius III was said to have sent a secret submission to Rome in about 1687; but if he did so he repented of it, probably under the influence of his formidable brother of Jerusalem, Dositheus, whose anti-Latin activities he imitated. Cyril V similarly submitted in 1716. In 1724 when Athanasius III, who had returned to the Patriarchate, died, the pro-Roman hieratchs at Damascus hastily elected a certain Serapheim Tanas, who had been educated at Rome, to succeed him as Cyril VI, while the anti-Roman party, with the approval of the Holy Synod at Constantinople, elected a young Greek monk, Sylvester. For the next three decades there were two rival Patriarchs of Antioch, neither of them able to control the whole of the Patriarchate, or even to remain for long at the Patriarchal palace at Damascus. Cyril VI predeceased Sylvester, who therefore won in the end, but only when a large portion of his congregation left the fold to form a separate Uniate Church.
Robert G. Tallick
> Catholics for centuries.
Why don't you go back to the beginning and discuss the methods used by
Rome in the creation of the 'Eastern Rite Roman Cathoilc Church' in the
Slavic lands. Then we will see who subverted whom.
> There is a well-established legal doctrine called +ACI-self-help+ACI- that enables
> those who have been wrongfully dispossessed of their property to take it
> back, even by force.
>
> The problem is that the Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe are clinging to
> the Stalinist pseudo-Synods of Lvov (1946), Cluj (1948), and Presov (1950),
> at which the Eastern Catholic churches of Eastern Europe were liquidated and
> forceably incorporated into the Orthodox churches.
And that's exactly what the Orthodox are doing. Trying to hold on to
what was their's to begin with. Many of the Churches were originally
built as Orthodox Churches and taken over by Uniate force and forced
under the Unia. Don't just go back fifty years go back to the creation
of the Unia to get the WHOLE story.
Brian Delaney
Finally a voice of sanity!!! The paronoia and the pettiness were getting
so thick on this thread and now we are driven to back to the Prayers that were
said after the Tridentine Mass! ;) And to add insult to injury, the "evil
Catholics" were supposed to have stolen the the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan.
Enough is enough! ;)
I am glad to see that there is SOME balance and a little bit of charity
here.
Peace in Christ,
Brian
Terrence McGillicuddy wrote:
> Robert G. Tallick wrote in message <35D9F3...@village.ios.com>...
> >> The prayer for the "conversion of Russia" had to do with liberation from
Brian Delaney
You must know the modern history of the Eastern Catholics in Ukraine. The Church was
dissolved in a bogus synod with the Bishops imprisoned and with full KGB terror and the
complicity of the Moscow Patriarchate after WWII. Those churches were Eastern Catholic
and were taken from them by the Orthodox. In addition, Cardinal Miroslav Lubachivesky
urged the Orthodox leaders to help with the transfers peacefully for these buildings and
to enter into a mutual forgiveness for the wrong deeds of the past. No response was ever
received.
A little fairness
please.
Brian
Fr. John Morris wrote:
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Oh, come on, Fr. John. That is as stupid as the idea that Protestants have
> +AD4-had for generations that +ACI-Rome+ACI- has tried to infiltrate their churches to
> +AD4-undermine them. (Do you really want to sound so much like Jack Chick?) Like
> +AD4-we don't have anything else to do.
William M. Klimon
+AD4-It is not a stupid idea. It is historical fact. Have you never heard of the
+AD4-Jesuits, about as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed.
The Jesuits, as with any group of men, has knaves among its members. The
difference between the Jesuits and just any group of men is that the Jesuits
have produced an enormous number of saints and martyrs and missionaries and
scholars for the Church.
One wonders why so many thousands and thousands of Orthodox parents
throughout the world have entrusted the education of their sons to the
Jesuits if they were truly +ACI-as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever
existed.+ACI-
+AD4-Rome has
+AD4-used dishonest methods to bring Orthodoxy under its power for centuries.
Surely no more dishonest than Orthodox have been in subverting Eastern
Catholics for centuries.
+AD4-I suggest that you read Runciman's THE GREAT CHURCH IN CAPTIVITY for
+AD4-an account of how they created the Melkite Schism within the Patriarchate
of
+AD4-Antioch.
Yes, Sir Steven's book is fascinating in describing how a constant stream of
Orthodox hierarchs and clergy sought union with Rome during the 16/c.
As regards Antioch, one might more plausibly say that Constantinople wrongly
intervened in the affairs of Antioch, the patriarchs of which had been
Catholic for the whole of the 17/c, and uncanonically imposed a rival
patriarch on the church of Antioch in 1724. I think Constantinople bears
more of the blame than does Rome for the schism that divides our church.
+AD4-Look at what the Uniates are doing in Eastern Europe, how they have
resorted
+AD4-to violence to take buildings from the Orthodox Churches there.
There is a well-established legal doctrine called +ACI-self-help+ACI- that enables
those who have been wrongfully dispossessed of their property to take it
back, even by force.
The problem is that the Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe are clinging to
the Stalinist pseudo-Synods of Lvov (1946), Cluj (1948), and Presov (1950),
at which the Eastern Catholic churches of Eastern Europe were liquidated and
forceably incorporated into the Orthodox churches.
The Orthodox may have been forced into those positions by the Communists in
the past. That they hold to them today is a shame.
Pax.
WMK.
Updated Bibliographies:
+ACI-Orthodox Converts: An Annotated Bibliography of Works in English Concerning
Conversion to the Eastern Orthodox Churches--A Work in Progress+ACI-
http://home.att.net/+AH4-wklimon/files/Orthodox+AF8-Converts.html
+ACI-Eastern Catholic Converts: A Bibliography of Converts to Eastern
Catholicism--A Preliminary Draft+ACI-
http://home.att.net/+AH4-wklimon/files/Eastern+AF8-Catholic+AF8-Converts.html
+AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw-
+AHw- William M. Klimon, J.D. wklimon+AEA-worldnet.att.net
+AHw- wklimon+AEA-umaryland.edu http://home.att.net/+AH4-wklimon
+AHw-
+AHw- +ACo-The Business Lawyer+ACo-
+AHw- http://scratch.abanet.org/buslaw/buslawyer.html
+AHw-
+AHw- c/o University of Maryland School of Law
+AHw- 500 W. Baltimore Street
+AHw- Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
William M. Klimon
Exactly as I pointed out: Constantinople was interfering in the affairs of
Antioch, which had legitimately elected a patriarch who, with a significant
portion of the patriarchate, opted for communion with Rome. That it was
Constantinople, not Rome, interfering is shown by the fact that the Holy
Synod of Constantinople uncanonically elected a rival patriarch for Antioch
just 3 months after Patriarch Cyril VI was elected in August 1724. Rome,
however, did not recognize Cyril's election for another 5 years--hardly
evidence of a dedicated campaign of subversion.
Pax.
WMK.
Updated Bibliographies:
"Orthodox Converts: An Annotated Bibliography of Works in English Concerning
Conversion to the Eastern Orthodox Churches--A Work in Progress"
http://home.att.net/~wklimon/files/Orthodox_Converts.html
"Eastern Catholic Converts: A Bibliography of Converts to Eastern
Catholicism--A Preliminary Draft"
http://home.att.net/~wklimon/files/Eastern_Catholic_Converts.html
__________________________________________________________________________
| William M. Klimon, J.D. wkl...@worldnet.att.net
| wkl...@umaryland.edu http://home.att.net/~wklimon
|
| *The Business Lawyer*
| http://scratch.abanet.org/buslaw/buslawyer.html
|
| c/o University of Maryland School of Law
| 500 W. Baltimore Street
| Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
William M. Klimon
>Why don't you go back to the beginning and discuss the methods used by
>Rome in the creation of the 'Eastern Rite Roman Cathoilc Church' in the
>Slavic lands. Then we will see who subverted whom.
>
>And that's exactly what the Orthodox are doing. Trying to hold on to
>what was their's to begin with. Many of the Churches were originally
>built as Orthodox Churches and taken over by Uniate force and forced
>under the Unia. Don't just go back fifty years go back to the creation
>of the Unia to get the WHOLE story.
There is no comparison. The attempted destruction of the Eastern Catholic
churches by the Communists, with the collaboration of the Orthodox, is one
of the great crimes of the 20/c.
As for the Union, one of the most detailed study of the Union (perhaps the
most detailed in English), Oscar Halecki's *From Florence to Brest,
1439-1596* (1958), shows that the Union of Brest was the culmination of a
long process of Eastern Christians attempting to reform their
churches--something the Kievan church felt it could not do in communion with
Constantinople--and reestablish the unity of the Church on the basis of the
Council of Florence.
Were there political factors involved? No doubt. But many facts are hard
to square with the interpretation that the Union was wholly coerced: King
Sigismund III's initial reluctance to accept the proposals for reunion, the
fact that two of the Kievan bishops were permitted to refuse the Union, the
fact that the Orthodox were allowed to agitate against the Union and that an
Orthodox hierarchy was permitted to reestablish itself, that the Union was
permitted to lapse in many of the places where it had originated, etc.
We should also recognize the fact that modern Orthodox understandings of the
Union are influenced to some degree by 18-19/c Russian historiography which
of course put a premium on a negative interpretation of the Union because
the Russian regime was actively suppressing Eastern Catholics within the
boundaries of the Empire. This same line of historiography was continued by
the Communists, largely for the same reasons.
I can understand Orthodox who want to contend zealously for their rights,
their property, etc. But to do so so as to ratify the crime of Stalin--that
simply boggles my mind.
Pax.
WMK.
Updated Bibliographies:
"Orthodox Converts: An Annotated Bibliography of Works in English Concerning
Conversion to the Eastern Orthodox Churches--A Work in Progress"
http://home.att.net/~wklimon/files/Orthodox_Converts.html
"Eastern Catholic Converts: A Bibliography of Converts to Eastern
Catholicism--A Preliminary Draft"
http://home.att.net/~wklimon/files/Eastern_Catholic_Converts.html
________________________________________________________________________
tad...@adsnet.com
Brian Delaney <bri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Do you all think that Rome is at the center of all evil and error? <
Rome = Babylon 'as in whore of' "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great
city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication" (Apoc. 14:8) "... Come I will show you the judgement of the
great harlot (Rome) who sits on many waters". (Apoc. 17:1) Harlot = Apostasy
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Robert G. Tallick
> Catholics" were supposed to have stolen the the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan.
> Enough is enough! ;)
Can you please point to the post where either I, or anyone else for that
matter, stated that the Roman Catholics STOLE the Icon of 'Our Lady of
Kazan'? I merely asked three questions which were and still are -
1) Why was it taken from Fatima after the fall of communism in Russia?
2) Where is its present location?
3) And why hasn't it been returned to the Russian Orthodox Church as
promised?
Can you answer these three questions without putting words in my mouth
that I never spoke?
Fr. John Morris
>As regards Antioch, one might more plausibly say that Constantinople
wrongly
>intervened in the affairs of Antioch, the patriarchs of which had been
>Catholic for the whole of the 17/c, and uncanonically imposed a rival
>patriarch on the church of Antioch in 1724. I think Constantinople bears
>more of the blame than does Rome for the schism that divides our church.
>
Rome Catholic imperialism is responsible for the Melkite Schism. The lawful
Patriarchs of Antioch are those who remained faithful to the Orthodox Faith.
Those who submitted to Rome ceased to be Orthodox and thereby lost all
legitimate claim to the title Patriarch of Antioch. Even Rome does not
really recognize the Melkite leader as the Patriarch of Antioch, because
Rome has a Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and a Maronite Patriarch of
Antioch.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr. John Morris
>
>As for the Union, one of the most detailed study of the Union (perhaps the
>most detailed in English), Oscar Halecki's *From Florence to Brest,
>1439-1596* (1958), shows that the Union of Brest was the culmination of a
>long process of Eastern Christians attempting to reform their
>churches--something the Kievan church felt it could not do in communion
with
>Constantinople--and reestablish the unity of the Church on the basis of the
>Council of Florence.
>
came into existence because Roman Catholic kings persecuted Orthodox
Christians and pressured them into accepting union with Rome. Even studies
produced by secular historians recognize this fact. Face reality, Rome has a
long history of using every possible means including unethical and un
Christian ones to force the Orthodox to submit to Roman domination. Remember
the Crusades?
Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr. John Morris
>
>
>
>Exactly as I pointed out: Constantinople was interfering in the affairs of
>Antioch, which had legitimately elected a patriarch who, with a significant
>portion of the patriarchate, opted for communion with Rome
Even if the election of the pro-Roman candidate was fully legitimate, which
it was not, the minute that he submitted to Rome, he ceased to be Orthodox
and thereby vacated the Apostolic Throne of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Constantinople had a sacred obligation to intervene to protect Orthodoxy in
the ancient Church of Antioch from Roman subversion.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Robert G. Tallick
> dissolved in a bogus synod with the Bishops imprisoned and with full KGB terror and the
> complicity of the Moscow Patriarchate after WWII.
The Ukrainian 'Greek Catholic Church' was dissolved by Stalin not the
Russian Orthodox Church. At the same time this was going on thousands of
Orthodox churches were being closed or destroyed along with thousands of
Orthodox priests, monks, & nuns being slaughtered, tortured, or
imprisioned for their faith. Why do you fail to acknowledge that? What
in God's name do you think would have happened if the ROC had refused to
take back their wayward children?
Stalin would have dissolved the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church anyhow
and closed or destroyed all the churches as he was doing to the
Orthodox. Thus depriving millions of Uniates the Sacraments necessary
for their salvation. He would have also increased his liquidation of
the Orthodox Church. Would you have preferred that?
I get a little tired hearing how the poor Uniates, RC's, Protestants,
and Jews suffered so much under communism with a total disregard for the
Orthodox who suffered longer, and lost more than any other religious
denomination. ALL FAITHS SUFFERED UNDER COMMUNISM BUT NO FAITH SUFFERED
MORE THAN THE ORTHODOX. Orthodox were being shot & imprisioned while
the Ukrainian Catholic Church was still playing footsey with the
Nazi's.
Robert G. Tallick
> churches by the Communists, with the collaboration of the Orthodox, is one
> of the great crimes of the 20/c.
As was the 'Union of Brest/Litvosk one of the great crimes of the 16th
century.
> Oscar Halecki's *From Florence to Brest,
> 1439-1596* (1958), shows that the Union of Brest was the culmination of a
> long process of Eastern Christians attempting to reform their
> churches--something the Kievan church felt it could not do in communion with
> Constantinople--and reestablish the unity of the Church on the basis of the
> Council of Florence.
Pure baloney and Roman Catholic propaganda. All one has to do is read
the 33 articles that the Bishops asked for guarantees on before signing
the union to see it had nothing to do with reform or a desire for
unity. Why would a group of Bishops ask for guarantees like the right
to ring bells, bring the Sacraments to the sick, etc. if it wasn't
being denied them in their own lands?
I would be more than glad to post the 33 articles here (Once again) if
you would agree to go over each one tell us WHY the Bishops felt it
necessary to include it as a guarantee before agreeing to a union.
Since, as you claim, this was a long process of reform and a desire for
unity. (Bull!!!)
Kevin Beach
>
> Funny, also, that in my mom's generation (1930's, 1940's) and her friends, the
> prayer for Russia's conversion were explained as being conversion from Communist
> error. It was not considered conversion to RC from Orthodoxy, indeed Orthodoxy was
> never thought of or mentioned in this context.
I can confirm that this was also the teaching I received at my Catholic
school in England in the 1950' and 60's (i.e. both pre- and post-Vatican
II). The Orthodox Churches were presented to us as holy institutions
that were almost as close to Catholicism as made no difference.
Kevin
kal...@usa.net
Kevin Beach <kevin...@mcmail.com> wrote:
> I can confirm that this was also the teaching I received at my Catholic
> school in England in the 1950' and 60's (i.e. both pre- and post-Vatican
> II). The Orthodox Churches were presented to us as holy institutions
> that were almost as close to Catholicism as made no difference.
Some were taught that and some were taught differently.
Today, however, one has to look at what is currently being taught. A month
ago while looking at what was on TV I happened upon a Blue Army show. They
were still talking about converting the Russians to Roman Catholicism.
An older Roman Catholic lady, a friend of my mother's remarked that there is
no religion in Russia. Her source, her priest in a sermon at her church.
The bogus "consecration of Russia to the sacred heart of Mary" by the pope is
also loaded with anti-Orthodox Catholic bias.
Evan
Fr. John Morris
>I can confirm that this was also the teaching I received at my Catholic
>school in England in the 1950' and 60's (i.e. both pre- and post-Vatican
>II). The Orthodox Churches were presented to us as holy institutions
>that were almost as close to Catholicism as made no difference.
>
That is not what is taught in the old Baltimore Catechism about Orthodoxy or
in other pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Christian Education materials which
call us heretics and in at least one book that I have states that Orthodox
are without Apostolic Succession.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Kevin Beach
You've clipped my name and attributed my post to yourself! Never mind.
At least you and I know that we agree about your Church. The Orthodox
churches are true Churches. Your Bishops are part of the Apostolic
Sussession, your Eucharist is as valid as ours, your Priests do
wonderful individual work with their flocks. And your liturgies are out
of this world! Oh, the singing, the voices, the harmonies!
God bless!
Kevin
Nicholas Skovran
Fr. John Morris wrote in message ...
>
>
>>school in England in the 1950' and 60's (i.e. both pre- and post-Vatican
>>II). The Orthodox Churches were presented to us as holy institutions
>>that were almost as close to Catholicism as made no difference.
>>
>That is not what is taught in the old Baltimore Catechism about Orthodoxy
or
>in other pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Christian Education materials which
>call us heretics and in at least one book that I have states that Orthodox
>are without Apostolic Succession.
This also was not taught in NE Pennsylvania in the 1950's when my sister was
denied the opportunity to be in the wedding of her best friend in a RC
church. My experiences are based on actions taken during this time-----not
on some theologians views far away in Rome or elsewhere. Maybe the message
to be learned here is that the Roman Catholics may not have known what they
were praying for.
ferg...@soback.kornet21.net
Nektarios
-----------------------------
"Fr. John Morris
(snip)
>Rome has long had a goal to
> convert Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. There is a college in Rome called
> the Russicom (sp) devoted specifically to training Roman Catholic clergy to
> look and act like Orthodox clergy. The idea was to send in Roman Catholics
> to infiltrate the Orthodox Church and convert it to the Unia.
> Archpriest John W. Morris
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
This blind lash out at someone is very unbecoming of the priesthood and of
those Orthodox who are aware that "Have you never heard of the
Jesuits, about as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed." is nothing
more than blind prejudge. Where Chick pubs is just stupid so much so that I
really can't beleieve many would be influenced by them this is dangerous.
Yesterday I posted, on the EO list a quote from Ian Paisley on the Jesuits
perhaps you agree with his analysis of the Jesuits not even being Christian, I
hope not. I do hope you were lashing out in anger and have had a moment ot
reflect. I have known and know many fine Jesuits.
Graft, greed, corruption, and power politics are not limited to any religious
group, are they? I think you owe an apology.
Back to topic. Bian posted that conversion of Russia met soemthing else. I
always heard from RC friends, and priests that it had to do with communism
not conversion from Orthodoxy. I heard prayers for Orthodox who were
persucted by communists, in church. If in fact the messages of Fatima were
for the future, don't know if they were, then they could have been in 1900
and still been about communism later. Peoples understanding may not have
always matched but that has little to do with the message. Even if the RC
church prayed for Orthodox to convert would it not be disingenious to say on
one hand we have the truth we are the one true church but on the other you
don't have to join us, we aren't interested in your conversion.
Nektarios
------ Fr. John Post -------------------
"Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>-Oh, come on, Fr. John. That is as stupid as the idea that Protestants have
>-had for generations that -Rome- has tried to infiltrate their churches to
>-undermine them. (Do you really want to sound so much like Jack Chick?) Like
>-we don't have anything else to do.
> It is not a stupid idea. It is historical fact. Have you never heard of the
> Jesuits, about as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed. Rome has
> used dishonest methods to bring Orthodoxy under its power for centuries. I
> suggest that you read Runciman's THE GREAT CHURCH IN CAPTIVITY for an
> account of how they created the Melkite Schism within the Patriarchate of
> Antioch.
> Look at what the Uniates are doing in Eastern Europe, how they have resorted
> to violence to take buildings from the Orthodox Churches there.
> Archpriest John W. Morris
----------- Brian posted -------------------- Funny, also, that in my mom's
generation (1930's, 1940's) and her friends, the prayer for Russia's
conversion were explained as being conversion from Communist error. It was
not considered conversion to RC from Orthodoxy, indeed Orthodoxy was never
thought of or mentioned in this context. This and the remark about the
Russicum from Father John is just blind prejudice and paronoia against the RC
Church. I tend to see this as similar to the petition added to the Litany of
Peace in the ROCOR about "deliverance from the godless rule". Do you all
think that Rome is at the center of all evil and error? Titus Oates would
have been proud! Peace,Brian
Lane Core Jr.
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:59:39 -0500, Alban Mosher <Alba...@swbell.net>
wrote the following:
>Dear Fr. John:
>The attempts of the Roman Church to subvert the Patriarchate of Antioch are historical.
>Here is a quote from THE GREAT CHURCH IN CAPTIVITY:
> It was in the Patriarchate of Antioch that Rome enjoyed its greatest success.....
> The Great Church in Captivity, page 230
What?
No quotations from Jack Chick?
I am SO disappointed. ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lane Core Jr. elc...@sgi.net http://users.sgi.net/~elcore
I welcome e-mail replies. :) But I have no time for e-mail debates. :(
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
(Matthew 16:18,19 KJV)
Lane Core Jr.
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:51:27 -0500, "Robert G. Tallick"
<r...@village.ios.com> wrote the following:
>Another rumor has it now in the Pope's private Chapel and its being held
>as his ticket to visit Russia.
Damn.
Can't he just use paper tickets like the rest of us do?
nick cobb
Lane Core Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:12:58 GMT, "Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote the following:
>
> ... Rome has long had a goal to
> >convert Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. There is a college in Rome called
> >the Russicom (sp) devoted specifically to training Roman Catholic clergy to
> >look and act like Orthodox clergy. The idea was to send in Roman Catholics
> >to infiltrate the Orthodox Church and convert it to the Unia.
>
> >Archpriest John W. Morris
>
> Oh, come on, Fr. John. That is as stupid as the idea that Protestants have
> had for generations that "Rome" has tried to infiltrate their churches to
> undermine them. (Do you really want to sound so much like Jack Chick?) Like
> we don't have anything else to do.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, what Fr. Morris is saying is quite true!
Bob
Brian wrote:
> >I can confirm that this was also the teaching I received at my Catholic
> >school in England in the 1950' and 60's (i.e. both pre- and post-Vatican
> >II). The Orthodox Churches were presented to us as holy institutions
> >that were almost as close to Catholicism as made no difference.
> >
> That is not what is taught in the old Baltimore Catechism about Orthodoxy or
> in other pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Christian Education materials which
> call us heretics and in at least one book that I have states that Orthodox
> are without Apostolic Succession.
I can confirm Brian's statement. In the 50's and 60's, when I was attending
Catholic schools, we were taught that although the Eastern Orthodox
were in schism with rome, Their sacraments were as valid as a Roman
Catholic Priest. We were taught that if we were in a place on Sunday
where we could not find a Catholic Church, we could attend an Eastern
Orthodox Mass and still fulfill our Sunday obligation.
I don't have an old Baltimore Catechism to prove you wrong; but I
know that what we were taught was not contrary to the position
stated in that catechism. You can find a book on any subject that
will take the line you want to validate, whether it's true or untrue.
After what I had been taught as a child, it came as quite a shock to
me to read the anti-RC propaganda perpetrated by those in the
Eastern Orthodox sect in this and other ng's.
--
....What a fit: Feminsm, Liberalism and Bill Clinton
Bob
> This also was not taught in NE Pennsylvania in the 1950's when my sister was
> denied the opportunity to be in the wedding of her best friend in a RC
> church. My experiences are based on actions taken during this time-----not
> on some theologians views far away in Rome or elsewhere. Maybe the message
> to be learned here is that the Roman Catholics may not have known what they
> were praying for.
You will find idiots everywhere, even the RCC and EOC. In the 50's and
60's when I served as an altar boy, I served at weddings where not all
of those in the wedding party were Catholic. I had relatives who had
non-Catholics in their wedding parties. Around 1970-71, my Baptist
sister-in-
law married a RC in a Baptist Church. The wedding was performed by a
Baptist minister, assisted by a Catholic Priest.
Robert G. Tallick
> can you keep a secret... well listen to this one ....
> Nektarios
>
So once again I ask -
!) Why was the Icon taken from Fatima after the fall of communism?
2) And where is its present location?
Seeems all that replies so far have hedged the questions with snide
remarks.
Robert G. Tallick
> me to read the anti-RC propaganda perpetrated by those in the
> Eastern Orthodox sect in this and other ng's.
>
First of all, Eastern Orthodoxy is not a 'sect'. Secondly, just what do
you consider as anti-RC propaganda?
Fr. John Morris
by Francis B. Cassilly, S.J. published by Loyola University Press states,
"The Greek separated churches, also by abandoning communion with Rome cut
themselves off from the present stem, and thereby lost their apostolicity.'
p. 477
"THE GREEK HERESY.--From the time of Photius, the unlawful patriarch of
Constantinople, in the ninth century, the separated Greek Church has held
that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not also from the
Son." p. 436.
This is what Roman Catholic high school students were taught about the
Orthodox Church.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr. John Morris
news group being cross posted to a Roman Catholic news group?
Archpriest John W. Morris
nick cobb wrote in message <35DC1E00...@cris.com>...
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
can you keep a secret... well listen to this one ....
Nektarios
-----------------------------
elc...@sgi.net (Lane Core Jr.) wrote:
> [to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic]
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:51:27 -0500, "Robert G. Tallick"
> <r...@village.ios.com> wrote the following:
>
> >Another rumor has it now in the Pope's private Chapel and its being held
> >as his ticket to visit Russia.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
contued to post since then you must have had an opportunity. I still beleive
your offensive post ranks right up there with this from the Ian Paisley
position of Jesuits:
"the Order is not even Christian. Although the Jesuits claim that their
sign - IHS - stands for 遷esus Hominum Salvator (the Latin 遷' being written
as 選'), it actually stands for 選sis, Horub, Seb': the pagan Egyptian
trinity of the Mother, Child, and Father of the Gods. 選HS pays the semblance
of a tribute to Christianity, but they are in reality the substance of
devil-worship. The cloven hoof is upon them.' Thus Rome is not, as liberal
Protestants would avow, a permitted variant of Christianity. It is not
Christian at all and never has been."
Is it the position of the Antiochian Orthodox church ".... the Jesuits, about
as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed."
Nektarios
----------------------------------
ferg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Fr
> This blind lash out at someone is very unbecoming of the priesthood and of
> those Orthodox who are aware that "Have you never heard of the
> Jesuits, about as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed." is nothing
> more than blind prejudge. Where Chick pubs is just stupid so much so that I
> really can't beleieve many would be influenced by them this is dangerous.
> Yesterday I posted, on the EO list a quote from Ian Paisley on the Jesuits
> perhaps you agree with his analysis of the Jesuits not even being Christian, I
> hope not. I do hope you were lashing out in anger and have had a moment ot
> reflect. I have known and know many fine Jesuits.
> Graft, greed, corruption, and power politics are not limited to any religious
> group, are they? I think you owe an apology.
(snip)
ferg...@soback.kornet21.net
Nektarios
-----------------------------
"Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
(snip)
> That is not what is taught in the old Baltimore Catechism about Orthodoxy or
> in other pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Christian Education materials which
> call us heretics and in at least one book that I have states that Orthodox
> are without Apostolic Succession.
>
> Archpriest John W. Morris
Legatus
wrote:
> Evidence please from the Baltimore Catechism
> Nektarios
>
> -----------------------------
> "Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > That is not what is taught in the old Baltimore Catechism about Orthodoxy or
> > in other pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Christian Education materials which
> > call us heretics and in at least one book that I have states that Orthodox
> > are without Apostolic Succession.
> >
> > Archpriest John W. Morris
Having searched under "Greek", "Orthodox", "Apostolic", "Succession",
"Eastern", "Schism", Schismatic"... I've been able to come up with the
following, neither seems to say what you are claiming. Question 571
doesn't even apply to Eastern Orthodoxy, but was the only reference I
could find anywhere NEAR what you claimed.
Q. 1170. Name the different classes of unbelievers and tell what they are.
A. The different classes of unbelievers are:
1.(1) Atheists, who deny there is a God; 2.(2) Deists, who admit there is
a God, but deny that He revealed a religion; 3.(3) Agnostics, who will
neither admit nor deny the existence of God; 4.(4) Infidels, who have
never been baptized, and who, through want of faith, refuse to be
baptized; 5.(5) Heretics, who have been baptized Christians, but do not
believe all the articles of faith; 6.(6) Schismatics, who have been
baptized and believe all the articles of faith, but do not submit to the
authority of the Pope; 7.(7) Apostates, who have rejected the true
religion, in which they formerly believed, to join a false religion; 8.(8)
Rationalists and Materialists, who believe only in material things.
Q. 571. How do you show that Protestant Churches have not the marks of the
true Church?
A. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:
1.(1) They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no
chief head, and they profess different beliefs;
2.(2) They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error
and lead to evil consequences;
3.(3) They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine.
They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines
do not suit all classes;
4.(4) They are not apostolic, for they were not established for
hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines
of the Apostles.
--
Steve
"We are in schism." Fr. John Hardon, July 11, 1998
Fr. John Morris
>
>Is it the position of the Antiochian Orthodox church ".... the Jesuits,
about
>as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed."
>
I only speak for myself. The fact is that the Jesuits have been involved in
some rather questionable activities throughout their history.
Archpriest John W. Morris
kal...@usa.net
ferg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Is it the position of the Antiochian Orthodox church ".... the Jesuits, about
> as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed."
It isn't a position but an historical fact. Ever read the book The Jesuits by
one of their own?
Evan
kal...@usa.net
Keep in mind that for many in the RCRO, everybody except them are "sects".
As for what is considered "anti-RC propaganda" one would think it is anything
that is true that portrays the RCRO in an unfavorable light. But what else
would you expect from a group who turns mass murderers into saints?
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
"The Jesuits, about as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed."
"The fact is that the Jesuits have been involved in some rather questionable
activities throughout their history."
I am very pleased you speak only for yourself. As an Othodox priest I don't
know if that can occur. It is much like soldiers in uniform are told that
they at all times represent not only themselves but the uniform i.e. US
govement and the military tradition. I suspect that regardless of if you
desire to or not you are preceived as representing Antiochian Orthodox.
Regarding Jesuits what group hasn't and isn't involved in power politics? I
am sorry that you feel a need to launch such things as what you did in your
intial statement. Evan who wrote the book Jesuits and what was his status
when he srote the book?
Nektarios
----------------------
>"Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Is it the position of the Antiochian Orthodox church .... the Jesuits,
>> about as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed.
> I only speak for myself. The fact is that the Jesuits have been involved in
> some rather questionable activities throughout their history.
> Archpriest John W. Morris
----- Evan ---------------------
ferg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> Is it the position of the Antiochian Orthodox church ".... the Jesuits, about
>> as dishonest a bunch of people as has ever existed."
>It isn't a position but an historical fact. Ever read the book The Jesuits by
>one of their own? Evan
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
Of course the Orthodox church isn't a sect. Generally post in the way that
you, Fr. John and a few others have been posting i.e. throw enough stuff
around, and you get start get other reactions. Doubt if many have been
postively influenced about the Orthodox church by this series of "rocks" e.g.
comments like Fr. John and the evil Jesuits or the icon stolen by the RCC.
Regarding a post (lost the post) about my snide/glib remarks to the poster of
an Icon being kept by the Pope. Somehow I missed the evidence presented that:
- It was stolen by the RCC
- It is being kept in Rome by the Pope in order to go to Russia
So could someone repost that evidence.
Nektarios
------------------------------------------
kal...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <35DBA6...@village.ios.com>,
>r...@village.ios.com wrote:
> > >After what I had been taught as a child, it came as quite a shock to
> > >me to read the anti-RC propaganda perpetrated by those in the
> > >Eastern Orthodox sect in this and other ng's.
> > First of all, Eastern Orthodoxy is not a 'sect'. Secondly, just what do
> > you consider as anti-RC propaganda?
> Keep in mind that for many in the RCRO, everybody except them are "sects".
> As for what is considered "anti-RC propaganda" one would think it is anything
> that is true that portrays the RCRO in an unfavorable light. But what else
> would you expect from a group who turns mass murderers into saints?
ferg...@soback.kornet21.net
It's a plot by all those evil Jesuits?
Watch the original posts they were posted to two groups.
No idea why but it does lead to a more intersting series.
I like the idea but then I would post the same as to the other.
Do you post the same to the Orthodox NG as to the Orthodox RCC dialog group
just curious?
Nektarios
> news group being cross posted to a Roman Catholic news group?
> Archpriest John W. Morris
> nick cobb wrote in message <35DC1E00...@cris.com>...
>Lane Core Jr. wrote:
> <frj...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote the following:
> >> ... Rome has long had a goal to
> >> >convert Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. There is a college in Rome
> called
> >> >the Russicom (sp) devoted specifically to training Roman Catholic clergy
> to
> >> >look and act like Orthodox clergy. The idea was to send in Roman
> Catholics
> >> >to infiltrate the Orthodox Church and convert it to the Unia.
> >>
> >> >Archpriest John W. Morris
> >>
> >> Oh, come on, Fr. John. That is as stupid as the idea that Protestants
> have
> >> had for generations that "Rome" has tried to infiltrate their churches to
> >> undermine them. (Do you really want to sound so much like Jack Chick?)
> Like
> >> we don't have anything else to do.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Actually, what Fr. Morris is saying is quite true!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
As I recall your post mentioned the Old Balt. Cat. I searched the online
version. I ask a freind of mine who gives the concept of conservative RC a
whole breath and depth of meaning. Can't come up with the reference. Help us
out where is this gem?
Nektarios
----------------------------------------
"Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Kevin Beach
>
> Fr. John Morris wrote:
>
> Brian wrote:
>
> > >I can confirm that this was also the teaching I received at my Catholic
> > >school in England in the 1950' and 60's (i.e. both pre- and post-Vatican
> > >II). The Orthodox Churches were presented to us as holy institutions
> > >that were almost as close to Catholicism as made no difference.
> > >
> > in other pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Christian Education materials which
> > call us heretics and in at least one book that I have states that Orthodox
> > are without Apostolic Succession.
>
> Catholic schools, we were taught that although the Eastern Orthodox
> were in schism with rome, Their sacraments were as valid as a Roman
> Catholic Priest. We were taught that if we were in a place on Sunday
> where we could not find a Catholic Church, we could attend an Eastern
> Orthodox Mass and still fulfill our Sunday obligation.
>
> I don't have an old Baltimore Catechism to prove you wrong; but I
> know that what we were taught was not contrary to the position
> stated in that catechism. You can find a book on any subject that
> will take the line you want to validate, whether it's true or untrue.
>
> me to read the anti-RC propaganda perpetrated by those in the
> Eastern Orthodox sect in this and other ng's.
Confused snipping again. The quote attributed to Brian was mine. Oh,
never mind, let him have it if he likes it! The point is that several
RC's are now testifying to having been taught very favourably about the
Orthodox Churches and still believe it. I too was taught that we could
go to Mass and receive Communion in an Orthodox Church if there was no
Catholic Church available. To all Orthodox Christians who are reading
this, let me make it clear: we love you and your churches. The
differences between us are miniscule compared with the gaps between us
and other Christians, other religions and non-believers.
Kevin
Kevin Beach
>
> Why are what were originally intended to be messages to the Eastern Orthodox
> news group being cross posted to a Roman Catholic news group?
I don't know, but I'm glad they were. Catholics and Orthodox must make
every effort to reunite. Ours was the first major schism and we *must*
find a way to repair it soon. the world needs our joint witness.
Kevin
Robert G. Tallick
> - It was stolen by the RCC
> - It is being kept in Rome by the Pope in order to go to Russia
> So could someone repost that evidence.
> Nektarios
Once again, read my post. I never stated that the Icon was STOLEN by
the RCC. They may be YOUR WORDS but they were not mine. Actually, I
believe the Icon was purchased by the 'Blue Army'. And promised to be
returned to Russia when communism was gone.
As far as it 'being kept in Rome by the Pope', THAT WAS A QUESTION
(which has yet to be answered) NOT A STATEMENT! Please read the posts
more carefully before commenting.
Bob
P.S. I'm still waiting for an answer to my three questions.
Fr. John Morris
ferg...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6rgrel$s06$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Fr. John
>As I recall your post mentioned the Old Balt. Cat. I searched the online
>version. I ask a freind of mine who gives the concept of conservative RC a
>whole breath and depth of meaning. Can't come up with the reference. Help
us
>out where is this gem?
>Nektarios
>
Catholic books. However, there is quite a bit of anti-Orthodox sentiment
expressed in other pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic books, some of which
routinely refer to us as Dissidents, or even heretics.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Gerard F. Bugge
Robert G. Tallick wrote in message:
>First of all, Eastern Orthodoxy is not a 'sect'. Secondly, just what do
>you consider as anti-RC propaganda?
True enough, Eastern Orthodoxy is not a sect but a Church. Yet, it
seems to me, by using the term "eastern" to define Orthodoxy, it tends to be
"sectarian" and cut off from the fulness of catholicity. And, in reality,
this seems sadly the case. Even the "anti-Catholic propaganda" on this
newsgroup points to this sectarianism, in my opinion anyway.
It seems too, too often Orthodoxy defines herself in terms of what she
is "not" and tends to exclude even what is good, holy, true in any tradition
other than her own as differences are pointed out over and over and over.
This sounds extremely "sectarian" to me. Not all Orthodox have this "anti"
spirit but many seem to have it and are quite proud of it.
And these Orthodox cannot discuss Catholicism without negative
criticisms, resentful and snide remarks, stereotyping (e.g. dismissing an
entire religious order as dishonest and sinister---an order some of whose
members' consecrated scholarship has immeasurably benefitted Orthodoxy!).
I believe there are those who are discovering, more and more, this
sectarianism and the limitation it imposes. And I believe more and more
will be rejecting the "anti" spirit that predominates in some
circles.....and among these will be those interested in truth, fairness,
generosity of heart, and true catholicity.....
Just my intuition!
Gerard Serafin
A Catholic Page for Lovers: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com
Lla...@earthlink.net
Russia. It is an effort to continue the message of Fatima. It is work to
converting souls to Christ....the nuns and priests there are NOT
interested in recruiting the Orthodox away from their faith. The huge
majority of Russians have no sense of God as father/creator/savior. The
harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. The work is so huge that
you will not find them on this newsgroup wasting their time trying to
defend themselves, so I will. To continue to pick-pick-pick at
theological motives of those risking lives, health, future for the sake
of Christ is pathetic and sickening. At the grass roots level, in the
towns and villages, the priests of both RC and Orthodox work together,
in tandem, doing God's work.
How do I know this? We are active in assisting those RC clergy and
nuns. For my family, they have names and faces. They are people with
whom we have laughed and cried and shared meals and email and prayer. My
son is the namesake of the Bishop of Siberia, Fr. Josef Werth. We have
been in their homes in Russia and they have been in ours here in the
U.S. We are Orthodox, they are Roman Catholic -- and neither 'side'
cares because both are on the same 'side' -- Jesus'.
What have any of US on this newsgroup done to convert a hardened heart
to Christ today? Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Mary of Bethany
Kevin Beach
>
> I must have confused the Baltimore Catechism with other pre-Vatican II Roman
> Catholic books. However, there is quite a bit of anti-Orthodox sentiment
> expressed in other pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic books, some of which
> routinely refer to us as Dissidents, or even heretics.
>
> Archpriest John W. Morris
Father John (I gladly call you that, because you are a validly ordained
priest in a Church which is very close to mine),
You are now in the position of having made allegations that you cannot
substantiate. In all charity, and with a view to our permanent search
for Unity in Christ, would you mind either trying to substantiate them
or withdrawing them, please? If they are true, there are many of us
Catholics who want to repudiate the "teachings" you believe exist.
Kevin
Cfortunato
<gbu...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>>First of all, Eastern Orthodoxy is not a 'sect'. Secondly, just what do
>>you consider as anti-RC propaganda?
>
> True enough, Eastern Orthodoxy is not a sect but a Church. Yet, it
>seems to me, by using the term "eastern" to define Orthodoxy, it tends to be
>"sectarian" and cut off from the fulness of catholicity.
True, but they usually call it just "Orthodoxy". It does have Western Rite,
but that is a very recent development.
> It seems too, too often Orthodoxy defines herself in terms of what she
>is "not" and tends to exclude even what is good, holy, true in any tradition
>other than her own as differences are pointed out over and over and over.
>This sounds extremely "sectarian" to me. Not all Orthodox have this "anti"
>spirit but many seem to have it and are quite proud of it.
That has been there since the Sack of Constantinople, 1254, when "Catholics"
marching under the cross, invaded Constantinople, desecrated the the Cathedral
of Hagia Sophia (This was the most sacred spot in all of Christendom, and
housed the True Cross, and most the apostles relics), peed on the icons,
destroyed the relics, trampled on the Eucharist, and had a woman dance naked on
the alter while blaspheming. This action effectively destroyed Constantinople,
which was the only genuinely Christian city in the world, by weakening them to
the point where they could no longer resist Moslem onslaughts. After this,
many Orthodox became convinced that Catholics weren't even Christian, and began
to say "Better a Sultan's turban than a Cardinal's hat."
Many Orthodox have never gotten over the fact that their beloved city, and
their beloved and most-beautiful Cathedral whose loss they still weep for, was
destroyed by their Catholic brethren.
Fr. John Morris
>>You are now in the position of having made allegations that you cannot
>substantiate. In all charity, and with a view to our permanent search
>for Unity in Christ, would you mind either trying to substantiate them
>or withdrawing them, please? If they are true, there are many of us
>Catholics who want to repudiate the "teachings" you believe exist.
>
Orthodoxy, you will see what I mean. I have never denied that the attitude
of Rome towards the Orthodox Church has changed radically since the Second
Vatican Council. However, before Vatican II, many Roman Catholics had a very
ant-Orthodox attitude. For example, in many cities, the Orthodox had to open
cemeteries because the Catholics would not let them bury their dead in
Catholic cemeteries. Fortunately, that has now changed.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Kevin Beach
Well, regardless of what may have been said or done in the past, as it
has now changed, do you agree that our task is to move forward towards
unity? Or do you want to keep reopening the wounds - bearing in mind
that they are wounds on Christ's Mystical Body?
If there is such a thing as "corporate sin", i.e. sin committed by a
body of people as such, then are we not continuing to sin by maintaining
the divisions? Should we not be encouraging our respective Churches to
work at full output in order to achieve reunification? It will only be
after Orthodox/Catholic reunification that we shall be able fully to
tackle the issues with Protestants. And only after that has been
resolved that we shall be able to consider to what extent, if at all,
the other largest religion, Islam, can be reconciled with Christianity.
Do you not see the journey ahead of us? As an old Chinese proverb says:
Even a journey of a thousand miles must have its first step. That first
step, in my view, is on the road that joins Rome with Constantinople.
Kevin
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
You made several allegations among them
- Jesuits as dihonest a group as ever has been
- RC teachings, not abberant practice, that Orthodox are heritcs
Can you or can you not come up with substaniation?
Nektarios
--------------------------------
"Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>You are now in the position of having made allegations that you cannot
> >substantiate. In all charity, and with a view to our permanent search
> >for Unity in Christ, would you mind either trying to substantiate them
> >or withdrawing them, please? If they are true, there are many of us
> >Catholics who want to repudiate the "teachings" you believe exist.
> >
> If you look at many pre-Vatican II writings by Roman Catholics about
> Orthodoxy, you will see what I mean. I have never denied that the attitude
> of Rome towards the Orthodox Church has changed radically since the Second
> Vatican Council. However, before Vatican II, many Roman Catholics had a very
> ant-Orthodox attitude. For example, in many cities, the Orthodox had to open
> cemeteries because the Catholics would not let them bury their dead in
> Catholic cemeteries. Fortunately, that has now changed.
>
> Archpriest John W. Morris
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Fr. John Morris
>
>Well, regardless of what may have been said or done in the past, as it
>has now changed, do you agree that our task is to move forward towards
>unity? Or do you want to keep reopening the wounds - bearing in mind
>that they are wounds on Christ's Mystical Body?
>
Of course, I agree. I also agree that for the most part in the United States
Roman Catholics are very friendly. However, the Eastern and other Roman
Catholics in Eastern Europe have been rather unfriendly. In order to resolve
the problems between Rome and Orthodoxy, we must deal with the honestly. If
an Orthodox priest is afraid to express his honest feelings for fear of
offending Roman Catholics, we will never resolve our differences. It bothers
me very much to read that the Pope is considering canonizing the Croatian
Cardinal who supported the pro-Nazi Croatian government that murdered almost
1,000,000 Serbian Orthodox. The whole Eastern Catholic problems is very
offensive to me, especially when they try to tell me that they are Orthodox
in communion with Rome.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Legatus
Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Wait a minute here...first: "an Orthodox priest is afraid to express his
honest feelings for fear of offending Roman Catholics" and then a few
sentences later: "The whole Eastern Catholic problems is very offensive to
me".
Okay. Well, that answered MY question.
Alban Mosher
> Do Orthodox allow other Christians to bury their dead in Orthodox cemeteries?
No, only members of the Orthodox Church may be buried in consecrated ground with
the full ceremonies of the Orthodox Church. Non-Orthodox people may be buried in
grounds that are not consecrated but without the funeral services of the Orthodox
Church.
> Do Orthodox "ordain" Catholic clergy who convert to Orthodoxy?
Yes. Holy Orders are found only within the unity of the One Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church which is the Orthodox Church.
> Do Orthodox "baptize" other Christians who convert to Orthodoxy?
Different local jurisdictions in the Orthodox Church have different policies
regarding the reception of converts to the Orthodox Church. Some baptise and
chrismate all converts, some receive converts from the Roman Church and some of
the Protestants by chrismating them, and some receive through confession of the
Orthodox Faith (though that is rarely done anymore.) However converts are
received, all Orthodox Churches are agreed in that the 'sacraments' received
prior to their joining the Orthodox Church were only empty forms devoid of the
grace of the Holy Spirit. When these converts join the Orthodox Church they
receive the grace of the Holy Spirit that was lacking in their former
affiliation.
Your unworthy servant,
Reader Alban Mosher
St. Catherine of Sinai Greek Orthodox Church
St. Louis, Missouri
Robert G. Tallick
> you have not stated much except to attempt by innuendo to make it appear as
> if something occurred. Since I nor any “Roman Catholics or Uniates”
> apparently know where either the icon or the “$3 million” are please share
> with us your knowledge of this topic. If you have nothing but innuendo drop
> it. Nektarios
The Icon was kept in the Chapel at Fatima. Archbishop Nicodim (who was
the same Bishop who died while having an audience with the Pope) visited
it there prior to his death. It was in the national news. It is not
there now. This was confirmed by someone I know who was there last
year.
If you want information write to EWTN. They did an interview with
members of the so called 'blue army' about two years ago when the 'blue
army' was marching around red square with the statue of 'Our Lady of
Fatima'. They visited the rebuilt church where a copy is installed
(showed pictures). It was in this same interview they stated they had
the original and it was in Fatima. It was also when they told the story
of the 'lost money'.
If you cannot answer my three questions then at least admit it and drop
the arrogant attitude.
ferg...@soback.kornet21.net
You post one thing can't support it then say it was pre V II and then another
tid bit about graves some where, give it a rest.
Nektarios
----------------------------
"Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
events is a bit more than what I have read before, your source. "...
Constantinople, which was the only genuinely Christian city in the world" Are
you certain of this? There were no others? I know few Orthodox who haven't
gotten over it. Most anti RC Orthodox sentiment I hear is more tied to
nationialist sentiments and old country stuff than the sack of
Constantinople. "... whose loss they still weep for, was destroyed by their
Catholic brethren" Haven't met any weeping about it either. All churchs have
plenty of warts. relevance to the topic is?
Nektarios
---------------------------------------------
cfort...@aol.com (Cfortunato) wrote:
(snip)
> That has been there since the Sack of Constantinople, 1254, when "Catholics"
> marching under the cross, invaded Constantinople, desecrated the the Cathedral
> of Hagia Sophia (This was the most sacred spot in all of Christendom, and
> housed the True Cross, and most the apostles relics), peed on the icons,
> destroyed the relics, trampled on the Eucharist, and had a woman dance naked
>on the alter while blaspheming. This action effectively destroyed
Constantinople,
> which was the only genuinely Christian city in the world, by weakening them to
> the point where they could no longer resist Moslem onslaughts. After this,
> many Orthodox became convinced that Catholics weren't even Christian, and
began
> to say "Better a Sultan's turban than a Cardinal's hat."
> Many Orthodox have never gotten over the fact that their beloved city, and
> their beloved and most-beautiful Cathedral whose loss they still weep for, was
> destroyed by their Catholic brethren.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
I have never read anything where you have been afraid of offending anyone.
Now RC in the US have been friendly a few posts back it was offensiveness at
wedding, cemetaries, etc.,
Which is it?
Nektarios
---------------------------
> Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
(snip)
> > I also agree that for the most part in the United States
> > Roman Catholics are very friendly. However, the Eastern and other Roman
> > Catholics in Eastern Europe have been rather unfriendly. In order to resolve
> > the problems between Rome and Orthodoxy, we must deal with the honestly. If
> > an Orthodox priest is afraid to express his honest feelings for fear of
> > offending Roman Catholics, we will never resolve our differences. It bothers
> > me very much to read that the Pope is considering canonizing the Croatian
> > Cardinal who supported the pro-Nazi Croatian government that murdered almost
> > 1,000,000 Serbian Orthodox. The whole Eastern Catholic problems is very
> > offensive to me, especially when they try to tell me that they are Orthodox
> > in communion with Rome.
> > Archpriest John W. Morris
Lane Core Jr.
The original post in this thread was to both groups--at least from what I
can tell. God bless.
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 02:21:59 GMT, "Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net>
wrote the following:
>Why are what were originally intended to be messages to the Eastern Orthodox
>news group being cross posted to a Roman Catholic news group?
[....]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lane Core Jr. elc...@sgi.net http://users.sgi.net/~elcore
I welcome e-mail replies. :) But I have no time for e-mail debates. :(
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lane Core Jr.
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:16:45 GMT, "Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net>
wrote the following:
>If you look at many pre-Vatican II writings by Roman Catholics about
>Orthodoxy, you will see what I mean. I have never denied that the attitude
>of Rome towards the Orthodox Church has changed radically since the Second
>Vatican Council. However, before Vatican II, many Roman Catholics had a very
>ant-Orthodox attitude.
I don't know, or know of, any Catholics who do not have the warmest regards
for the Orthodox Churches.
But, from what I can tell from reading a.r.c.east-orthodox and
a.r.c.roman-catholic, there are unreasong Catholic Haters among the
Orthodox just as there are among the Protestants. In fact, I suspect that
many (not all) fundamentalists and evanglicals who find their way to one of
the Orthodox Churches, rather than to the Catholic Church, do so because
they can continue there without giving up their real religion: Hatred of
the Catholic Church.
Reminds me of a conversion story I read on one the Orthodox websites: a
couple of letters from a fundamentalist to his fundie church brethren: he
practically BEGS them to understand that Orthodoxy is NOT Catholicism. ;-)
>For example, in many cities, the Orthodox had to open
>cemeteries because the Catholics would not let them bury their dead in
>Catholic cemeteries. Fortunately, that has now changed.
Do Orthodox allow other Christians to bury their dead in Orthodox
cemeteries? Do Orthodox "ordain" Catholic clergy who convert to Orthodoxy?
Do Orthodox "baptize" other Christians who convert to Orthodoxy? Or does
the answer to these questions depend upon which Orthodox Church one is
talking about?
ferg...@my-dejanews.com
presently wrongfully in the possession of the RCC, yes? My snide remark was
to you when you commented “Another rumor has it now in the Pope's private
Chapel and its being held as his ticket to visit Russia.” I must agree with
you have not stated much except to attempt by innuendo to make it appear as
if something occurred. Since I nor any “Roman Catholics or Uniates”
apparently know where either the icon or the “$3 million” are please share
with us your knowledge of this topic. If you have nothing but innuendo drop
it. Nektarios
------------------------------------- 20-8- 98 (snip) read my post. I never
stated that the Icon was STOLEN by the RCC. They may be YOUR WORDS but they
were not mine. Actually, I believe the Icon was purchased by the 'Blue
Army'. And promised to be returned to Russia when communism was gone. As far
as it 'being kept in Rome by the Pope', THAT WAS A QUESTION (which has yet
to be answered) NOT A STATEMENT! Please read the posts more carefully before
commenting. (snip) P.S. I’m still waiting for an answer to my three
questions.
------------------------- 19-8-98 (Snip) Can you please point to the post
where either I, or anyone else for that matter, stated that the Roman
Catholics STOLE the Icon of 'Our Lady of Kazan'? I merely asked three
questions which were and still are 1) Why was it taken from Fatima after the
fall of communism in Russia? 2) Where is its present location? 3) And why
hasn't it been returned to the Russian Orthodox Church as promised? Can you
answer these three questions without putting words in my mouth that I never
spoke?
------------------------------
On 19-8-98
(Snip) So once again I ask - 1) Why was the Icon taken from Fatima after the
fall of communism? 2) And where is its present location? Seems all that
replies so far have hedged the questions with snide remarks.
--------------------------------------------- On 18-8-98 (snip)Speaking of
Fatima, can anyone explain what has happened to one of the most sacred Icons
in Russia....'Our Lady of Kazan". The Icon was kept in the Church in Fatima
until recently where it has mysteriously disappeared. If you read some Roman
Catholic literature going back twenty years or so you will hear Roman
Catholic statements that the Icon will be returned to the Russian people when
communism was abolished and the Church it was kept in Red Square was rebuilt.
What’s funny is that now that the above has been accomplished the Icon is no
where in sight and every Roman Catholic you ask has no idea where it is. Saw
a program on EWTN last year where the 'Roman Catholic Blue Army' stated that
twice the Icon was for sale and the 'Russians Abroad' raised the $3 millions
dollars asking price and the money dissappeared. Point they were making was
it was the 'Blessed Mothers' way of saying she didn't want to return to
Russia. Another rumor has it now in the Pope's private Chapel and its being
held as his ticket to visit Russia. Could some Roman Catholics or Uniates
please enlighten us as to where one of most sacred Russian Orthodox Icons is?
Kevin Beach
>
> >
> >Well, regardless of what may have been said or done in the past, as it
> >has now changed, do you agree that our task is to move forward towards
> >unity? Or do you want to keep reopening the wounds - bearing in mind
> >that they are wounds on Christ's Mystical Body?
> >
> Roman Catholics are very friendly. However, the Eastern and other Roman
> Catholics in Eastern Europe have been rather unfriendly. In order to resolve
> the problems between Rome and Orthodoxy, we must deal with the honestly. If
> an Orthodox priest is afraid to express his honest feelings for fear of
> offending Roman Catholics, we will never resolve our differences. It bothers
> me very much to read that the Pope is considering canonizing the Croatian
> Cardinal who supported the pro-Nazi Croatian government that murdered almost
> 1,000,000 Serbian Orthodox. The whole Eastern Catholic problems is very
> offensive to me, especially when they try to tell me that they are Orthodox
> in communion with Rome.
>
> Archpriest John W. Morris
Well, here's a Catholic in western Europe who's very friendly, too! I
agree about the Croatian Cardinal: it makes me shudder. I can also see
how the activities of the Uniate churches can cause offence. But there
is another viewpoint: the faithful of those churches chose communion
with Rome but wanted to keep their Orthodox traditions and practices.
From my western European viewpoint (never having been involved in
Catholic-Orthodox conflicts), I wish that the Uniate Churches could be
seen as bridges rather than as dividers. If we could heal the wounds,
do you think there would be more to argue about other than the
"filioque" and papal primacy/supremacy issues?
Kevin
Kevin Beach
>
> Lane Core Jr. wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Do Orthodox "ordain" Catholic clergy who convert to Orthodoxy?
>
> Apostolic Church which is the Orthodox Church.
>
Orders, then?
Kevin
Alban Mosher
> Do the orthodox Churches deny the validity of Roman Catholic Holy
> Orders, then?
>
> Kevin
Dear Kevin;
There are no Holy Orders, no baptism, no consecration of bread and wine to become
the Body and Blood of Christ outside the unity of the One Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church with is the Orthodox Church. When Old Rome abandons its deviant
teachings and proclaims the Orthodox Faith and joins the Orthodox Church, then they
will have true Holy Orders.
Historically, some Orthodox Churches, as a measure of extreme economia, have simply
revested Roman priest who convert to Orthodoxy. This does not mean that they
received a grace-filled ordination in the Roman denomination, but rather the local
Orthdoox Church decided to use extreme economia in revesting and then fill the
previously empty form with the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Gerard F. Bugge
Cfortunato wrote
replying to these words of Gerard:
" It seems too, too often Orthodoxy defines herself in terms of what she
is *not* and tends to exclude even what is good, holy, true in any tradition
other than her own as differences are pointed out over and over and over.
This sounds extremely *sectarian* to me. Not all Orthodox have this *anti*
spirit but many seem to have it and are quite proud of it."
>That has been there since the Sack of Constantinople, 1254, when
"Catholics"
>marching under the cross, invaded Constantinople, desecrated the the
Cathedral
>of Hagia Sophia (This was the most sacred spot in all of Christendom, and
>housed the True Cross, and most the apostles relics), peed on the icons,
>destroyed the relics, trampled on the Eucharist, and had a woman dance
naked on
>the alter while blaspheming. This action effectively destroyed
Constantinople,
>which was the only genuinely Christian city in the world, by weakening them
to
>the point where they could no longer resist Moslem onslaughts. After this,
>many Orthodox became convinced that Catholics weren't even Christian, and
began
>to say "Better a Sultan's turban than a Cardinal's hat."
>Many Orthodox have never gotten over the fact that their beloved city, and
>their beloved and most-beautiful Cathedral whose loss they still weep for,
was
>destroyed by their Catholic brethren.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
It must indeed be painful to see this great Church of Hagia Sophia no
longer an active church in which the Triune God is worshipped in the beauty
of holiness. I can't imagine what the sight of St Peter's in the
Vatican--with minarets surrounding it--might do to my own heart. Tragic and
sad.
The sack of Constantinople was a scandal and horror. Those who did it
were not "good Catholics" but sinful and far from the Spirit of Christ!
Kyrie Eleison. I can understand, too, the pain caused and damage done.
BUT....we all know persons who have suffered a grave injustice and
outrage..and refused to let it go and forgive. They diminish as persons and
become sick and diseased themselves....perhaps understandably but still
tragically. And any *anti* spirit is the work of the Evil One and not of
the Living God, whose mercies are never exhausted, whose mercies are never
spent but which are new each morning. We all must live by this Mercy,
"under the Mercy"--which, by the way, does come from CS Lewis, as reported
by Seldon Vanhauken in his wonderful book "A Severe Mercy."
The Church is a "supra-Personal reality"--and the same dynamic applies.
If there is a holding on to past offenses and a refusal to forgive, in
Christ the Savior, there is sickness and disease....and a diminishment of
the Life of the Triune God in her midst. The Gospel, not easily applied!,
is clear and consistent on this.....it's even built right into the Prayer
taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Regarding the Fall of Constantinople. This occurred while the Union of
Florence was in place officially. The last liturgy celebrated in Hagia
Sophia was a "united liturgy" with Greeks and Latins! (I read this in
Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church"). Latins along with Greeks lost their
lives. I think you mislead by your own comments on this significant point
of history.
May God have mercy on us all!
Gerard F. Bugge
Fr. John Morris wrote in message ...
.
"It bothers me very much to read that the Pope is considering canonizing the
Croatian Cardinal who supported the pro-Nazi Croatian government that
murdered almost 1,000,000 Serbian Orthodox."
Dear Fr John,
I suggest you inform yourself about the reality of Cardinal Stepinac and
his relationship to the "Ukase government." It is quite different than what
you imply here!
I'm surprised, at times, to see the misinformed opinions you present on
this newsgroup. Do you really think that Pope John Paul II would consider
"beatifying" (the first major step towards canonization) someone whose life
and holiness was not thoroughly researched?
But then I suspect you also think Pope Pius XII a scoundrel for his
"silence!" (Sorry to bring that up but it's a pattern among many, who still
slander Cardinal Stepinac as you do).
To turn the tables a bit: what about the OCA's canonization of Peter
the Aleut and the accounts on the internet about his being dismembered by
either Jesuits or Franciscans. I explored this with an Orthodox mailing list
and not one *historically verifiable* fact about this newly glorified saint.
In fact, I offered to take out to dinner at the restaurant of one's choice,
anyone who could give one *fact* that is verifiable about Peter the Aleut.
(And that offer still stands....).
Sorry to bring this up. But your misinformed slander does things to
me....and makes me think of how the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church may
differ in approaches to canonizations. Even some traditionalist Orthodox
groups have wondered if the standards traditionally in place: of holiness,
and proved virtue, haven't given way to other considerations (e.g. Fr Alexis
Toth--glorified for his bringing into the Orthodox Church so many Byzantine
Catholics....and, of course, Peter the Aleut and his dismemberment by
Catholic religious......).
Gerard F. Bugge
Alban Mosher wrote,
replying to this question by Kevin Beach:
>> Do the orthodox Churches deny the validity of Roman Catholic Holy
>> Orders, then?
>There are no Holy Orders, no baptism, no consecration of bread and wine to
become
>the Body and Blood of Christ outside the unity of the One Holy Catholic and
>Apostolic Church with is the Orthodox Church.
The problem with this answer is that there are many Orthodox voices that
would not agree with this; including some of the finest.
I also know any number of Orthodox Christians locally. The vast majority
I know do not doubt in the least the validity of the priesthood and
Eucharist among Catholics. They give to Catholic priests and to the
Eucharist of the Catholic Church the same reverence they give to their own
Orthodox priests and Eucharist. I've seen it over and over.....
There is a deep long-standing division amongst the Orthodox Churches on
this question. There *are* some who would agree with Alban. There are
*some* who disagree. My own experience is that the majority of Orthodox are
very open to the "validity" of Catholic orders and sacraments--even if that
word itself is not really "eastern"--but it's used among many Orthodox as
well in its basic meaning: that the Spirit of God acts in these sacraments
of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church affirms clearly the "validity" of the sacramental
mysteries of the Orthodox Church. There is an "official" teaching in this
matter; if a Catholic disagrees they are "dissenters." One problem with
Orthodoxy, is that those who have differing viewpoints may find it hard to
know which opinion is right and truly "orthodox"---and one may dimiss the
other viewpoint as wrong, while the other---quoting various strands of the
tradition, as the other side does as well--dismisses the contrary view as
wrong. Both claim to be fully "Orthodox" and would accuse the other of
"heterodoxy."
Catholics, on the other hand, have a "touchstone" in the pastoral
magisterium (teaching office) of the Church and can *know* the truth and
move on.....
Kevin Beach
>
> Kevin Beach wrote:
>
> > Do the orthodox Churches deny the validity of Roman Catholic Holy
> > Orders, then?
> >
>
> Dear Kevin;
>
> There are no Holy Orders, no baptism, no consecration of bread and wine to become
> the Body and Blood of Christ outside the unity of the One Holy Catholic and
> teachings and proclaims the Orthodox Faith and joins the Orthodox Church, then they
> will have true Holy Orders.
>
> Historically, some Orthodox Churches, as a measure of extreme economia, have simply
> revested Roman priest who convert to Orthodoxy. This does not mean that they
> received a grace-filled ordination in the Roman denomination, but rather the local
> Orthdoox Church decided to use extreme economia in revesting and then fill the
> previously empty form with the grace of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Your unworthy servant,
> Reader Alban Mosher
> St. Catherine of Sinai Greek Orthodox Church
> St. Louis, Missouri
So, in your eyes, the Pope is nothing more than an heretical layman? I
always thought that the Orthodox Churches regarded him as "Patriarch of
the West", to be which he would have to be not only a validly ordained
priest but a validly consecrated bishop. I'm curious to know how many
other Orthodox Christians share your opinions.
Kevin
Fr. John Morris
I wish that the Uniate Churches could be
>seen as bridges rather than as dividers
The Eastern Catholic Churches are a great source of division between
Orthodoxy and Rome. There are several reasons for this. The first is that
Orthodox feel that Rome was guilty of sheep stealing and deception by the
way that the Eastern Catholic Churches were formed. Some Roman Catholics
portrayed themselves as Orthodox in an effort to get into the position to
move Orthodox into union with Rome. Rome sent a great deal of money and
other resources to support the Eastern Catholics in their efforts to convert
the Orthodox. Roman Catholic rulers pressured Orthodox into becoming Eastern
Catholics. Here in America, they are a problem because they tell people that
there is really no difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
Finally, Orthodox have seen the way that the Eastern Catholics have been
treated as inferiors by Latins. This naturally causes many of us to fear
that we will share the same fate if we go into union with Rome. For example,
Rome recently issued a decree forbidding the Ukrainian Catholics in Poland
to have married clergy. Although things are much better since the Second
Vatican Council, in the past the Byzantine Liturgy was Latanized in many
Eastern Catholic Churches.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Cfortunato
>What is the point to this with this thread? Your discription of all of the
>events is a bit more than what I have read before, your source. "...
>Constantinople, which was the only genuinely Christian city in the world" Are
>you certain of this?
Can you name another?
> There were no others? I know few Orthodox who haven't
>gotten over it. Most anti RC Orthodox sentiment I hear is more tied to
>nationialist sentiments and old country stuff than the sack of
>Constantinople. "... whose loss they still weep for, was destroyed by their
>Catholic brethren" Haven't met any weeping about it either. All churchs have
>plenty of warts. relevance to the topic is?
Sorry if I struck a chord. But the fact is Hagia Sophia is still very close
tot he center of the Orthodox heart, and it isn't even a cathedral anymore
Cfortunato
<gbu...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> writes:
>
>" It seems too, too often Orthodoxy defines herself in terms of what she
>is *not* and tends to exclude even what is good, holy, true in any tradition
>other than her own
Honestly, I have not noticed that. I certainly don't see it done any more than
it is done in the Catholic Church regarding Protestantism.
Evan Kalenik
> Fr. John
> I have never read anything where you have been afraid of offending anyone.
> Now RC in the US have been friendly a few posts back it was offensiveness at
> wedding, cemetaries, etc.,
> Which is it?
> Nektarios
He didn't say that. Read what he wrote:
> > > If
> > > an Orthodox priest is afraid to express his honest feelings for fear of
> > > offending Roman Catholics, we will never resolve our differences.
That word "IF" was edited out of his post.
Evan
Fr. John Morris
> To turn the tables a bit: what about the OCA's canonization of Peter
>the Aleut and the accounts on the internet about his being dismembered by
>either Jesuits or Franciscans
The methods of the Spanish Inquisition are fairly well documented.
Therefore, it is not difficult to believe the story of St. Peter the Aleut
as the Spanish Inquisition was still a force in California at that time.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Evan Kalenik
> Fr. John Morris wrote in message ...
> .
> "It bothers me very much to read that the Pope is considering canonizing the
> Croatian Cardinal who supported the pro-Nazi Croatian government that
> murdered almost 1,000,000 Serbian Orthodox."
>
> Dear Fr John,
>
> I suggest you inform yourself about the reality of Cardinal Stepinac and
> his relationship to the "Ukase government." It is quite different than what
> you imply here!
Indeed. Stepinac probably should have been included with his priest Dragutin
Kamber, Bishop Ivan Saric and Bishop Gregory Rozman, priest Miroslav
Filipovic-Majstorovic who were indicted for war crimes.
> I'm surprised, at times, to see the misinformed opinions you present on
> this newsgroup. Do you really think that Pope John Paul II would consider
> "beatifying" (the first major step towards canonization) someone whose life
> and holiness was not thoroughly researched?
Why not? The mass murderer of Orthodox, and Roman Catholic "saint", Josephat
Kuntsevitch is still fouling the ground where he is buried in Rome. It appears
that a way to "holiness" in the Roman Catholic Church can be partly measured on
how many Orthodox Catholics one has butchered. Or it at least puts them on the
"fast path".
> But then I suspect you also think Pope Pius XII a scoundrel for his
> "silence!" (Sorry to bring that up but it's a pattern among many, who still
> slander Cardinal Stepinac as you do).
Well, how many events did Pius XII show up at with the fascists? US News had a
nice picture of your butcher, excuse me, proposed saint with the with the
friendly Ustashas, with the later raising their hand in the nazi manner. Now if
Pius XII was unaware of the $170 million that was transferred to the Vatican
bank account from Croatia for "safe keeping", I guess he was just asleep at the
switch. Or when wanted war criminal, Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic, was living
within the Vatican after the war, nobody knew?
> To turn the tables a bit: what about the OCA's canonization of Peter
> the Aleut and the accounts on the internet about his being dismembered by
> either Jesuits or Franciscans. I explored this with an Orthodox mailing list
> and not one *historically verifiable* fact about this newly glorified saint.
> In fact, I offered to take out to dinner at the restaurant of one's choice,
> anyone who could give one *fact* that is verifiable about Peter the Aleut.
> (And that offer still stands....).
Well, you have shown that "historically verifiable" is only subject to your
interpretation or judgement of what is or isn't "historically verifiable". So
what else can or should be said?
> Sorry to bring this up. But your misinformed slander does things to
> me....and makes me think of how the <Roman>Catholic Church and Orthodox Church
> may differ in approaches to canonizations.
We have wondered the same thing about you folks for years.
> Even some traditionalist Orthodox groups have wondered if the standards
> traditionally in place: of holiness, and proved virtue, haven't given way to
> other considerations (e.g. Fr Alexis Toth--glorified for his bringing into the
> Orthodox Church so many Byzantine
> Catholics....and, of course, Peter the Aleut and his dismemberment by
> <Roman> Catholic religious......).
There is that propaganda machine going in full force. What "tradtionalist
Orthodox groups" are you referring. What did they say? What were they talking
about? Or are you just following Rome's lead of taking texts out of context and
trying to fool others with your spin on what was said?
Evan
Evan Kalenik
> Fr.
> You made several allegations among them
> - Jesuits as dihonest a group as ever has been
> - RC teachings, not abberant practice, that Orthodox are heritcs
> Can you or can you not come up with substaniation?
> Nektarios
As regards the Jesuits, I repeat, read the book _The Jesuits_ by one of their own.
As for what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about the Orthodox, one must
recogize that it is a moving target (as is much of what that organization teaches
- it depends upon who they are talking to), visit the web site called Roman
Catholic Answers. Look at the history of the so called "eighth ecumenical
council" and how it was not included in the list until rather recently and ask
why. Look at all the proof texts that flow from Roman Catholic "scholars" and
look at the quote in context and why it was written. What you will find is a lie
based on a lie based on a lie.
Evan