Catholic Church's role in defeating Communism

[David]

The defeat of Comunism is all due to Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy
Father consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart

[Stephen Patten]

We've heard a lot of unjust criticism about the tactics adopted by the
Church in combating Nazism. I'd like to even up the score by pointing out
the Church's sterling work in defeating Communism, in Europe at least.
The tactics were again not dissimilar: condemnation combined with lots of
behind the scenes work. Moreover, this time round the defeat of
totalitarianism did not entail the widespread destruction wreaked by the
armed forces in World War Two - which, on this criteria, would imply that
WW2 was not a 'Just' War.

So I say, cheers to the Church for her work, and lets thank Our Lady of
Fatima for her intercession.

(Maybe the leaders of the world's other religions would like to apologize
for their silence whilst the Communists murdered millions of Christians?)

Stephen Patten

[Stephen Patten]

David <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<6a3ok9$p0e$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...

> The defeat of Comunism is all due to Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy
> Father consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart
>

..and how few in the world thank Her. Question: Why do you think it took
so long for this consecration to occur? After all, She told the world
around 1920, yet, IRRC, it was as late as the 1970's that the consecration
occurred.

Stephen Patten

[Stephanie Rendino]

In article <01bd266d$085c4f40$b9537ec2@alpha>,

The request for the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart only
happened in 1929, in a vision Lucia had after the events of Fatima. It
appears in her "Third Memoir" written in 1941. Pius XII did the
consecration in 1942.

[Stephanie Rendino]

Adding to my own post....The Fatima events which happened to Lucia,
Jacinta, and Francisco were 1917. Between 1925 and 1929, Lucia had
further visions, the one in 1929 being about it being time for the
consecration to the Immaculate Heart. It was in the Third Memoir, written
in August of 1941 that Lucia reported that during the Fatima apparitions
Mary had said that she would be requesting the consecration of Russia to
the Immaculate Heart. So Mary did not ask for immediate consecration of
Russia during the 1917 Fatima events.

It's difficult to tell what the children actually did hear during the 1917
apparitions themselves. Francisco and Jacinta died soon afterwards, so we
only have Lucia's testimony to go on. However, Pius XII did perform the
consecration soon after the publishing of the Third Memoir (a Fourth was
published in December of 1941).

[Stephen Patten]

Stephanie Rendino <be...@CAM.ORG> wrote in article
<6a54cg$s...@stratus.CAM.ORG>...

Steph, thanks for the info. I meant to write 1920's but the article was
posted straight after my spell-checker had got into action. I'm probably
wrong here, but I'm sure I read, or heard, that the consecration Our Lady
spoke off was not 'correctly' done until the papacy of John Paul II.
Please, if you have any more info., correct me.

Stephen Patten

>
>
>

[Stephanie Rendino]

In article <01bd26ab$c1feb440$90537ec2@alpha>,
Stephen Patten <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

I'm not sure. I had that info in a book which is on loan to someone clear
across the country. However, I do have a bit of a problem about a
consecration being done with such finickiness of detail. Pius XII
consecrated the world, probably thinking that since Russia is in the
world, that would cover it too. If the salvation of a country (and Russia
no longer existed as a country at that point, of course) hinged on
something being carried out _that precisely_ it smells to me of being more
magic than faith. This is my opinion only, but it's something that's
always rubbed me the wrong way about the politics surrounding Fatima.

[Padraic42]

In article <6a54cg$s...@stratus.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
writes:

>In article <6a4ssm$c...@ocean.CAM.ORG>, Stephanie Rendino <be...@CAM.ORG>
>wrote:

>In article <01bd266d$085c4f40$b9537ec2@alpha>,
>Stephen Patten

Wrong again Stef. No Pope, before JP II, consecrated Russia, by name, to the
Immaculate Heart. many have consecrated the world, but not Russia
specifically.

And, whereas John Paul II DID consecrate the Russia to the Immaculate Heart,
he was NOT joined by the Bishops of the world IN that consecration. Another
request of our Lady.

Pax Christi, Pat
"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but,
following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle
their ears." (1 Tim. 4:3)

[Stephen Patten]

Padraic42 <padr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980122034...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...

Aye! That's what I heard, now you remind me. But does anyone know why the
Bishops didn't join the consecration. Were they not asked? Or were they
asked and refused?

Stephen Patten

[Evan Kalenik]

David wrote:

> The defeat of Comunism is all due to Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy
> Father consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart

Sorry, but Russia was "consecrated" to the Theotokos hundreds of years
before by the Church. The boarder line gnostic "sacred heart" and
"Fatima" nonsense had nothing to do with it. Nor can a bishop of Rome
consecrate some place away from his own diocese to anyone. It isn't his
to do so.

The defeat of communism was a result of the faithful of Russia who kept
the holy Orthodox Catholic Church and Orthodox faith against decades of
incredible persecution. It had nothing to do with the schismatic Roman
Catholic Church.

Evan

[Stephen Patten]

Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote in article
<34C9FA6D...@webspan.net>...

Not even in Poland? Surely it was Poland, a Catholic country, that was the
first to throw off Communism's yoke and give the lead to its Orthodox
countrymen? Moreover, the Orthodox Church worked hand-in-glove with the
Communists. How many Orthodox clergymen ended up in the gulags for
opposing the communists?

Stephen Patten

Stephen Patten

>
>
>

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <34C9FA6D...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

> David wrote:
>
> > The defeat of Comunism is all due to Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy
> > Father consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart
>
> Sorry, but Russia was "consecrated" to the Theotokos hundreds of years
> before by the Church. The boarder line gnostic "sacred heart" and
> "Fatima" nonsense had nothing to do with it. Nor can a bishop of Rome
> consecrate some place away from his own diocese to anyone. It isn't his
> to do so.
>
> The defeat of communism was a result of the faithful of Russia who kept
> the holy Orthodox Catholic Church and Orthodox faith against decades of
> incredible persecution. It had nothing to do with the schismatic Roman
> Catholic Church.
>
> Evan

The defeat of Communism has a lot of reasons, religion, only playing a role.

The "sacred heart" is not gnostic. Please refer to what gnostics believe.

I don't that the 1943 Russian Orthodox Church had any significant role in
the defeat of Communism since it was created by Stalin and is a creature
of the
Communist state. No historians would agree with you about the role of the
CAtholic Church.

The faithful Orthodox Christians in Russia are a small minority of the
population. Half of the population is atheistic.

Any decent historian will tell you that the biggest religious player in
breakup of the Soviet Empire was Pope John Paul II who had extensive
contacts with both Reagan and Gorbachev. He did more for the restoration
of the Christianity and
the prospect of religious freedom than all the entire Russian Orthodox synods
put together.

As far as the Fatima revelations are concerned, they are not required
beliefs of the Catholic Church.

If Russia was dedicated to the Theotokos centuries ago, it was un-dedicated by
the Soviets and Communists. A shrine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is
being built by the Catholic Church in Moscow with donations. It is under
the control of the diocesan Catholic bishop of Moscow.

Mike Davidchik

[Edward Thorne]

In <34C9FA6D...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>David wrote:
>
>> The defeat of Comunism is all due to Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy
>> Father consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart
>
>Sorry, but Russia was "consecrated" to the Theotokos hundreds of years
>before by the Church. The boarder line gnostic "sacred heart" and
>"Fatima" nonsense had nothing to do with it. Nor can a bishop of Rome
>consecrate some place away from his own diocese to anyone. It isn't
his
>to do so.

Gnostic?! That's a new one!

Explain to us how devotion to the Sacred Heart and Our Lady of Fatima
is Gnostic.

>
>The defeat of communism was a result of the faithful of Russia who
kept
>the holy Orthodox Catholic Church and Orthodox faith against decades
of
>incredible persecution. It had nothing to do with the schismatic
Roman
>Catholic Church.

Hmmnn ...what about Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia? Or do you claim
them for Greek Orthodoxy as well?

Mary, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, Pray for us!

Ed
>
>Evan
>
>

[Evan Kalenik]

Stephen Patten wrote:

> Not even in Poland? Surely it was Poland, a <Roman>Catholic country, that

> was the
> first to throw off Communism's yoke and give the lead to its Orthodox
> countrymen?

I think that we have switched countries here. The collapse of communism was
based on its failure as an economic system, something that would have happened
without any religion at all.

> Moreover, the Orthodox Church worked hand-in-glove with the
> Communists. How many Orthodox clergymen ended up in the gulags for
> opposing the communists?

Oh, only about 12,000 priests were executed, a hundred or so bishops were
executed, 10,000 to 20,000 monks and nuns were executed. I guess it is
insignificant to you.

Evan

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <6addn8$j...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

> Hmmnn ...what about Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia? Or do you claim
> them for Greek Orthodoxy as well?
>
> Mary, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, Pray for us!

As far as I can remember....Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Lithuana, and
Western Ukraine were traditionally Catholic, and Latvia and Estonia were
traditionally Lutheran, and East Germany was Catholic or Lutheran.
Yugoslavia
was both Catholic and Serbian Orthodox. Albania and Romania were a mixed
bag. Armenia always had its own separate church. In the former Asian
areas, there were probably as many Moslems. That leaves wonderful
Bulgaria.

During the 50s and 60s, we used to have a common prayer at Mass for the
conversion of Russia to Christianity. I doubt that this was because we
all forgot about Saints Cyril and Methodius, or Orthodox Christianity.

Mike

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> The defeat of Communism has a lot of reasons, religion, only playing a role.

Agreed.

> The "sacred heart" is not gnostic. Please refer to what gnostics believe.

It is, or new age if you prefer. You have the Theotokos "channeling" through some
folks, secret messages, etc. It is all demonic.

> I don't that the 1943 Russian Orthodox Church had any significant role in
> the defeat of Communism since it was created by Stalin and is a creature
> of the Communist state.

I suggest that you pick up a history book and read about the Russian Orthodox
Church, especially from the time of the conversion of St. Vladimir and the Rus.
Your ignorance is showing.

> No historians would agree with you about the role of the <Roman> CAtholic
> Church.

What are you talking about?

> The faithful Orthodox Christians in Russia are a small minority of the
> population. Half of the population is atheistic.

Again, please read up on what you are saying. It is far from a "small minority"
of the population. After almost 80 years of persecution, no churches, no priests
there are a couple of generations that have never been allowed to go to church, to
learn their faith. The growth, the return to the Church over the last six or
seven years has been amazing. While there is still much to be done, it will take
many years to bring the people back after so many years of persecution.

> Any decent historian will tell you that the biggest religious player in
> breakup of the Soviet Empire was Pope John Paul II who had extensive
> contacts with both Reagan and Gorbachev. He did more for the restoration
> of the Christianity and the prospect of religious freedom than all the entire
> Russian Orthodox synods put together.

Well, the Librarian of Congress failed to mention him as a principle in bringing
down communism in Russia while Billington did state that the Patriarch of the
Russian Orthodox Church was one of the heroes. Gorbachev used the pope just as he
used anyone to satisfy his objectives of maintaining communism in the former
Soviet Union.

> As far as the Fatima revelations are concerned, they are not required

> beliefs of the <Roman> Catholic Church.

Nor should they be. However, the whole farce is firmly believed by most Roman
Catholics.

> If Russia was dedicated to the Theotokos centuries ago, it was un-dedicated by
> the Soviets and Communists. A shrine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is
> being built by the Catholic Church in Moscow with donations. It is under
> the control of the diocesan Catholic bishop of Moscow.

The communists had no authority to "un-dedicate" anything. The Roman Catholic
Church in Moscow is the "Immaculate Conception" with Archbishop Thad there (a nice
guy having met him a few times). If you like the "sacred heart", that is fine,
the Orthodox Catholic Church likes all of Him.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Gnostic?! That's a new one!
>
> Explain to us how devotion to the Sacred Heart and Our Lady of Fatima
> is Gnostic.

Gnostic or New Age or both. If you want to have the Theotokos being
channeled by someone and telling secrets, go right ahead. You might as
well allow seances and Ouija boards to give you your pointers.

> >The defeat of communism was a result of the faithful of Russia who kept
> >the holy Orthodox Catholic Church and Orthodox faith against decades of
> >incredible persecution. It had nothing to do with the schismatic Roman
> >Catholic Church.
>

> Hmmnn ...what about Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia? Or do you claim
> them for Greek Orthodoxy as well?

Who is talking about "Greek" Orthodoxy? The issue was Russia and the fall
of communism there. While I will admit that the largest cause was the
fundamental errors of communism itself, it was the Russian Orthodox Church
which helped bring it down. With it went communism in Poland, Germany,
Czchoslovakia and elsewhere. If the Soviet Union did not come down, it
wouldn't have elsewhere. It may have been one of the last, but its legs
had been cut out from under it which allowed the others to be free first.

Through the prayers of the Theotokos may the schismatic and heretical Roman
Catholic Church renounce its errors and return to the one, holy, catholic
church, the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

Evan says:

>I think that we have switched countries here. The collapse of communism was
>based on its failure as an economic system, something that would have
>happened
>without any religion at all.

Evan - you don't know what you're talking about. Communism collapsed because it
was a lie. The lie resulted in deprivation both spiritually and materially.

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

Sorry BAM, but again you are off base. Communism was an economic system that won't
work. It lead to material deprivation. The spiritual deprivation came from the
added philosophy of atheism. Two different things. Communism does not have to
include atheism for it to exist as an economic theory.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> During the 50s and 60s, we used to have a common prayer at Mass for the
> conversion of Russia to Christianity. I doubt that this was because we
> all forgot about Saints Cyril and Methodius, or Orthodox Christianity.

It was for the conversion of Russia to Roman Catholicism, not just
"Christianity". In fact you got a week out of Purgatory if you said that
prayer.

As for Sts. Cyril and Methodius and Orthodoxy, it was as if none of them
existed.

Evan

[David]

These two saints went to Rome and got their authority from the Pope, the
Bishop of Rome!!! They were in full communion with and subject to the
Holy See. They were not schesmatics!
Sts Cyril & Metodius ARE Catholic saints!

[Evan Kalenik]

David wrote:

Another one of those revisionist histories that Rome is so well known for.

First, it was St. Photius of Constantinople who appointed St. Cyril and
Methodius to go as missionaries amongst the Slavs. They went first to the
Khazars and then to Moravia and it was here that they developed what is now
Church Slavonic. It was only after clashing with the German missionaries
who insisted on using Latin that they went to Rome to have the pope there
stop the German missionaries. Hadrian II went along with the brother's
request. The Germans, however, ignored the pope's request to stop
obstructing Methodius (St. Cyril died shortly after they met with Hadrian
II). When St. Methodius died in 885 those same German missionaries expelled
the followers of St. Methodius and sold a number of them into slavery.

The only area that was involved with the pope of Rome was this one area. It
was to counter the efforts of the Latin Germans that they had any dealing
with Rome. The rest of their mission was solely within the context of their
mission, given them by St. Photius, so the conversion of Russia, Serbia and
Bulgaria had nothing to do with the bishop of Rome but with St. Photius, the
Patriarch of Constantinople.

While they may be considered saints of the Roman Catholic Church, that is
because they are saints in the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. The Roman
Catholic Church was part of the Church at that time and accepts most if not
all of the Saints that the Church declared to be Saints.

That they were "in communion with" Rome is meaningless since at that time
the Roman Church was part of the Church. The pope of Rome was only the pope
since he was in communion with the Church.

As for being "subject to the Holy See", that too is meaningless. They were
sent by St. Photius and were subject to him. Their only contact with the
bishop of Rome was their attempt to stop Latin German missionaries who were
interfering with their work. Those German missionaries acted as if today's
vain claims by the bishop of Rome did not exist (makes you wonder, doesn't
it?).

Evan

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <34CBE8AA...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

> Mike Davidchik wrote:
>
> > During the 50s and 60s, we used to have a common prayer at Mass for the
> > conversion of Russia to Christianity. I doubt that this was because we
> > all forgot about Saints Cyril and Methodius, or Orthodox Christianity.
>
> It was for the conversion of Russia to Roman Catholicism, not just
> "Christianity". In fact you got a week out of Purgatory if you said that
> prayer.

The prayer said Christianity, not Catholicism. The purgatory thing is a lie.
It had to do with the atheistic Communist state that existed.

>
> As for Sts. Cyril and Methodius and Orthodoxy, it was as if none of them
> existed.

Please answer my posting about the Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox Church.
It was a creation of the Communist state and not of Saints Cyril and
Methodius. Please tell us whether you are a member of the Moscow
Patriarchy or Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America (OCA).
This will greatly affect your credibility. It is the latter and other
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
which can trace roots to Saints Cyril and Methodius, not the KGB Costume
Club in Moscow.

I repeat...most modern day Russians are atheists...John Paul II as
indirectly done more to help Orthodox Christians in Russia than the entire
Moscow synod.

Mike

[Padraic42]

In article <34CC987B...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

"LIVES OF THE SAINTS
Saint Cyril and Methodius

SAINT CYRIL AND METHODIUS
Bishops and Confessors, c.827-869, 826-885

IN 862, an ambassador from Moravia came to Constantinople to ask for
missionaries to teach in a Slavic language. The Eastern emperor was delighted
at this opportunity to counterbalance Western influence in a land where German
missionaries were already active. He had in Constantinople two men who were
ideally suited for the work: Cyril, a priest with missionary experience, and
his brother Methodius, a monk.
They belonged to a senatorial family of Thessalonica, but their mother was
probably a Slav. Both spoke Slavonic. In preparation for their work, Cyril
invented a Slavic alphabet, and, with the help of Methodius, translated the
Gospels and certain liturgical works into Slavonic.

Since they preached in the language of the people, they were immediately
successful. However, they aroused the suspicion and resentment of the Latin
bishops. Since they had no one to ordain new priests, they went to Rome, where
they were consecrated bishops. There on February 14, 869, Cyril died.
Having been consecrated, Methodius returned to Moravia with a letter from the
Holy See authorizing the liturgical and scriptural use of Slavonic. But this
did not solve all his problems. Urged on by the Western emperor, the Latin
clergy brought Methodius before a synod in 870. He was kept in a monastery for
two years before Pope John VIII had him released, and the pope now found it
necessary to restrict the use of Slavonic to preaching.

In 878 he was sent to the Holy See, charged with heresy and with celebrating
Mass in Slavonic. He was cleared of heresy, the Slav liturgy was again deemed
desirable, and he returned to his people. During the last four years of his
life, he completed the Slavonic translation of the Bible (except the Books of
Maccabees). On April 6, 885, he died, worn out by his apostolic labors and by
the opposition of those who failed to understand and approve his wise ideals
and methods.

Since, in our own day, the question of the liturgy being presented in the
vernacular has again arisen, these two brothers are of special interest to us.
To the Slavic peoples, Cyril and Methodius are their most honored apostles. By
their intercession at the throne of God they remain powerful patrons. As
Catholics of the Eastern Church who worked in close cooperation with Rome, they
are regarded as particularly suitable patrons of Church unity and of works to
bring about the reunion of the schismatic churches of the East."

Hmm, nothing here about Photius? Oh yeah, Photius, the Emperor's lackey.

Catholic Church History
Feudal Anarchy (843-1059) XII. The Great Eastern Schism (843-1054)
84. The Photian Controversy (857-99)

XII
The Great Eastern Schism

84. THE PHOTIAN CONTROVERSY

A. First Controversy (857-77)
(1) USURPATION BY PHOTIUS (857-67)
Photius (c. 815-97), son of the praetorian guardsman Sergius, had received an
excellent education and became a distinguished scholar. His brother's marriage
to the king's aunt won for him court favor and the post of protosecretary.
Though there is no evidence that Photius belonged to the disgruntled Asbestas
faction, he did choose Gregory Asbestas to confer upon him the sacred orders
once Michael and Bardas had designated him as successor to the deposed St.
Ignatius.

Papal intervention became inevitable when Photius informed the Holy See that
Ignatius had resigned because of complicity in a plot and had been permitted
honorable retirement.

(In fact, rather than resigning, Ignatius was deposed for standing against
Barda's sin.
"King Michael III (842-67) began his personal rule in 856 with the retirement
of his mother Theodora. His impressionable mind was quickly captivated by his
paternal uncle, Bardas, a brilliant but utterly depraved courtier. The better
to indulge his passions, the king forced his mother into a convent against the
protests of St. Ignatius. Next Michael, leaving public affairs to Bardas,
plunged into a career of debauchery which his epithet of "The Drunkard"
inadequately describes. Bardas himself, having dismissed his wife, lived in
notorious incest with his daughter-in-law Eudoxia. We are told, moreover, that
Bardas inspired veritable sexual orgies at court, which were varied by
sacrilegious parodies of liturgical rites and mockery of ecclesiastics.

Deposition of St. Ignatius. Any conscientious bishop would have been obliged
to denounce these transactions, and Ignatius did so with the vigor of an Elias.
When his admonitions were answered with ridicule, the patriarch took the
extreme measure of publicly refusing Holy Communion to Bardas at Epiphany, 857.
Deposition of the fearless bishop thus became Bardas's only alternative to
repentance. This was easily arranged. Ignatius was accused of complicity in
an obscure conspiracy of a certain Gebo. The unsubstantiated charge, however,
seemed plausible from the fact that Ignatius was of royal blood, while the
Asbestas clerical faction provided willing prosecutors. On November 23, 857,
the patriarch was declared deposed and exiled to Terbinthus. Far from
resigning, St. Ignatius laid an interdict on Hagia Sophia before going into
exile. His courageous stand won for him ardent adherents, some of whom, it
must be recalled for the sequel, later degenerated into fanatical partisans who
did not hesitate to exaggerate, perhaps even to falsify in his cause.
Presently a babel of voices reached the Holy See."
[Catholic Church History; Feudal Anarchy (843-1059) XII. The Great Eastern
Schism (843-1054)])

St. Nicholas the Great protested against St. Ignatius's deposition for
whatever cause, as done without consultation of the Holy See. He refused to
admit Photius to Communion until more precisely informed of the situation by
legates. Two cardinals, Rodoald and Zachary, were sent for this purpose and
arrived at Constantinople in April, 861. The Westerners seem to have been
dazzled by Byzantine magnificence into gullible acceptance of a managed
council. Despite their instructions to observe and not to judge, the legates
ratified the deposition of Ignatius and the accession of Photius. But Ignatius
sent his side of the case to Rome through his friend Theognostus. When the
legates returned to Rome they were confronted by the pope and a Lateran council
which excommunicated them, together with Photius and Asbestas, and sustained
St. Ignatius as the legitimate bishop.

Photian bravado, Until 865 Photius strove to change the pope's verdict by the
same artful misrepresentations that had succeeded in the case of the papal
envoys. When he perceived the futility of persuasion, he resorted to bluster.
Secure in the support of the court, he embarked on a course that threatened
complete rupture. In 865 he inspired the king to write an abusive letter to
the pope; to this St. Nicholas sent a dignified reply, indicating that Photius
was the real author and advising his removal. During 866 Photius invaded the
papal vicariate of Illyricum by trying to induce the newly baptized Prince
Boris of Bulgaria to give his ecclesiastical allegiance to Constantinople.
Then in 867 Photius in a circular to the Oriental patriarchs denounced the
Latin rite for making the Bulgarians fast on Saturdays; for starting Lent on
Ash Wednesday instead of Quinquagesima Monday; for manifesting Manichaeism in
despising married clergy; for not recognizing confirmation conferred by simple
priests; and for the addition of the Filioque. On this last point Photius
subsequently proposed his own theory: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
alone"--which is definite heresy. During August, 867, Photius crowned his
paroxysm of fanaticism by holding a managed synod at Constantinople which
pronounced sentence of deposition upon Pope Nicholas. Though this sentence was
ratified by the king, it seems that many of the episcopal signatures were
forged by Photius, for protests against any judgment of the supreme pontiff
were drowned out.

(2) RESTORATION OF ST. IGNATIUS (867-77)

Byzantine revolution doomed the first Photian regime. In 866 Bardas was
supplanted in royal favor by the soldier-courtier, Basil the Macedonian. When
he fell into distrust, Basil had first Bardas, and in 867, Michael III
murdered. Photius excommunicated Basil, but this only convinced the usurper
that all of the late monarch's favorites must be removed. By November Photius
had been deposed and sent to the customary monastery. Pure politics would
dictate conciliation of the opposite factions, and St. Ignatius was reinstated
on the tenth anniversary of his expulsion, November 23, 867. This development
Basil reported to the Holy See. St. Nicholas had died ten days before St.
Ignatius's restoration, but Adrian II agreed to send legates to grant his
approbation.

Eighth Ecumenical Council (869-70). The papal delegation, headed by Cardinal
Donatus, bishop of Ostia, opened the council at Constantinople on October 5,
869. By the Latins, but by no means by the Greek Orthodox, this assembly has
been ranked as the eighth ecumencal council. Its ten sessions were principally
devoted to the reconciliation of those involved in the schism. St. Ignatius
was enthusiastically accepted, and Photius, after a refusal to acknowledge
faults, was solemnly anathematized on October 29. Deacon Marinus, the future
Pope Martin II, gained a bitter memory among Photian partisans by his
relentless prosecution of the deposed intruder. All of Photius's acts were
declared null, his ordinations and appointments ignored, though clerics who had
merely yielded to pressure were absolved on profession of repentance.
Participants in Michael's acts of sacrilege were excommunicated, and canons
enacted against the secular domination of the clergy. Previous canons
regulating clerical discipline were renewed. The unity of the human soul was
affirmed against a two-soul theory, attributed to Photius but not found in his
authentic writings. The council closed on February 28, 870, with enthusiastic
professions of loyalty to the Holy See by King Basil, St. Ignatius, and some
300 bishops. Accurate copies of the conciliar acts were brought to Rome by
Anastasius the Librarian, and Adrian II indicated his approval in November,
871.

Friction about Bulgaria, however, persisted during this brief era of good
feeling between Rome and Constantinople. After the council, St. Ignatius
detained the papal legates for a conference with a delegation from Boris of
Bulgaria. Prompted by the court, the restored patriarch once again asserted
Constantinopolitan jurisdiction in the Balkans, supporting it by plausible
claims of priority in time of Greek missionaries among the Bulgars. The
legates protested that Byzantine jurisdiction in Bulgaria would be contrary to
the mind of the Holy See, but St. Ignatius, while assuring them of his
submission to Pope Adrian, avoided making any definite commitment. In 871 St.
Ignatius consecrated one Theophylact to head a New Greek mission to the
Bulgarians. Despite protests by Adrian II and John VIII, the patriarch
continued on this course. When legates finally arrived from Pope John ordering
St. Ignatius to desist under pain of censure, they found that the patriarch had
died on October 23, 877. Roman estimate of his real dispositions is evinced by
his inclusion in the Roman Martyrology.

B. Second Controversy (878-99)
(1) PHOTIUS'S RETURN (878-86)

Photius in exile had courted King Basil, and even before the death of St.
Ignatius had been named tutor to the royal princes, Leo and Stephen. It is
said that Photius's crowning achievement on the return road to royal favor was
his production of a genealogy which "proved" that Basilin reality a nobody and
sensitive about it-was descended from King Tiridates of Armenia. Be that as it
may, when St. Ignatius died Basil asked Photius to resume the patriarchal
chair. Here the papal legates found him seated when they came in April, 878,
to warn Constantinople off the Bulgarian reservation. The legates hesitated
and compromised, while the king informed John VIII that Photius had now better
be recognized for the sake of peace.

Photian synod. After consultation, the pope replied in August, 879: "Now that
we know that the Patriarch Ignatius of blessed memory is dead, we have decided
under the circumstances to overlook what has been decreed against Photius, and
that, too, without consent of our See he has usurped an office from which he
had been interdicted. Accordingly . . . we acknowledge Photius as our fellow
bishop in condition of his asking pardon before a synod." John VIII sent
Cardinal Peter to join the legates already at Constantinople in presiding over
such a synod. The ensuing council of 300 bishops, regarded as ecumenical by
the Greek Orthodox, was in session from November, 879, to March, 880. The
extant Latin and Greek versions of its acts are at variance; it is charged,
moreover, that Photius interpolated some decrees. What seems to have happened
is that Photius artfully converted a synod of rehabilitation into one of
justification. Though now professing loyalty to the Holy See, Photius does not
seem to have made the required apology, and to have toned down his views on the
Trinitarian doxology to a remonstrance against inclusion of the Filioque.

Photian status after this synod must be regarded as somewhat dubious. A letter
from John VIII to Basil in August, 880, avers: "What has been mercifully
decreed in synod at Constantinople as to the restitution of Photius, we accept.
But if perchance in this synod our legates have acted against our apostolic
instructions, then we do not accept what has been thus done." What the legates
finally reported and what the pope definitively decided is not precisely known.
It would seem that he reluctantly readmitted Photius to papal communion,
without in any way exonerating him from his previous usurpation. The ancient
account, based on Hergenroether, is that subsequently Deacon Marinus reported
to the pope that Photius interfered with papal mandates, and that thereupon
John VIII excommunicated Photius anew, an action confirmed by his short-lived
successors, Martin II, Adrian III, and Stephen VI. Dvornik has recently
rejected this tale as based on "anti-Photian" collections of documents compiled
by Ignatian die-hard supporters. Definitive history on this point seems
impossible in the present state of evidence.

(2) RESTORATION OF HARMONY (886-99)

Dynastic change again proved Photius's undoing. King Basil had lavished all
his affection on his eldest son Constantine who died in 879. For his putative
second son Leo, a scholarly lad, he had little but contempt. Vogt, moreover,
suggests that Leo was really the son of Michael III, for his mother Eudoxia was
the mistress of both the king and Basil. If this be true, it would add
plausibility to the detestation that Leo had for Basil and all his works when
he succeeded him in August, 886. Included in Leo's enmity was Photius who was
deposed and sent to monastic retirement where he died somewhere between 891 and
897.

Papal negotiations. According to a letter attributed to Pope Stephen VI,
addressed to Basil, but received by Leo VI, some sort of estrangement already
existed between the Holy See and Photius. Whether this had amounted to a
second schism or a coolness fostered by the Ignatian party headed by Stylian is
not clear. The new King Leo VI, as well as Stylian, requested papal
confirmation for Leo's younger brother Stephen, nominated as Byzantine
patriarch in Photius's stead. The pope replied that he was not surprised that
Photius, already condemned by the Church, had been expelled, but he desired
more information about the circumstances of the accession of Stephen (886-91).
Stylian replied that the Ignatian faction had never recognized Photius as
legitimate patriarch and that therefore the see of Constantinople was legally
vacant. Before this arrived in Rome, Pope Stephen was dead. His successor,
Formosus, was still not satisfied with the information supplied. He named four
legates to negotiate a settlement. His instructions included a confirmation of
previous sentences on Photius, but rehabilitation for his followers on promise
of amendment. At this point the obscurity of the iron Age descends on the
annals of the Holy See and it is not known what became of this embassy.

Pacification. Apparently no record survives of papal confirmation of
Patriarch Stephen, but his successor St. Anthony Kauleas (893-901) proved a
peacemaker. Though we may presume that with Photius's removal differences
between Rome and Constantinople were easily settled, disputes had continued
between the Ignatian and Photian factions in Constantinople itself regarding
validity of orders and offices conferred by their respective principals. Not
until the summer of 899 was harmony reached at a synod held at Constantinople.
There is extant a letter of Pope John IX in the same year in which he declared
that he recognized Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, and Anthony, as Popes Nicholas,
John, and Stephen had done, and ratified a mode of reconciliation conformable
to the synodal decrees. This papal missive may be merely an indulgent
posthumous rehabilitation to let bygones be bygones. As an active issue, the
Photian case was closed.

(3) LEGACY OF THE PHOTIAN SCHISM

Photius the Symbol. "We are accustomed to speak of the 'Photian Schism' and
to look upon Photius as its originator. This conception is not an unjust one.
Photius was, far more than any other one man, responsible for the schism; he is
the Luther of the Orthodox church, and if one would attach the whole story to
one name, there is no doubt that it should be his. At the same time, the
movement is not contained in the story of Photius's life. . . . There had been
many such schisms before his time, and the quarrel that he caused was soon
patched up, if not very heartily, and did not finally break out again till
about 150 years after his death. . . . Nevertheless the schismatical Eastern
Church has always looked upon Photius-he is St. Photius to her-as the champion
of her cause against Rome, and we, too, consider him not wrongly as the father
of their schism ." Photius, moreover, had introduced at Constantinople a
literary renaissance that reached its peak from the tenth century on. While
even learned monks in the West lost the knowledge of Greek, Byzantine scholars
purged their language of Latin survivals. The cultural cleavage was thus
unfortunately magnified, and when the final break came the Greeks could claim
with some justification that they upheld the cause of both learning and
morality against a barbarous West sunk in the ignorance and moral disorders of
the Dark Ages."

[Edward Thorne]

In <34CAC6C7...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Stephen Patten wrote:
>
>> Not even in Poland? Surely it was Poland, a <Roman>Catholic
country, that
>> was the
>> first to throw off Communism's yoke and give the lead to its
Orthodox
>> countrymen?
>

>I think that we have switched countries here. The collapse of
communism was
>based on its failure as an economic system, something that would have
happened
>without any religion at all.

I think Evan wants to deny a place for God's providence.

Also, communism failed because it was a bad philosophy, so far out of
touch with the truth that it would never had succeeded.

And God's providence, working through the pope, and through many other
people as well, even through Michael Gorbachev I dare say, is what
brought down communism.

>
>> Moreover, the Orthodox Church worked hand-in-glove with the
>> Communists. How many Orthodox clergymen ended up in the gulags for
>> opposing the communists?
>
>Oh, only about 12,000 priests were executed, a hundred or so bishops
were

>executed, 10,000 to 20,000 monks and nuns were executed. I guess it

is
>insignificant to you.
>
>Evan
>
>

Mary, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us.

Ed

[Edward Thorne]

In <34CACA5F...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Mike Davidchik wrote:
>
>> The defeat of Communism has a lot of reasons, religion, only playing
a role.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> The "sacred heart" is not gnostic. Please refer to what gnostics
believe.
>
>It is, or new age if you prefer. You have the Theotokos "channeling"
through some
>folks, secret messages, etc. It is all demonic.

Whoa there!

What are you saying?

You have no basis in fact for saying that the church's devotion to
Jesus in the Most Sacred Heart is "demonic" That is a blasphemy!

It appears that you deny the likelihood of Jesus or Mary appearing to
men here on earth.

I'm sorry, Evan, but neither of them is a circumscribed in their
activity as you seem to think that they are. They do not copy you.

>
>> I don't that the 1943 Russian Orthodox Church had any significant
role in
>> the defeat of Communism since it was created by Stalin and is a
creature
>> of the Communist state.
>
>I suggest that you pick up a history book and read about the Russian
Orthodox
>Church, especially from the time of the conversion of St. Vladimir and
the Rus.
>Your ignorance is showing.

St Vladimir was baptized in 1943?

>
>> No historians would agree with you about the role of the <Roman>
CAtholic
>> Church.
>
>What are you talking about?
>

Evan, are you into doctoring texts again?

Two can play at that game, you know.

[SNIP]

>> Any decent historian will tell you that the biggest religious player
in
>> breakup of the Soviet Empire was Pope John Paul II who had extensive
>> contacts with both Reagan and Gorbachev. He did more for the
restoration
>> of the Christianity and the prospect of religious freedom than all
the entire
>> Russian Orthodox synods put together.
>
>Well, the Librarian of Congress failed to mention him as a principle
in bringing
>down communism in Russia while Billington did state that the Patriarch
of the
>Russian Orthodox Church was one of the heroes. Gorbachev used the
pope just as he
>used anyone to satisfy his objectives of maintaining communism in the
former
>Soviet Union.

THe Librarian of what Congress?

>
>> As far as the Fatima revelations are concerned, they are not
required
>> beliefs of the <Roman> Catholic Church.

There you go, doctoring texts again.

>
>Nor should they be. However, the whole farce is firmly believed by
most Roman
>Catholics.

You blasphemous dog, you!

>
>> If Russia was dedicated to the Theotokos centuries ago, it was
un-dedicated by
>> the Soviets and Communists. A shrine to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary is
>> being built by the Catholic Church in Moscow with donations. It is
under
>> the control of the diocesan Catholic bishop of Moscow.
>
>The communists had no authority to "un-dedicate" anything. The Roman
Catholic
>Church in Moscow is the "Immaculate Conception" with Archbishop Thad
there (a nice
>guy having met him a few times). If you like the "sacred heart", that
is fine,

>the [Schsimatic] Orthodox ... Church likes all of Him.

[Edward Thorne]

In <34CACC94...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> Gnostic?! That's a new one!
>>
>> Explain to us how devotion to the Sacred Heart and Our Lady of
Fatima
>> is Gnostic.
>
>Gnostic or New Age or both. If you want to have the Theotokos being
>channeled by someone and telling secrets, go right ahead. You might
as
>well allow seances and Ouija boards to give you your pointers.
>
>> >The defeat of communism was a result of the faithful of Russia who
kept
>> >the holy Orthodox Catholic Church and Orthodox faith against
decades of
>> >incredible persecution.

Well, you are delusional. What are you taking? Or smoking?

It had nothing to do with the schismatic Roman
>> >Catholic Church.

Hmmnn ...you are into name-calling again.

YOu never seem to grow up, do you?

>>
>> Hmmnn ...what about Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia? Or do you
claim
>> them for Greek Orthodoxy as well?
>
>Who is talking about "Greek" Orthodoxy? The issue was Russia and the
fall
>of communism there. While I will admit that the largest cause was the
>fundamental errors of communism itself, it was the Russian Orthodox
Church
>which helped bring it down. With it went communism in Poland,
Germany,
>Czchoslovakia and elsewhere. If the Soviet Union did not come down,
it
>wouldn't have elsewhere. It may have been one of the last, but its
legs
>had been cut out from under it which allowed the others to be free
first.

Hmmnn ...I guesss that the fact that Poland is a Catholic country, and
was visited by the Pope, had nothing to do with it at all. That is
Evan's unique view of history.

>
>Through the prayers of the Theotokos may the schismatic and heretical
Roman
>Catholic Church renounce its errors and return to the one, holy,
catholic

>church, the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.
>
>Evan
>
How can the Greek church be the true church, when it rejected the
enactments of the council of Florence, an ecumenical council?

The schism between East and West from 1440 on is absolutely the fault
of the Greeks.

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> I think Evan wants to deny a place for God's providence.

Not at all. With God, all things are possible, even a system such as
communism could work. If you are trying to say that it was God's
providence that eliminated communism, why did He allow it to come about in
the first place? Was that also His providence?

> Also, communism failed because it was a bad philosophy, so far out of
> touch with the truth that it would never had succeeded.

Which is what I said.

> And God's providence, working through the pope, and through many other
> people as well, even through Michael Gorbachev I dare say, is what
> brought down communism.

Why would God want to work through a heretic?

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Whoa there!
>
> What are you saying?
>
> You have no basis in fact for saying that the church's devotion to
> Jesus in the Most Sacred Heart is "demonic" That is a blasphemy!

No, its not. What "sacred heart" is Christ in?

> It appears that you deny the likelihood of Jesus or Mary appearing to
> men here on earth.

The Mormons claim that Christ appeared here in the US. Do you accept that?

What makes most of the Roman Catholic "devotions" suspect is that they have
come to you in a manner that is no different than new age channeling or
other forms of spiritualism. There seems to be two standards for the Roman
Catholic Church, one against those who would go along with those things and
one if it happens to a Roman Catholic. All of these "apparitions" are
filled with secret messages, fortune telling, etc.

> I'm sorry, Evan, but neither of them is a circumscribed in their
> activity as you seem to think that they are. They do not copy you.

Nor do they appear as some new age messenger either. As they appear in
Roman Catholic presentations.

> >> I don't that the 1943 Russian Orthodox Church had any significant role
> in
> >> the defeat of Communism since it was created by Stalin and is a
> creature
> >> of the Communist state.
> >
> >I suggest that you pick up a history book and read about the Russian
> Orthodox
> >Church, especially from the time of the conversion of St. Vladimir and
> the Rus.
> >Your ignorance is showing.
>
> St Vladimir was baptized in 1943?

That is what Mike was trying to imply. I simply was correcting him.

> >> No historians would agree with you about the role of the <Roman>
> CAtholic
> >> Church.
> >
> >What are you talking about?
> >
>
> Evan, are you into doctoring texts again?

No.

> >> Any decent historian will tell you that the biggest religious player
> in
> >> breakup of the Soviet Empire was Pope John Paul II who had extensive
> >> contacts with both Reagan and Gorbachev. He did more for the
> restoration
> >> of the Christianity and the prospect of religious freedom than all the
> entire
> >> Russian Orthodox synods put together.
> >
> >Well, the Librarian of Congress failed to mention him as a principle in
> bringing
> >down communism in Russia while Billington did state that the Patriarch
> of the
> >Russian Orthodox Church was one of the heroes. Gorbachev used the pope
> just as
> >he used anyone to satisfy his objectives of maintaining communism in the
> former
> >Soviet Union.
>
> THe Librarian of what Congress?

The United States of America.

> >> As far as the Fatima revelations are concerned, they are not required
> >> beliefs of the <Roman> Catholic Church.
>
> There you go, doctoring texts again.

No doctoring, just clearing up any confusion that one might think that the
Catholic Church, vs the Roman Catholic Church was what was being discussed.

> >Nor should they be. However, the whole farce is firmly believed by most
> Roman
> >Catholics.
>
> You blasphemous dog, you!

No, just showing how "new age theology" came into the Roman Catholic Church
many years before Shirley McLaine picked up on it.

> >> If Russia was dedicated to the Theotokos centuries ago, it was
> un-dedicated by
> >> the Soviets and Communists. A shrine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
> is
> >> being built by the Catholic Church in Moscow with donations. It is
> under
> >> the control of the diocesan Catholic bishop of Moscow.
> >
> >The communists had no authority to "un-dedicate" anything. The Roman
> Catholic
> >Church in Moscow is the "Immaculate Conception" with Archbishop Thad
> there (a
> >nice guy having met him a few times). If you like the "sacred heart",
> that is fine,

> >the Orthodox Catholic Church likes all of Him.

Now that IS doctoring text.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Padraic42 wrote:

> "LIVES OF THE SAINTS
> Saint Cyril and Methodius
>
> SAINT CYRIL AND METHODIUS
> Bishops and Confessors, c.827-869, 826-885
>
> IN 862, an ambassador from Moravia came to Constantinople to ask for
> missionaries to teach in a Slavic language. The Eastern emperor was delighted
> at this opportunity to counterbalance Western influence in a land where German
> missionaries were already active. He had in Constantinople two men who were
> ideally suited for the work: Cyril, a priest with missionary experience, and
> his brother Methodius, a monk.

Why am I not surprised that this history ignores St. Photius, the Patriarch of
Constantinople? Why am I not surprised that this "historian" says that only St. Cyril had
"missionary experience" and not his brother. I guess this "historian" had no knowledge of
their joint mission to the Khazars. And why didn't the "historian" comment on why the
request went to Constantinople, the request to teach Christianity in the people's own
language? Oh well, details don't matter, I guess.

> They belonged to a senatorial family of Thessalonica, but their mother was
> probably a Slav. Both spoke Slavonic. In preparation for their work, Cyril
> invented a Slavic alphabet, and, with the help of Methodius, translated the
> Gospels and certain liturgical works into Slavonic.

Both spoke it since it was spoken by Slavs around Thessalonica. They also spoke fluent
Hebrew, Arabic and even knew the Samaritan dialect.

> Since they preached in the language of the people, they were immediately
> successful. However, they aroused the suspicion and resentment of the Latin
> bishops. Since they had no one to ordain new priests, they went to Rome, where
> they were consecrated bishops. There on February 14, 869, Cyril died.

What "Latin Bishops"? Are these the enemies that sold off as slaves those who were taught
by the saints? The reason to go to Rome was to attempt to negotiate with the pope to
restrain the German Latin missionaries who were causing them trouble.

> Having been consecrated, Methodius returned to Moravia with a letter from the
> Holy See authorizing the liturgical and scriptural use of Slavonic. But this
> did not solve all his problems. Urged on by the Western emperor, the Latin
> clergy brought Methodius before a synod in 870. He was kept in a monastery for
> two years before Pope John VIII had him released, and the pope now found it
> necessary to restrict the use of Slavonic to preaching.

Yes, the pope was listening to the demands of the Western emperor and following them like
a loyal lap puppy.

> In 878 he was sent to the Holy See, charged with heresy and with celebrating
> Mass in Slavonic. He was cleared of heresy, the Slav liturgy was again deemed
> desirable, and he returned to his people. During the last four years of his
> life, he completed the Slavonic translation of the Bible (except the Books of
> Maccabees). On April 6, 885, he died, worn out by his apostolic labors and by
> the opposition of those who failed to understand and approve his wise ideals
> and methods.

Which covers up the fact that the pope went along with St. Cyril and St. Methodius'
request and the German missionaries and their bishops ignored what the pope had said. So
much for jurisdiction over the whole church that Rome now claims.

> Since, in our own day, the question of the liturgy being presented in the
> vernacular has again arisen, these two brothers are of special interest to us.
> To the Slavic peoples, Cyril and Methodius are their most honored apostles. By
> their intercession at the throne of God they remain powerful patrons. As
> Catholics of the Eastern Church who worked in close cooperation with Rome, they
> are regarded as particularly suitable patrons of Church unity and of works to
> bring about the reunion of the schismatic churches of the East."

Actually they got the short end of the stick from Rome. No backbone on the part of the
pope, or proof that today's vain claims did not exist back then, take your pick. From
even your "history" there was no "close cooperation with Rome". Again, bogus.

> Hmm, nothing here about Photius? Oh yeah, Photius, the Emperor's lackey.

Of course there is no mention of St. Photius. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't like him
since he was one of the first to clearly show the errors of Rome and put the pope in his
place. In fact, they so dislike him that they have changed their own history to hide what
St. Photius did.

As for your distorted history presentation on St. Photius, we have been through all of
this before. The Roman Catholic Church removed the council that overturned what you call
the "8th Ecumenical Council" and makes believe that it never existed. Another attempt to
lie about her own history and to try to promote her false and vain claims. And sadly you
simply just keep buying onto the lie, Pat.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> The prayer said Christianity, not Catholicism. The purgatory thing is a lie.
> It had to do with the atheistic Communist state that existed.

Which, in the Roman Catholic Church's way of looking at things would mean that
the Orthodox Catholic Church is somehow not "Christian". Back then of course,
unless you were a Roman Catholic you weren't really a Christian either. The
denial of the "purgatory thing" is what is not true. There are still Roman
Catholics out there praying for the conversion of Russia to the Roman Catholic
Church.

> > As for Sts. Cyril and Methodius and Orthodoxy, it was as if none of them
> > existed.
>
> Please answer my posting about the Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox Church.
> It was a creation of the Communist state and not of Saints Cyril and
> Methodius.

There is and was no such thing as the "Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox Church".
Period.

> Please tell us whether you are a member of the Moscow
> Patriarchy or Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America (OCA).
> This will greatly affect your credibility. It is the latter and other
> Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which can trace roots to Saints Cyril and
> Methodius, not the KGB Costume Club in Moscow.

Of course here again you are attempting to distort things that you have
obviously no knowledge of. I have said before that I am a member of the OCA.
If you wish to slander a part of the Church that Christ established, do so at
your own risk.

> I repeat...most modern day Russians are atheists...John Paul II as
> indirectly done more to help Orthodox Christians in Russia than the entire
> Moscow synod.

In a way that is true. Most Russians know of the heresy of the Roman Catholic
Church and have no desire to see it come to Russia. It is unfortunate that you
are so hate filled towards the Russian Orthodox Church, but I guess that goes
hand in hand with being a Roman Catholic.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> >> >The defeat of communism was a result of the faithful of Russia who
> kept
> >> >the holy Orthodox Catholic Church and Orthodox faith against decades
> of
> >> >incredible persecution.
>
> Well, you are delusional. What are you taking? Or smoking?

My, my, my. When you grow up come back and perhaps we can have a civil
discussion.

> It had nothing to do with the schismatic Roman
> >> >Catholic Church.
>
> Hmmnn ...you are into name-calling again.

The Roman Catholic Church left the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church
founded by Christ to form papal Christianity. When you left you became
schismatic. When you took on heretical beliefs you became....

> YOu never seem to grow up, do you?

My, my, my. Diaper rash bothering you again?

> >> Hmmnn ...what about Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia? Or do you claim
> >> them for Greek Orthodoxy as well?
> >
> >Who is talking about "Greek" Orthodoxy? The issue was Russia and the
> fall
> >of communism there. While I will admit that the largest cause was the
> >fundamental errors of communism itself, it was the Russian Orthodox
> Church
> >which helped bring it down. With it went communism in Poland, Germany,
> >Czchoslovakia and elsewhere. If the Soviet Union did not come down, it
> >wouldn't have elsewhere. It may have been one of the last, but its legs
>
> >had been cut out from under it which allowed the others to be free
> first.
>

> Hmmnn ...I guesss that the fact that Poland is a <roman>Catholic country,

> and
> was visited by the Pope, had nothing to do with it at all. That is
> Evan's unique view of history.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion that was being held. Communism
was on its way out. If the pope of Rome never visited Poland it still
would have ceased to be their economic system.

> How can the Greek church be the true church, when it rejected the
> enactments of the council of Florence, an ecumenical council?

I don't know what "Greek Church" you are talking about. As for Florence
being an "ecumenical council", which one of the last three popes rightly
called it a western council?

> The schism between East and West from 1440 on is absolutely the fault
> of the Greeks.

What "Greeks"? The problem was and is the vanity and the pride and the
heretical beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. All that the Roman
Catholic Church has to do is give up all of her changes to the faith once
given and come back to the Church that Christ established.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> >Not at all. With God, all things are possible, even a system such as
> >communism could work.
>

> HOw can communism ever work? That is like saying that God could make
> Naziism work?

God could make the economic system of Communism work if he wanted it to
work. Nazism is not an economic model. Big difference.

> Communism's basic philosophy of the end-justifies-the-means militant
> atheism is so evil that God could never make it work.

No, communism is an economic theory. Atheism was something that was added
to it but was not and is not part of the economic theory.

> Communism did not work because it is a bad philosophy.

It did not work since it was a bad economic theory.

> >> And God's providence, working through the pope, and through many
> other
> >> people as well, even through Michael Gorbachev I dare say, is what
> >> brought down communism.
> >
> >Why would God want to work through a heretic?

> Just who are you calling a heretic?

Figure it out. Here is a hint, Gorbachev is an atheist.

Evan

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <34CC987B...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik

<kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

> First, it was St. Photius of Constantinople who appointed St. Cyril and
> Methodius to go as missionaries amongst the Slavs. They went first to the
> Khazars and then to Moravia and it was here that they developed what is now
> Church Slavonic. It was only after clashing with the German missionaries
> who insisted on using Latin that they went to Rome to have the pope there
> stop the German missionaries. Hadrian II went along with the brother's
> request.

St. Photius is also a Catholic saint. This is a very good point because
it shows that the struggle was not between the Patriarch and Pope.

The Germans, however, ignored the pope's request to stop
> obstructing Methodius (St. Cyril died shortly after they met with Hadrian
> II). When St. Methodius died in 885 those same German missionaries expelled
> the followers of St. Methodius and sold a number of them into slavery.

These German missionaries were not acting on the authority of the pope.
Methodius retired and died in ROME. There were many Byzantine Catholics in
Italy at the time. Please prove to me that thse saints ever blamed Rome
for their troubles.

>
> The only area that was involved with the pope of Rome was this one area. It
> was to counter the efforts of the Latin Germans that they had any dealing
> with Rome. The rest of their mission was solely within the context of their
> mission, given them by St. Photius, so the conversion of Russia, Serbia and

> Bulgaria had nothing to do with the bishop of Rome but with St. Photius, the
> Patriarch of Constantinople.

This is really stretching the truth. Their conversion of the Slavs was for
Catholic Christianity, not the later Russian Orthodox Church, and not for
either the Patriarch or the Pope. The would have been saints regardless
of whom sent them. Nobody knew at this time that there would be a schism.

>
> While they may be considered saints of the Roman Catholic Church, that is

> because they are saints in the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. The Roman

> Catholic Church was part of the Church at that time and accepts most if not
> all of the Saints that the Church declared to be Saints.

Since the Latin and Greek Rites were one Catholic Church until the 11th
CEntury, these are all saints of the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic
Church was never part of the Orthodox Church, but all of the Eastern Rite
was once part of the Catholic Church.

>
> That they were "in communion with" Rome is meaningless since at that time
> the Roman Church was part of the Church. The pope of Rome was only the pope
> since he was in communion with the Church.

In otherwords, you are not denying that Saints Cyril and Methodius were
Byzantine Catholics in communion with Rome.

>
> As for being "subject to the Holy See", that too is meaningless. They were
> sent by St. Photius and were subject to him.

They were Greek speaking Slavs in the Greek Rite of the Catholic Church.
The argument about who they were subject to is meaningless. St. Photius
was also in union with Rome.

Those German missionaries acted as if today's
> vain claims by the bishop of Rome did not exist (makes you wonder, doesn't
> it?).

Various Catholic groups (i.e. Teutonic Knights) have often acted without
the authority of Rome in nationalistic squabbles. This is an old story.
The Latin versus Greek Rite battle was diminished after the Catholic
Counter-Reformation
and the rise of the Jesuits in the 16th Century, although nationalistic
predjudices developed and continue to this day.

Mike Davidchik

[Raven]

BAM1106016 <bam11...@aol.com> responded:

>Evan says:
>
>>I think that we have switched countries here. The collapse of communism was
>>based on its failure as an economic system, something that would have
>>happened
>>without any religion at all.
>

>Evan - you don't know what you're talking about. Communism collapsed because it
>was a lie. The lie resulted in deprivation both spiritually and materially.
>

>BAM

Actualy, both of you are partialy correct. what was erroniusly
labled a 'communist' socio-economic system was in practice a
state capitalist one which eventualy proved economicaly unsound.
More so by the corruption that was rife in the situation, which,
as Bam alludes to, *could* point to a systemic 'moral' failing
which *might* have been ratified with a stronger moral/religious
bias.
However, in all likelyhood, as Evan suggests, even this would
not have salvaged an unsound economic system and it was this
failiour that lead to the collapse of the soviet union.
--
Raven (Brit) Who wonders what the Chinese would make of claims of the 'collapse'
of Communism?
(Ra...@arpeggio.demon.co.uk)

[Edward Thorne]

In <34CD2EBE...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> I think Evan wants to deny a place for God's providence.
>

>Not at all. With God, all things are possible, even a system such as
>communism could work.

HOw can communism ever work? That is like saying that God could make
Naziism work?

Communism's basic philosophy of the end-justifies-the-means militant

atheism is so evil that God could never make it work.

Communism did not work because it is a bad philosophy.

If you are trying to say that it was God's

>providence that eliminated communism, why did He allow it to come
about in
>the first place? Was that also His providence?
>
>> Also, communism failed because it was a bad philosophy, so far out
of
>> touch with the truth that it would never had succeeded.
>
>Which is what I said.
>

>> And God's providence, working through the pope, and through many
other
>> people as well, even through Michael Gorbachev I dare say, is what
>> brought down communism.
>
>Why would God want to work through a heretic?
>

>Evan

Just who are you calling a heretic?

Mary, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us.

Ed

[BAM1106016]

Evan - I think you're losing it. The Pope is Christ's Vicar on earth.
Always has been - always will be.

BAM

[BAM1106016]

But Evan, the Orthodox Church is not Catholic. It was local.

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> In article <34CC987B...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
> <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>
> > First, it was St. Photius of Constantinople who appointed St. Cyril and
> > Methodius to go as missionaries amongst the Slavs. They went first to the
> > Khazars and then to Moravia and it was here that they developed what is now
> > Church Slavonic. It was only after clashing with the German missionaries
> > who insisted on using Latin that they went to Rome to have the pope there
> > stop the German missionaries. Hadrian II went along with the brother's
> > request.
>

> >The Germans, however, ignored the pope's request to stop
> > obstructing Methodius (St. Cyril died shortly after they met with Hadrian
> > II). When St. Methodius died in 885 those same German missionaries expelled
> > the followers of St. Methodius and sold a number of them into slavery.
>
> These German missionaries were not acting on the authority of the pope.

That is not really true. Moravia was within the territory that the Church gave to
the bishop of Rome to administer. One point that I should have mentioned was that
both St. Cyril and Methodius went to Rome at the invitation of Pope Nicholas I but
were met by Pope Hadrian II since Nicholas was dead when they arrived. (One also
has to remember the political aspects of things regarding Bulgaria at this time).

Methodius was imprisoned in Germany for his "approved by the pope" activity. This
activity shows that today's ideas about papal jurisdiction did not exist back
then. After John VIII died, no one in Rome cared about a mission to the slavs.

> Methodius retired and died in ROME.

It was Constantine (under the name Cyril) who died in Rome. St. Methodius died in
Moravia

> There were many Byzantine Catholics in Italy at the time. Please prove to me
> that thse saints ever blamed Rome for their troubles.

The southern part of Italy was under the jurisdiction of Constantinople and not
Rome so there would have been. They had nothing to do with Rome. I don't
understand your question since that is not the issue.

> > The only area that was involved with the pope of Rome was this one area. It
> > was to counter the efforts of the Latin Germans that they had any dealing
> > with Rome. The rest of their mission was solely within the context of their
> > mission, given them by St. Photius, so the conversion of Russia, Serbia and
> > Bulgaria had nothing to do with the bishop of Rome but with St. Photius, the
> > Patriarch of Constantinople.
>
> This is really stretching the truth. Their conversion of the Slavs was for
> Catholic Christianity, not the later Russian Orthodox Church, and not for
> either the Patriarch or the Pope. The would have been saints regardless
> of whom sent them. Nobody knew at this time that there would be a schism.

The mission to the Slavs was spearheaded by St. Photius. He first sent St. Cyril
and St. Methodius to the Slavs. He sent them again at the request of Moravia. I
agree, however, that at that time there was one Church and it was the message of
Christ that they were spreading.

> > While they may be considered saints of the Roman Catholic Church, that is
> > because they are saints in the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. The Roman
> > Catholic Church was part of the Church at that time and accepts most if not
> > all of the Saints that the Church declared to be Saints.
>
> Since the Latin and Greek Rites were one Catholic Church until the 11th
> CEntury, these are all saints of the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic
> Church was never part of the Orthodox Church, but all of the Eastern Rite
> was once part of the Catholic Church.

There was the Catholic Church. There was a western rite and there was an Eastern
Rite. It was from this whole that the Roman Catholic Church left. What you call
the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church that existed from the time of Christ
and the Church that Rome left.

> > That they were "in communion with" Rome is meaningless since at that time
> > the Roman Church was part of the Church. The pope of Rome was only the pope
> > since he was in communion with the Church.
>
> In otherwords, you are not denying that Saints Cyril and Methodius were
> Byzantine Catholics in communion with Rome.

You are using modern terms to try to define things. While they were alive the
bishop of Rome was in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. There was
one church. St. Methodius, before falling asleep in the Lord, returned to
Constantinople where he was welcomed back since he was one of them. By that I
don't mean that he "converted" or any such nonsense. It was only after Rome left
the Church that one would try to define things the way you have.

> > As for being "subject to the Holy See", that too is meaningless. They were
> > sent by St. Photius and were subject to him.
>
> They were Greek speaking Slavs in the Greek Rite of the Catholic Church.
> The argument about who they were subject to is meaningless. St. Photius
> was also in union with Rome.

And the Catholic Church was the whole Church, Latin Rite and Byzantine Rite.
There was no "Greek Rite of the Catholic Church" as distinct from the "Latin Rite
of the Catholic Church". There were Latin Catholics and there were Byzantine
Catholics within the very same Catholic Church.

> > Those German missionaries acted as if today's
> > vain claims by the bishop of Rome did not exist (makes you wonder, doesn't
> > it?).
>
> Various Catholic groups (i.e. Teutonic Knights) have often acted without
> the authority of Rome in nationalistic squabbles. This is an old story.

This was not a nationalist squabble.

> The Latin versus Greek Rite battle was diminished after the Catholic
> Counter-Reformation and the rise of the Jesuits in the 16th Century, although
> nationalistic predjudices developed and continue to this day.

I would suggest that the Jesuits increased and did not diminish the battle. Of
course by that time you are talking about a sect that had left the one, holy,
catholic and Apostolic Church. Those same nationalist prejudices exist today even
within countries that are "Roman Catholic Countries".

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan - I think you're losing it. The Pope is Christ's Vicar on earth.
> Always has been - always will be.

Which is Rome's unique theology that Christ somehow has abandoned His
Church and is off hiding somewhere making a substitute for Christ here
necessary. Sorry, but it is the Roman Catholic Church that lost it a
long time ago.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> But Evan, the Orthodox Church is not Catholic. It was local.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is not "local". The Church of Rome was
local, the Church of Antioch was local, the Church of Alexandria was
local. But collectively they were all within the Catholic Church.

Of course this was before Rome left the Catholic Church to form papal
Christianity, but that is another story.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

NO Evan - the Roman Catholic Church is the universal Church established by
Jesus Christ, who appointed Peter, the first Bishop of Rome the, head.

BAM

[BAM1106016]

Evan says:

>Which is Rome's unique theology that Christ somehow has abandoned His
>Church and is off hiding somewhere making a substitute for Christ here
>necessary.

No Evan - the Catholic Church believes in a visible head - a one headed body -
you believe in a few hundred headed body - a monster.

BAM

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <davidchik-260...@y45.oro.net>, davi...@oro.net
(Mike Davidchik) wrote:

> Please answer my posting about the Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox Church.
> It was a creation of the Communist state and not of Saints Cyril and

> Methodius. Please tell us whether you are a member of the Moscow

> Patriarchy or Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America (OCA).
> This will greatly affect your credibility. It is the latter and other
> Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
> which can trace roots to Saints Cyril and Methodius, not the KGB Costume
> Club in Moscow.
>

> I repeat...most modern day Russians are atheists...John Paul II as
> indirectly done more to help Orthodox Christians in Russia than the entire
> Moscow synod.
>

> Mike

Evan...you forgot to answer this posting?? I am sorry that I don't know
who Patriarch Peter is?

Evan... it is no necessary to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not
date from the beginning and is not the true Catholic Church in order to
say that Orthodox Catholicism dates from the beginning and is a true
Catholic Church. It does not have to be one or the other. Please look up
the meaning of "vicar" in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with
substituting the pope for Christ.
All churches have vicars and all churches have leaders.

Don't try to spread the myth about the alleged collegiality of the
leadership of the various Orthodox churches. Peter the Great took away
the power of Moscow Patriarch and gave it to a Holy Synod because he
didn't want the Patriarch to get any secular power. The Holy Synod was
always controlled by a lay administrator (Peter's rep) who told the Synod
what to do. This was part of all of the autocratic countries. The
Patriarch was usually controlled by a body which was controlled by the
head of the secular government who really controlled all the
appointments. The Patriarch as truly head of the Church existed for a few
months in 1918 only. The local bishops in Russia and most Eastern
European countries had no power and just did what they were told.

Mike

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan says:
>
> >Which is Rome's unique theology that Christ somehow has abandoned His
> >Church and is off hiding somewhere making a substitute for Christ here
> >necessary.
>

> No Evan - the <Roman> Catholic Church believes in a visible head - a one headed

> body - you believe in a few hundred headed body - a monster.

You need the visible head since you don't trust Christ and His promise. It's just
one more of your errors.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Gary wrote:

> that's your uniques theology. The Church teaches no such thing in any
> way shape or form. The Pope is not a substitute, he is the successor
> of Peter (as I'm sure you know) and as such is empowered to 'run' the
> physical/earthly church.

The Roman Catholic Church must or else she would have accepted Christ's
promise as something that would happen.

The pope declared himself the sole successor of St. Peter. So it ranks
as a so what. The Church recognized the see as an apostolic see founded
by St. Peter and St. Paul. Antioch was also founded by St. Peter and
recognized as such by the Church. It was only after Rome left the
Church that the bishop of Rome claimed that he was "empowered to run the
earthly church". It was the refusal of the Church to go along with
those claims that helped to cause the Great Schism and the ones prior.

So it is only by changing what the Church always said that it is
possible to go along with your comments. The only question is why? Why
not go back to what the Church stated from the beginning?

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> In article <davidchik-260...@y45.oro.net>, davi...@oro.net
> (Mike Davidchik) wrote:
>
> > Please answer my posting about the Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox Church.
> > It was a creation of the Communist state and not of Saints Cyril and
> > Methodius. Please tell us whether you are a member of the Moscow
> > Patriarchy or Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America (OCA).
> > This will greatly affect your credibility. It is the latter and other
> > Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
> > which can trace roots to Saints Cyril and Methodius, not the KGB Costume
> > Club in Moscow.
> >
> > I repeat...most modern day Russians are atheists...John Paul II as
> > indirectly done more to help Orthodox Christians in Russia than the entire
> > Moscow synod.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Evan...you forgot to answer this posting??

No, this is what I said. You may have missed it.

<begin text>
Mike Davidchik wrote:

> The prayer said Christianity, not Catholicism. The purgatory thing is a lie.
> It had to do with the atheistic Communist state that existed.

Which, in the Roman Catholic Church's way of looking at things would mean that
the Orthodox Catholic Church is somehow not "Christian". Back then of course,
unless you were a Roman Catholic you weren't really a Christian either. The
denial of the "purgatory thing" is what is not true. There are still Roman
Catholics out there praying for the conversion of Russia to the Roman Catholic
Church.

> > As for Sts. Cyril and Methodius and Orthodoxy, it was as if none of them
> > existed.
>

> Please answer my posting about the Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox Church.
> It was a creation of the Communist state and not of Saints Cyril and
> Methodius.

There is and was no such thing as the "Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox Church".
Period.

> Please tell us whether you are a member of the Moscow
> Patriarchy or Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America (OCA).
> This will greatly affect your credibility. It is the latter and other
> Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which can trace roots to Saints Cyril and
> Methodius, not the KGB Costume Club in Moscow.

Of course here again you are attempting to distort things that you have

obviously no knowledge of. I have said before that I am a member of the OCA.
If you wish to slander a part of the Church that Christ established, do so at
your own risk.

> I repeat...most modern day Russians are atheists...John Paul II as

> indirectly done more to help Orthodox Christians in Russia than the entire
> Moscow synod.

In a way that is true. Most Russians know of the heresy of the Roman Catholic

Church and have no desire to see it come to Russia. It is unfortunate that you
are so hate filled towards the Russian Orthodox Church, but I guess that goes
hand in hand with being a Roman Catholic.

Evan

<end text>

> I am sorry that I don't know
> who Patriarch Peter is?

I don't either. What are you talking about?

> Evan... it is no necessary to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not
> date from the beginning and is not the true Catholic Church in order to
> say that Orthodox Catholicism dates from the beginning and is a true
> Catholic Church. It does not have to be one or the other.

Until the time that Rome opted to go out on her own and leave the Catholic
Church there was no Roman Catholic Church. It is no different than the
Anglicans who left the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to that they were part of
the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is not divided.

> Please look up the meaning of "vicar" in the dictionary. It has nothing to do
> with
> substituting the pope for Christ.
> All churches have vicars and all churches have leaders.

It can mean a number of things. Roman Catholics say that the pope is the Vicar
of Christ on earth. Well that makes the mortal pope the stand in for the absent
Christ. Of course the title "Vicar of Christ" was used by the emperor long
before it became fashionable at the Vatican.

> Don't try to spread the myth about the alleged collegiality of the
> leadership of the various Orthodox churches. Peter the Great took away
> the power of Moscow Patriarch and gave it to a Holy Synod because he
> didn't want the Patriarch to get any secular power.

Peter the Great was taken by western ways and that unfortunately included the
way the Church was administered in the west. That does not make a myth out of
the collegiality of the leadership of the various Orthodox Catholic Churches.

> The Holy Synod was always controlled by a lay administrator (Peter's rep)
> who told the Synod what to do.

As regards administration, yes. As regards spiritual matters, no.

> This was part of all of the autocratic countries. The
> Patriarch was usually controlled by a body which was controlled by the
> head of the secular government who really controlled all the
> appointments.

And you can easily substitute the word pope for patriarch in the above since
that also happened in the west.

> The Patriarch as truly head of the Church existed for a few
> months in 1918 only. The local bishops in Russia and most Eastern
> European countries had no power and just did what they were told.

Again, that is false. St. Tikhon, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church lead
the Church until 1922 when he was imprisoned by the communists and probably
murdered by them a couple of years later. It was not "a couple of months". Any
decent history book would tell you that.

The relations between bishops and the rulers of various countries, be they east
or west, were not that different.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> NO Evan - the Roman Catholic Church is the universal Church established by
> Jesus Christ, who appointed Peter, the first Bishop of Rome the, head.

So by your logic the Patriarch of Antioch can make the same claim since he was
given the title of bishop by St. Peter.

Oh yeah, I forgot, Rome likes to play musical chairs. Nothing matters except
where one dies and then it is winner take all.

Then again, you also have to ignore Jerusalem where St. James was made the
bishop by Christ.

Evan

[Padraic42]

In article <34CD3A46...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>Why am I not surprised that this history ignores St. Photius, the Patriarch
>of
Constantinople?

Because he isn't a saint #1, and he was appointed by the Emperor when the REAL
patriarch had the gonads to teach the truth, which upset Michael's uncle.

Why am I surprised Evan would defend a man who politiced his way to the top
and showed astounding arrogance.

After all, Evan sees a Catholic conspiracy in everything. (He and Nick are
very close)

"Nooooo one expects the Spanish Inquisition, Our chief tool is surprise,
surprise and fear, two, two tools, surprise, fear, and...Three, three tools,
Oh.. I'll start agian."
(Monty Python in case someone wants to nail me for references)

[BAM1106016]

Evan says:

>You need the visible head since you don't trust Christ and His promise. It's
just one more of your errors.

Here's where Evan collapse into shambles. If we don't need a visible head, then
we don't anything. We can all just think good thoughts.

That dog won't hunt, Evan.

BAM

[BAM1106016]

Evan says:

>The pope declared himself the sole successor of St. Peter.

No Evan - that's a lie. every Catholic declares the Pope to be the successor of
St. Peter. If it were only the Pope who declared such a thing, he would be in a
straight jacket.

BAM

[BAM1106016]

Evan, your arguments are so weak, they are truly not worth the time to respond
to.

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

Padraic42 wrote:

> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> writes:
>
> >Why am I not surprised that this history ignores St. Photius, the Patriarch
> >of Constantinople?
>

> Because he isn't a saint #1, and he was appointed by the Emperor when the REAL
> patriarch had the gonads to teach the truth, which upset Michael's uncle.

Well, according to Roman Catholic Mike Davidchik, St. Photius is a saint.

Well, it was the fact that St. Photius refused to give the mysteries to Emperor
Basil who murdered Emperor Michael III that brought back St. Ignatius. It should
of course be remembered that St. Photius never desired to be the Patriarch.

> Why am I surprised Evan would defend a man who politiced his way to the top
> and showed astounding arrogance.

It is only because you are reading distorted and less than honest history books
put out by the Roman Catholic Church that you could make such an absurd comment, a
comment not worth debating since it is so far from the truth.

> After all, Evan sees a <Roman> Catholic conspiracy in everything. (He and Nick
> are
> very close)

Obviously you have nothing to add to the conversation.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan says:
>
> >You need the visible head since you don't trust Christ and His promise. It's
> just one more of your errors.
>
> Here's where Evan collapse into shambles. If we don't need a visible head, then
> we don't anything. We can all just think good thoughts.

What the Church does not need is a stand in for Christ. The Roman Catholic Church
does to support her form of papal Christianity, but that is due to her rejection of
the promise of Christ made to His Church.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan says:
>
> >The pope declared himself the sole successor of St. Peter.
>

> No Evan - that's a lie. every <Roman> Catholic declares the Pope to be the

> successor of St. Peter. If it were only the Pope who declared such a thing, he
> would be in a
> straight jacket.

The only reason Roman Catholics say that is because they were told by their pope
that it was the case. That is what makes you a Roman Catholic. The Church never
bought into Rome's vain and self serving declaration.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan, your arguments are so weak, they are truly not worth the time to respond
> to.

That's OK, BAM. I know that you can't defend the distortions and false beliefs
that the Roman Catholic Church says about herself. I have often wondered why you
try. But that is what makes you a Roman Catholic.

Evan

[Padraic42]

In article <34CF48DE...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>Padraic42 wrote:

> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> writes:
>
> >Why am I
>not surprised that this history ignores St. Photius, the Patriarch
> >of
>Constantinople?
>
> Because he isn't a saint #1, and he was appointed by the
>Emperor when the REAL
> patriarch had the gonads to teach the truth, which
>upset Michael's uncle.

Well, according to Roman Catholic Mike Davidchik, St.
>Photius is a saint.

Funny, can't find him in any list of Saints.

[Evan Kalenik]

Padraic42 wrote:

> In article <34CF48DE...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
> writes:
>
> >Padraic42 wrote:
>
> > Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> writes:
> >
> > >Why am I
> >not surprised that this history ignores St. Photius, the Patriarch
> > >of
> >Constantinople?
> >
> > Because he isn't a saint #1, and he was appointed by the
> >Emperor when the REAL
> > patriarch had the gonads to teach the truth, which
> >upset Michael's uncle.
>
> Well, according to Roman Catholic Mike Davidchik, St.
> >Photius is a saint.
>
> Funny, can't find him in any list of Saints.

Take it up with Mike.

Evan

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <34CEBA69...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

> Which, in the Roman Catholic Church's way of looking at things would mean that
> the Orthodox Catholic Church is somehow not "Christian".

The Roman Catholic Church has never said that the Russian Orthodox Church
is not Christian. This is a complete distortion of the truth. During the
Soviet regime in Eastern Europe, Christianity as a whole, was almost
persecuted out of business. Are you trying to tell me that the USSR and
satellites were Christian countries?

>> There is and was no such thing as the "Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox

Church" Period.
>

Not only would Bishop Ware disagree with you...but the entire hierarchy of
the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Lenin and Stalin had decimented the
pre-Revolutionary Church by the time that WW2 came. In order to rally
Russians in WW2, Stalin decided to revive the Church under the strict
control of the NKVD or KGB. Every Russian Orthodox clergymen was required
to swear an oath of allegiance to the USSR. ROCA or OCA wouldn't agree
with you either.

I have said before that I am a member of the OCA.
> If you wish to slander a part of the Church that Christ established, do so at
> your own risk.

Christ did not establish the Moscow Patriarchy in the 15th Century. It was
the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constaninople and the Czar. However, if one
respects
Apostolic Succession, the Patriarch had the authority to do so. The
problem came with the Bolshevik Revolution. It wiped out the ancient
Church.

>
> > I repeat...most modern day Russians are atheists...John Paul II as
> > indirectly done more to help Orthodox Christians in Russia than the entire
> > Moscow synod.
>
> In a way that is true. Most Russians know of the heresy of the Roman Catholic
> Church and have no desire to see it come to Russia. It is unfortunate
that you
> are so hate filled towards the Russian Orthodox Church, but I guess that goes
> hand in hand with being a Roman Catholic.

I don't hate anybody. I am just being honest about history. Your own
Church does not accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow. Most
Russians know nothing of Orthodoxy or Catholicism. They only know what
propaganda has been allowed in Soviet history books. Although Patriarch
Alexei is trying to keep Catholicism from returning by using the current
Government...he will be unsuccessful. There are about five million
Catholics in Ukraine, a couple
hundred thousand in European Russia and Belarus, and nearly a million
spread out in Siberia (where many non-Russian Catholics were banished).

>
> Until the time that Rome opted to go out on her own and leave the Catholic
> Church there was no Roman Catholic Church. It is no different than the
> Anglicans who left the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to that they were part of
> the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is not divided.

There is a big difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican
Church. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church are in schism only.
The Angican Church is a Protestant denomination which is no longer Catholic.

When are you going to accept that the Orthodox left the Catholic Church
and not vice versa.

> > Please look up the meaning of "vicar" in the dictionary. It has
nothing to do
> > with
> > substituting the pope for Christ.
> > All churches have vicars and all churches have leaders.
>
> It can mean a number of things. Roman Catholics say that the pope is
the Vicar
> of Christ on earth. Well that makes the mortal pope the stand in for
the absent
> Christ. Of course the title "Vicar of Christ" was used by the emperor long
> before it became fashionable at the Vatican.

This is not the true meaning of "Vicar of Christ. This is the head vicar
of all vicars...he is not a stand in for Christ or Christ on earth.

>
> > Don't try to spread the myth about the alleged collegiality of the
> > leadership of the various Orthodox churches. Peter the Great took away
> > the power of Moscow Patriarch and gave it to a Holy Synod because he
> > didn't want the Patriarch to get any secular power.
>
> Peter the Great was taken by western ways and that unfortunately included the
> way the Church was administered in the west. That does not make a myth out of
> the collegiality of the leadership of the various Orthodox Catholic Churches.

This was not the way that the Church was administered in the West. Half
of the history of Europe is the history of the Pope attaining or retaining
his independence from nation-states. This is why there is a pope and
Vatican. It is to not have situations like existed in Russia.

>
> > The Holy Synod was always controlled by a lay administrator (Peter's rep)
> > who told the Synod what to do.
>
> As regards administration, yes. As regards spiritual matters, no.
>
> > This was part of all of the autocratic countries. The
> > Patriarch was usually controlled by a body which was controlled by the
> > head of the secular government who really controlled all the
> > appointments.
>
> And you can easily substitute the word pope for patriarch in the above since
> that also happened in the west.

There were a few times in the Middle Ages where this might have been true. But,
usually the Pope was not controlled by heads of secular governments.
Sometimes the Pope was more powerful than them.

St. Tikhon, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church lead
> the Church until 1922 when he was imprisoned by the communists and probably
> murdered by them a couple of years later. It was not "a couple of
months". Any
> decent history book would tell you that.

The Patriarch of Moscow got back his full power briefly after the Russian
Revolution. But, the Bolsheviks rapidly took it away, again. Tikhon
was head until 1922, but he didn't have much power during all of the time
between 1918-1922. He was replaced by a Communist puppet who split the
Church.

>
> The relations between bishops and the rulers of various countries, be
they east
> or west, were not that different.

This is an incredible statement. The relations between rulers and bishops
in the West and East were and are much different during most of the
history of Europe. Nobody in the West tried to create an atheistic state.
The Soviets tried to persecute all Christianity out of existence.

In the West, the idea of separation of church and state and freedom of
religion gradually developed. These ideas never existed in the entire
history of Eastern Europe. Patriarch Alexei doesn't want these ideas to
be acccepted in the Russia of the future. He is very anti-separation and
very anti-freedom of religion.

I assumed that Photius was cannonized prior to the Great Schism, but I
could be wrong.

Mike

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> >> There is and was no such thing as the "Stalinist 1943 Russian Orthodox
> >> Church" Period.
>
>
> Not only would Bishop Ware disagree with you...

No, he would not disagree with me. Now you may have misunderstood him if you read
what he wrote, but he would not disagree with me.

> but the entire hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

They disagree with most folks about most things. They go back long before 1943 in
thinking that the Church ceased to exist.

> Lenin and Stalin had decimented the pre-Revolutionary Church by the time that WW2
> came.

Decimated, yes. Destroyed, no.

> In order to rally Russians in WW2, Stalin decided to revive the Church under the
> strict
> control of the NKVD or KGB.

What you are implying is that there was no Church and then poof there was. That is
not true. A reduction in the persecution of the Church is what happened.

If you or other critics were to be consistent, why not call the current Russian
Orthodox Church the Brezhnev Church. The situation with him was exactly the same.
After Stalin died Khrushchev persecuted the Church again closing most of the
parishes that opened after Stalin let up on the persecution, imprisoned clergy,
increased anti-religion propaganda. Brezhnev reduced that persecution. Just as
Stalin did. Yet somehow there is no talk of a "Brezhnev Church". Why not? Maybe
because there was no such thing as the Stalininst 1943 Russian Orthodox Church.

> Every Russian Orthodox clergymen was required to swear an oath of allegiance to
> the USSR.

An unfortunate thing that the Metropolitan asked for in his attempt to lessen the
persecution of the Church. It was a desperate effort in desperate times. Being
loyal to the motherland also had a different connotation back then. Loyalty was to
the country and not to communism or official atheism etc.

> ROCA or OCA wouldn't agree with you either.

ROCA doesn't agree with anyone. The rest of the Church, including the OCA would
agree with me and not you on this whole issue.

> I have said before that I am a member of the OCA.
> > If you wish to slander a part of the Church that Christ established, do so at
> > your own risk.
>
> Christ did not establish the Moscow Patriarchy in the 15th Century.

Christ established His Church and the Russian Orthodox Church is simply the Church
which is at Russia, no different than the Church which is at Jerusalem, at Corinth,
at Constantinople, that was at Rome.

By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church has no claim to being part of the Church
that Christ established.

> It was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constaninople and the Czar.

There was no Czar at that time.

> However, if one respects Apostolic Succession, the Patriarch had the authority to
> do so.

No, it is if one respects the way the Church has organized itself administratively
that matters. Apostolic Succession has more to do with teaching the Apostolic Faith
than some mechanical process (which is why the Anglicans who have maintained
"apostolic succession outwardly, lacks it internally since they no longer teach the
Apostolic Faith).

> The problem came with the Bolshevik Revolution. It wiped out the ancient
> Church.

That is simply not true. You might as well say that Peter the Great did the same
thing. The Church existed throughout the time of the USSR, throughout all the
persecutions. It continues to exist today as the Russian Orthodox Church. The
martyrs and saints of the past 80 years probably outnumbers all those who died for
Christ since Christ established the Church.

> > > I repeat...most modern day Russians are atheists...John Paul II as
> > > indirectly done more to help Orthodox Christians in Russia than the entire
> > > Moscow synod.
> >
> > In a way that is true. Most Russians know of the heresy of the Roman Catholic
> > Church and have no desire to see it come to Russia. It is unfortunate that you
> > are so hate filled towards the Russian Orthodox Church, but I guess that goes
> > hand in hand with being a Roman Catholic.
>
> I don't hate anybody. I am just being honest about history.

As I have shown above, you are not being honest. You are simply mouthing the same
old tired lies and distortions.

> Your own Church does not accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow.

The Orthodox Church in America received its autocephaly from the Russian Orthodox
Church. For that to have happened it would have had to have been under the
authority of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox
Church is the mother church of the OCA. By being autocephalous the OCA is now self
ruling and not administratively under the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Again you don't know what you are talking about.

> Most Russians know nothing of Orthodoxy or <Roman> Catholicism.

Most Russians do. And most know of the errors of Rome when it comes to the
procession of the Holy Spirit.

> They only know what propaganda has been allowed in Soviet history books.

They were taught atheism. If there was anything about religion it was against the
Russian Orthodox Church since the Roman Catholic Church was as foreign to them as
Mormons.

> Although Patriarch Alexei is trying to keep <Roman>Catholicism from returning by

> using the current Government...he will be unsuccessful.

Roman Catholicism was at best a very small religion of foreigners within Russia. It
has no place in Russia at all amongst Russians.

> There are about five million <Roman> Catholics in Ukraine, a couple

> hundred thousand in European Russia and Belarus, and nearly a million
> spread out in Siberia (where many non-Russian Catholics were banished).

Roman Catholics in the Ukraine, a result of "at the end of a gun" conversions by the
Poles and others centuries ago (the same is true in Belarus) exist today. In
Ukraine they are attempting to steal property that belongs to the Orthodox Church
there. Part of the problem that the Church has with Roman Catholics there.

> > Until the time that Rome opted to go out on her own and leave the Catholic
> > Church there was no Roman Catholic Church. It is no different than the
> > Anglicans who left the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to that they were part of
> > the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is not divided.
>
> There is a big difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican
> Church. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church are in schism only.
> The Angican Church is a Protestant denomination which is no longer Catholic.

The Roman Catholic Church, by holding heretical beliefs is no longer just in schism
from the Church. There is no real difference between them and even the most High
Church Anglicans.

> When are you going to accept that the Orthodox left the Catholic Church
> and not vice versa.

Because we are the Catholic Church and you are the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman
Catholic Church broke the unity of the Church by coming up with a host of new
claims, new beliefs, etc. The bishop of Rome wanted certain things and his brother
bishops said no. So he left to pursue his own form of papal Christianity. It is
that simple. When are you going to accept the truth?

> > > Please look up the meaning of "vicar" in the dictionary. It has nothing to do
> > > with
> > > substituting the pope for Christ.
> > > All churches have vicars and all churches have leaders.
> >
> > It can mean a number of things. Roman Catholics say that the pope is
> the Vicar
> > of Christ on earth. Well that makes the mortal pope the stand in for
> the absent
> > Christ. Of course the title "Vicar of Christ" was used by the emperor long
> > before it became fashionable at the Vatican.
>
> This is not the true meaning of "Vicar of Christ. This is the head vicar
> of all vicars...he is not a stand in for Christ or Christ on earth.

Let's see. Vicar of Christ on Earth. Isn't that the title that the pope of Rome
claims for himself? All of his bishops are simply Vicars of the pope. Isn't that
the case? If his bishops are substitutes for him, he is the substitute for the
absent Christ. And we don't see Christ absent from the Church the way Roman
Catholics do. Regardless, it is a title that the pope gave himself, not one that
the Church gave him. So it is meaningless.

> > > Don't try to spread the myth about the alleged collegiality of the
> > > leadership of the various Orthodox churches. Peter the Great took away
> > > the power of Moscow Patriarch and gave it to a Holy Synod because he
> > > didn't want the Patriarch to get any secular power.
> >
> > Peter the Great was taken by western ways and that unfortunately included the
> > way the Church was administered in the west. That does not make a myth out of
> > the collegiality of the leadership of the various Orthodox Catholic Churches.
>
> This was not the way that the Church was administered in the West.

If you knew history you would know what I was talking about. He liked the way the
Church was administered in some of the countries close to his empire. Not all of
them. Think of where he went to learn about western ways.

> Half of the history of Europe is the history of the Pope attaining or retaining
> his independence from nation-states. This is why there is a pope and
> Vatican. It is to not have situations like existed in Russia.

The pope and the vatican is what is left of the grand ideas of control over the
empire that earlier popes had had. In short, the pope lost in Europe. The Vatican
and the nation of the Vatican was the consolation prize.

> > > The Holy Synod was always controlled by a lay administrator (Peter's rep)
> > > who told the Synod what to do.
> >
> > As regards administration, yes. As regards spiritual matters, no.
> >
> > > This was part of all of the autocratic countries. The
> > > Patriarch was usually controlled by a body which was controlled by the
> > > head of the secular government who really controlled all the
> > > appointments.
> >
> > And you can easily substitute the word pope for patriarch in the above since
> > that also happened in the west.
>
> There were a few times in the Middle Ages where this might have been true. But,
> usually the Pope was not controlled by heads of secular governments.
> Sometimes the Pope was more powerful than them.

Sometimes and sometimes, as you state, no. That was the problem in England with
Henry VIII asking for an annulment. Had the pope not been controlled by the Spanish
Monarchy, the Anglican Church would never have come about. In western Europe, how
often was the second son of the King made the bishop of the country? Nothing in the
past is the way the Roman Catholic Church today controls things from the Vatican.

> > St. Tikhon, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church lead
> > the Church until 1922 when he was imprisoned by the communists and probably
> > murdered by them a couple of years later. It was not "a couple of months". Any
>
> > decent history book would tell you that.
>
> The Patriarch of Moscow got back his full power briefly after the Russian
> Revolution. But, the Bolsheviks rapidly took it away, again. Tikhon
> was head until 1922, but he didn't have much power during all of the time
> between 1918-1922.

Again, find a history book.

> He was replaced by a Communist puppet who split the Church.

Which ignores the "Living Church" which the communists started to replace the
Russian Orthodox Church headed by that same Metropolitan. Now if he was such a
"loyal puppet" why did the communists start up a competing church, which was under
the communist control? That same "Living Church" did not exist long since the
people recognized what was real and what wasn't and stayed with that same "loyal
puppet". Again your hatred of Christ's Church is showing.

> > The relations between bishops and the rulers of various countries, be they east
> > or west, were not that different.
>
> This is an incredible statement. The relations between rulers and bishops
> in the West and East were and are much different during most of the
> history of Europe. Nobody in the West tried to create an atheistic state.
> The Soviets tried to persecute all Christianity out of existence.

Nice attempt to change the subject. We are talking about the relations between the
various rulers and the bishops within their country. What I said still holds.

> In the West, the idea of separation of church and state and freedom of
> religion gradually developed. These ideas never existed in the entire
> history of Eastern Europe. Patriarch Alexei doesn't want these ideas to
> be acccepted in the Russia of the future. He is very anti-separation and
> very anti-freedom of religion.

There was a "separation of church and state" back in the days of the Empire and St.
Constantine. The government may have enforced the decisions of the Church, on those
who were members of the Church. Look at Poland and Northern Ireland where the Roman
Catholic Church attempts to control what is going on. How is that different than
what His Holiness, Patriarch Alexiei is doing? It isn't. That he has an interest
in the salvation of the souls under his care should be lauded, not condemned by the
likes of you.

> I assumed that Photius was cannonized prior to the Great Schism, but I
> could be wrong.

God made St. Photius a saint so it really doesn't matter.

Evan

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <34D0A494...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

> That is simply not true. You might as well say that Peter the Great did
the same
> thing.

This might be something that we can agree on.

The Church existed throughout the time of the USSR, throughout all the
> persecutions. It continues to exist today as the Russian Orthodox
Church. The
> martyrs and saints of the past 80 years probably outnumbers all those
who died for
> Christ since Christ established the Church.

I have never said that the Church completely ceased to exist. But, it did
not function in public as an indepdentdent entity. The Communists made
martyrs
out of everybody, including Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, you name it.
The mass graves that they are finding today have clergymen of all types.
The Soviets are responsible for the deaths of 60 to 100 million people.
Even the official Russian Government says 40 million.

> > Your own Church does not accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow.
>
> The Orthodox Church in America received its autocephaly from the Russian
Orthodox
> Church. For that to have happened it would have had to have been under the
> authority of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian
Orthodox
> Church is the mother church of the OCA. By being autocephalous the OCA
is now self
> ruling and not administratively under the Patriarch of the Russian
Orthodox Church.
> Again you don't know what you are talking about.

Does OCA accept the authority of Moscow? You have just said that it is
completely independent of Moscow. Moscow gave OCA its autonomy after the
fact because it had no choice in the matter. Why is there ROCA, and OCA,
and the Moscow Patriarchy in North America?

> > Most Russians know nothing of Orthodoxy or <Roman> Catholicism.
>
> Most Russians do. And most know of the errors of Rome when it comes to the
> procession of the Holy Spirit.

You could not find one Russian in a 1,000 who could tell you what the
filioque is.

> Roman Catholicism was at best a very small religion of foreigners within
Russia. It
> has no place in Russia at all amongst Russians.

Who decides that it has no place? It shouldn't be Alexei or the Russian
Government or you. It should be every Russian deciding for him or
herself.

> Roman Catholics in the Ukraine, a result of "at the end of a gun"
conversions by the
> Poles and others centuries ago (the same is true in Belarus) exist today.

This is complete Soviet and Russian Orthodox propaganda. Greek Catholics
have always been in Eastern Europe. If it would have be up to the Poles,
the Ukrainians would have been Roman not Greek Catholic. The Grand Duch
of Litva
and Rus was not incorporated into the Polish Kingdom until 1650. The
majority in the Belarusan areas were already Greek Catholic. Belarus
outlawed the Greek Catholic Church in 1841 because it came under the
control of the Tsars.

In
> Ukraine they are attempting to steal property that belongs to the
Orthodox Church
> there.

They are trying to get back property that was confiscated by the Soviet
Government and given to the Russian Orthodox and then taken from them.

> The Roman Catholic Church, by holding heretical beliefs is no longer
just in schism
> from the Church. There is no real difference between them and even the
most High
> Church Anglicans.

Is this your personal opinion or the official position of the Russian or
Greek Orthodox Church? I doubt that it is the latter.

Vicar of Christ on Earth. Isn't that the title that the pope of Rome
> claims for himself? All of his bishops are simply Vicars of the pope.
Isn't that
> the case? If his bishops are substitutes for him, he is the substitute
for the
> absent Christ. And we don't see Christ absent from the Church the way Roman
> Catholics do. Regardless, it is a title that the pope gave himself, not
one that
> the Church gave him. So it is meaningless.

You have patriarchs, metroplitans, bishops, etc. So what is the difference?
Aren't they all vicars with the Ecumenical Patriarch on top? It is just
semantics.

> The pope and the vatican is what is left of the grand ideas of control
over the
> empire that earlier popes had had. In short, the pope lost in Europe.
The Vatican
> and the nation of the Vatican was the consolation prize.

What did they lose? There are more Catholics than ever? In the modern
era, there is no need for secular power. The popes never had control of
the Empire (whose Empire?) and never wanted it.

That was the problem in England with
> Henry VIII asking for an annulment. Had the pope not been controlled by
the Spanish
> Monarchy, the Anglican Church would never have come about.

Please tell that to the Anglicans. You forgot that the Church had 25
percent of the land and the Crown could take it away and give it as "pork
barrel."

In western Europe, how
> often was the second son of the King made the bishop of the country?
Nothing in the
> past is the way the Roman Catholic Church today controls things from the
Vatican.

You are wrong when it comes to spiritual matters. All Catholic bishops had
to swear allegience to the Pope. Ever hear of Thomas a Becket, etc.

Now if he was such a
> "loyal puppet" why did the communists start up a competing church, which
was under
> the communist control?

They didn't have to. There was nowhere to go to church.

That same "Living Church" did not exist long since the
> people recognized what was real and what wasn't and stayed with that
same "loyal
> puppet".

This is mostly mythology because you fail the differentiate between the
Church organization and the faithful. There might have still been
believers left.

> There was a "separation of church and state" back in the days of the
Empire and St.
> Constantine.

This is because there was a pope.

Look at Poland and Northern Ireland where the Roman
> Catholic Church attempts to control what is going on. How is that
different than
> what His Holiness, Patriarch Alexiei is doing?

You really are off the mark for Northern Ireland. The Roman Catholic
Church has little influence in Northern Ireland. The official state
sponsored church in Northern Ireland is the Church of Ireland which is a
branch of the Church of England (Anglican). The Catholic hierarchy of
the Republic of Ireland denounces the IRA and Sein Fein. It is in the
Republic where the Catholic Church is influential because 90 percent is
Catholic.

Poland was not a Catholic, but Communist country from 1945 to 1990. Church
going Catholics were not allowed to be officers in the Polish Army or
officials in the Government. The difference is that they did not murder
their priests as much as the Russians did.

Mike

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> > The Church existed throughout the time of the USSR, throughout all the
> > persecutions. It continues to exist today as the Russian Orthodox Church. The
>
> > martyrs and saints of the past 80 years probably outnumbers all those who died
> for
> > Christ since Christ established the Church.
>
> I have never said that the Church completely ceased to exist. But, it did
> not function in public as an indepdentdent entity. The Communists made
> martyrs
> out of everybody, including Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, you name it.
> The mass graves that they are finding today have clergymen of all types.
> The Soviets are responsible for the deaths of 60 to 100 million people.
> Even the official Russian Government says 40 million.

No one was allowed to exist as an "independent entity". The Russian Orthodox
Church was especially "regulated" by the Soviet Government. They propagandized
against it. They did not allow for sermons (penalty being the closure of the
church), they did not allow for children to be educated, they taxed the clergy out
of almost all the money that they had. Since the government now owned all
property, based on that system, nothing was allowed to act "independently" or
freely. That does not mean that the Church ceased to exist, that it changed, that
the bishops and clergy were somehow not bishops and priests. The same Church of
St. Tikhon existed throughout those dark days and exists today as the Russian
Orthodox Church.

> > > Your own Church does not accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow.

> >
> > The Orthodox Church in America received its autocephaly from the Russian
> Orthodox
> > Church. For that to have happened it would have had to have been under the
> > authority of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian
> Orthodox
> > Church is the mother church of the OCA. By being autocephalous the OCA
> is now self
> > ruling and not administratively under the Patriarch of the Russian
> Orthodox Church.
> > Again you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Does OCA accept the authority of Moscow? You have just said that it is
> completely independent of Moscow. Moscow gave OCA its autonomy after the
> fact because it had no choice in the matter. Why is there ROCA, and OCA,
> and the Moscow Patriarchy in North America?

Let's go back to your original comment. You stated: "Your own Church does not
accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow." It does accept the authority of
the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church over the Russian Orthodox Church.
Just as she accepts the authority of the Pope of Alexandria over all of Africa.
Just as the Russian Orthodox Church was granted its independence from the Patriarch
of Constantinople, the Russian Orthodox Church granted independence to the Orthodox
Church in America. So while the OCA does not find itself under the administrative
responsibility of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, she is still very
much in communion with the Mother Church of Orthodoxy in the Americas.

As for why there are ROCA, the OCA and parishes of the Patriarch of the Russian
Orthodox Church in North America? The OCA was formerly known as the Metropolia
under the Metropolitan of New York, who was appointed by the Russian Orthodox
Church before the revolution. After the revolution there was a break between the
American Church and the Russian Church. Not all the parishes of the Russian
Orthodox Church were part of the Metropolia, however. So when the Metropolia again
placed herself under the Patriarch and the Patriarch granted the Metropolia its
independence, not every Russian Orthodox Church in the US found itself under the
Metropolitan but remained under the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, who
stated that she would encourage those individual parishes to join the OCA, as some
have. ROCA is a quasi-schismatic group that goes where she wants.

> > > Most Russians know nothing of Orthodoxy or <Roman> Catholicism.
> >
> > Most Russians do. And most know of the errors of Rome when it comes to the
> > procession of the Holy Spirit.
>
> You could not find one Russian in a 1,000 who could tell you what the
> filioque is.

You would be amazed.

> > Roman Catholicism was at best a very small religion of foreigners within
> Russia. It
> > has no place in Russia at all amongst Russians.
>
> Who decides that it has no place? It shouldn't be Alexei or the Russian
> Government or you. It should be every Russian deciding for him or
> herself.

Russia is an Orthodox country. The Soviet government took from them their Church.
They should be instructed in their faith, which is the Orthodox Catholic faith.
They should be protected from the assorted sects that have gone there. Once the
Church has been re-established as it once was, it won't matter since they will
reject the others.

> > Roman Catholics in the Ukraine, a result of "at the end of a gun" conversions
> by the
> > Poles and others centuries ago (the same is true in Belarus) exist today.
>
> This is complete Soviet and Russian Orthodox propaganda.

No it isn't. Let's not forget the Roman Catholic mass murderer and now Roman
Catholic "saint" Kuntsevitch.

> Greek Catholics have always been in Eastern Europe. If it would have be up to
> the Poles, the Ukrainians would have been Roman not Greek Catholic.

Which is why the "eastern" Roman Catholic bishops used to have to sit at the feet
of their Latin "brothers". The Latins knew that if they made them follow western
practice that the people would have left. It was better to make believe that they
were Orthodox but were in reality Roman Catholics.

> The Grand Duch of Litva and Rus was not incorporated into the Polish Kingdom
> until 1650. The majority in the Belarusan areas were already Greek Catholic.
> Belarus
> outlawed the Greek Catholic Church in 1841 because it came under the
> control of the Tsars.

So they were returned to the faith of their fathers. Just as the faith of their
fathers was taken away from them when the Roman Catholic rulers decreed that they
become Uniates.

> > In Ukraine they are attempting to steal property that belongs to the Orthodox
> Church
> > there.
>
> They are trying to get back property that was confiscated by the Soviet
> Government and given to the Russian Orthodox and then taken from them.

Property that the Roman Catholic Church stole from the Orthodox before. Yet when
the Roman Catholics steal it, you have no problem with it. When the Orthodox get
their property back you claim it is unfair. Kind of hypocritical of you, isn't
it? It is the attempt to steal property from the Orthodox Church that has
prevented any meeting between your pope and the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox
Church.

> > The Roman Catholic Church, by holding heretical beliefs is no longer just in

> schism
> > from the Church. There is no real difference between them and even the most
> High
> > Church Anglicans.
>
> Is this your personal opinion or the official position of the Russian or
> Greek Orthodox Church? I doubt that it is the latter.

Papal infallibility is well recognized by the Church as one of Rome's greatest
heresies.

> > Vicar of Christ on Earth. Isn't that the title that the pope of Rome
> > claims for himself? All of his bishops are simply Vicars of the pope.
> Isn't that
> > the case? If his bishops are substitutes for him, he is the substitute
> for the
> > absent Christ. And we don't see Christ absent from the Church the way Roman
> > Catholics do. Regardless, it is a title that the pope gave himself, not
> one that
> > the Church gave him. So it is meaningless.
>
> You have patriarchs, metroplitans, bishops, etc. So what is the difference?
> Aren't they all vicars with the Ecumenical Patriarch on top? It is just
> semantics.

You have been mislead by the Roman Catholic Church too long to be able to look at
the way the Church was organized from the beginning and still is. Bishops are
bishops. No bishop is a "vicar" of another bishop. Read some history of the
Church.

> > The pope and the vatican is what is left of the grand ideas of control over the
>
> > empire that earlier popes had had. In short, the pope lost in Europe. The
> Vatican
> > and the nation of the Vatican was the consolation prize.
>

> What did they lose? There are more <Roman> Catholics than ever?

Number games are meaningless. Rome wanted to dominate Europe and anywhere else
those countries went. She was forced back to one state, the Vatican, by the rulers
of Europe who did not want the pope meddling in their affairs.

> In the modern era, there is no need for secular power. The popes never had
> control of
> the Empire (whose Empire?) and never wanted it.

Yet they came up with the forgery "The Donation of Constantine" to try to promote
it. Don't you even know your own religion's history?

> > That was the problem in England with
> > Henry VIII asking for an annulment. Had the pope not been controlled by
> > the Spanish
> > Monarchy, the Anglican Church would never have come about.
>
> Please tell that to the Anglicans. You forgot that the Church had 25
> percent of the land and the Crown could take it away and give it as "pork
> barrel."

What's to tell. Most Anglicans know that the problem arose when the nephew of
Catherine told the pope not to grant Henry VIII an annulment. If the same nephew,
the king of Spain did not have a male heir, he would have gotten the same annulment
for even less worthy reasons than having married one's brother's widow.

> > In western Europe, how
> > often was the second son of the King made the bishop of the country? Nothing in
> the
> > past is the way the Roman Catholic Church today controls things from the
> Vatican.
>

> You are wrong when it comes to spiritual matters. All <Roman> Catholic bishops

> had
> to swear allegience to the Pope. Ever hear of Thomas a Becket, etc.

Which misses the point on how they got selected a bishop.

> > Now if he was such a "loyal puppet" why did the communists start up a competing
> > church, which was under the communist control?
>
> They didn't have to. There was nowhere to go to church.

But they did. They set up the "Living Church" where bishops were allowed to be
married, and a whole host of other changes. So if what you said was true, they
would not have had to. Since what you said wasn't true the communists had to.

> > That same "Living Church" did not exist long since the
> > people recognized what was real and what wasn't and stayed with that
> > same "loyal puppet".
>
> This is mostly mythology because you fail the differentiate between the
> Church organization and the faithful. There might have still been
> believers left.

So the court case in New York over St. Nicholas Cathedral was "mythology"? That
the competing "Living Church" which attempted to take over the Russian Orthodox
Church was set up by the Communists should tell you something about how off base
your personal opinions are.

> > There was a "separation of church and state" back in the days of the
> > Empire and St. Constantine.
>
> This is because there was a pope.

That had nothing to do with it, except in papal Christianity fairy tales. Read
some history of the Church.

> > Look at Poland and Northern Ireland where the Roman Catholic Church attempts
> to > control what is going on. How is that different than what His Holiness,
> Patriarch > Alexiei is doing?
>
> You really are off the mark for Northern Ireland.

I will agree. I meant Ireland.

> Poland was not a <Roman>Catholic, but Communist country from 1945 to 1990. Church

>
> going Catholics were not allowed to be officers in the Polish Army or
> officials in the Government. The difference is that they did not murder
> their priests as much as the Russians did.

No? What about that priest named "Jerzy" or something like that who was killed in
the late 1980's. Regardless, look at what the Roman Catholic Church is doing
there. Forget about the forced closures of Orthodox parishes. Look at how she is
trying to control what goes on there.

It is no different than what the Latin American Roman Catholic Bishops are
screaming about regarding Protestants going there. The Roman Catholic bishop over
Jersey City, NJ made a big stink about Mormons going into "Roman Catholic areas"
recently. But again, it is the double standard. Roman Catholics can do anything.
When anyone else does something it is somehow wrong.

Evan

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <34D1EEA1...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

>
> Let's go back to your original comment. You stated: "Your own Church
does not
> accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow." It does accept the
authority of
> the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church over the Russian Orthodox Church.
> Just as she accepts the authority of the Pope of Alexandria over all of
Africa.
> Just as the Russian Orthodox Church was granted its independence from
the Patriarch
> of Constantinople, the Russian Orthodox Church granted independence to
the Orthodox
> Church in America. So while the OCA does not find itself under the
administrative
> responsibility of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, she is
still very
> much in communion with the Mother Church of Orthodoxy in the Americas.

This is just gobbleygook. In otherwords, OCA does not accept any authority
of the Patriarch of Moscow over OCA. All Orthodox churches are "in communion."
Big deal.

> > > Roman Catholicism was at best a very small religion of foreigners within
> > Russia. It
> > > has no place in Russia at all amongst Russians.
> >
> > Who decides that it has no place? It shouldn't be Alexei or the Russian
> > Government or you. It should be every Russian deciding for him or
> > herself.
>
> Russia is an Orthodox country. The Soviet government took from them
their Church.
> They should be instructed in their faith, which is the Orthodox Catholic
faith.
> They should be protected from the assorted sects that have gone there.
Once the
> Church has been re-established as it once was, it won't matter since they will
> reject the others.

Who is they? Most are not Orthodox or anything else. Do you mean that the
Government should force the population to be instructed in the Russian
Orthodox faith?

Let's not forget the Roman Catholic mass murderer and now Roman
> Catholic "saint" Kuntsevitch.

This statement has no relavance to the subject. Kuntsevich didn't start
the Greek Catholic Church.

>
> > The Grand Duch of Litva and Rus was not incorporated into the Polish Kingdom
> > until 1650. The majority in the Belarusan areas were already Greek
Catholic.
> > Belarus
> > outlawed the Greek Catholic Church in 1841 because it came under the
> > control of the Tsars.
>
> So they were returned to the faith of their fathers. Just as the faith
of their
> fathers was taken away from them when the Roman Catholic rulers decreed
that they
> become Uniates.

This is historically inaccurate. The rulers did not rule that they become
Uniates. In the Grand Duchy, there was religious toleration and
Catholics,
Orthodox, Lutherans, and Jews all were free to practicve their religion.
The leaders of the Church decided to be in communion with Rome. This was
not changed until the Tsarist Russian Government took over. This
Government also wiped out the independent Orthodox churches. There is
now a autocehlphus movement in the Orthodox Church.

>
> Property that the Roman Catholic Church stole from the Orthodox before.

This is not usually the case. Many of the churches were Catholic at the
beginning. Many of the those old 15th Century churches, monasteries and
schools were built by Catholic religious orders.

It is the attempt to steal property from the Orthodox Church that has
> prevented any meeting between your pope and the Patriarch of the Russian
Orthodox
> Church.

It has to be done on a case by case basis based upon the history of the church.
What about all of the Catholic churches closed down by the Tsars and Communists
in Belarus and Ukraine. Some are being used for city halls, museums,
cultural centers, etc.

>
> > > The Roman Catholic Church, by holding heretical beliefs is no longer
just in
> > schism
> > > from the Church. There is no real difference between them and even
the most
> > High
> > > Church Anglicans.
> >
> > Is this your personal opinion or the official position of the Russian or
> > Greek Orthodox Church? I doubt that it is the latter.
>
> Papal infallibility is well recognized by the Church as one of Rome's greatest
> heresies.

This is not answering the question. Show me official statements about the
status of the schism, not about papal infallibility. How did you
arbitrarily
just decide that the Churches are no longer just in schism? Show me an
official Orthodox statement that Catholics are just like Anglicans. This
is the kind of statement that reveals your anti-Catholic fanaticism. Just
because Orthodox don't believe in papal infallibility, doesn't mean that
they believe that they are no longer in schism.

Bishops are
> bishops. No bishop is a "vicar" of another bishop. Read some history of the
> Church.

Bulloney..there is a hierarchy of bishops in the Orthodox Church just like
Catholic Church.

> Yet they came up with the forgery "The Donation of Constantine" to try
to promote
> it.

Bulloney....Catholics have not used the Donation thing in 500 years. Whether
you like it or not, Constantine made the Pope the spritual leader of the Church.

> No? What about that priest named "Jerzy" or something like that who was
killed in
> the late 1980's.

This is one guy against thousands killed by the Soviets.

Regardless, look at what the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> there.

The Catholic Church was important in the fall of Communism and rise in
democracy in Poland. I like what they did there.

>
> It is no different than what the Latin American Roman Catholic Bishops are
> screaming about regarding Protestants going there. The Roman Catholic
bishop over
> Jersey City, NJ made a big stink about Mormons going into "Roman
Catholic areas"
> recently. But again, it is the double standard.

Where is the double standard? This is stupid. We have freedom of
religion in this country. They don't in Russia. We complain..the Russians
pass laws. No American Catholic bishop is asking the Government to pass
any laws to prevent other denominations from proselytizing in their
neighborhoods. No American Catholic bishop is asking the government to not
let other churches own property or have tax breaks.

I am afraid that you are not a reasonable person and just another
anti-Catholic religious fanatic from the Old World.

Mike

[BAM1106016]

You see, the Roman Catholic Church is a stumbling block to Evan.

Hate to say it, Evan, but most Catholics don't give a hoot about the Orthodox
Churches. (well, maybe a hoot, but that's about it)

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> You see, the Roman Catholic Church is a stumbling block to Evan.

Not at all. I, like most Orthodox Catholics have a great concern over the poor
souls who are trapped within the Roman Catholic Church.

> Hate to say it, Evan, but most <Roman> Catholics don't give a hoot about the

> Orthodox
> Churches. (well, maybe a hoot, but that's about it)

That is probably a result of their being lied to by the Roman Catholic Church so
much over the years.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> In article <34D1EEA1...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
> <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>
> > Let's go back to your original comment. You stated: "Your own Church does not
> > accept the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow." It does accept the authority
> of
> > the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church over the Russian Orthodox Church.
> > Just as she accepts the authority of the Pope of Alexandria over all of Africa.
> > Just as the Russian Orthodox Church was granted its independence from the
> Patriarch
> > of Constantinople, the Russian Orthodox Church granted independence to the
> Orthodox
> > Church in America. So while the OCA does not find itself under the
> administrative
> > responsibility of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, she is still
> very
> > much in communion with the Mother Church of Orthodoxy in the Americas.
>
> This is just gobbleygook. In otherwords, OCA does not accept any authority
> of the Patriarch of Moscow over OCA. All Orthodox churches are "in communion."
> Big deal.

It is not "gobbleygook" it is the very same way the Church was organized and
administered from the very beginning. The OCA was granted its status as an
independent Church by the Russian Orthodox Church. That means that the OCA is self
ruling. It doesn't have to seek the approval of the Russian Orthodox Church to
consecrate new bishops nor to approve the Metropolitan. It is no different than
what happened between the Russian Orthodox Church and Constantinople. They are in
communion with each other as they are in communion with all of the local churches of
the Orthodox Catholic Church.

> > > > Roman Catholicism was at best a very small religion of foreigners within
> > > Russia. It
> > > > has no place in Russia at all amongst Russians.
> > >
> > > Who decides that it has no place? It shouldn't be Alexei or the Russian
> > > Government or you. It should be every Russian deciding for him or
> > > herself.
> >
> > Russia is an Orthodox country. The Soviet government took from them their
> Church.
> > They should be instructed in their faith, which is the Orthodox Catholic faith.
> > They should be protected from the assorted sects that have gone there. Once the
> > Church has been re-established as it once was, it won't matter since they will
> > reject the others.
>
> Who is they? Most are not Orthodox or anything else. Do you mean that the
> Government should force the population to be instructed in the Russian
> Orthodox faith?

They are the people who live in Russia. They are the people who had their Church
taken away from them by the government. They are the people who were prevented by
the Communists to learn about their Church. Of course the government shouldn't and
doesn't force the population to be instructed in the Orthodox Catholic faith. Most
are Orthodox.

> This is historically inaccurate. The rulers did not rule that they become
> Uniates.

No, but just like the communists later on they closed churches, prevented bishops
from entering the territory, etc.

> In the Grand Duchy, there was religious toleration and <Roman>Catholics,

> Orthodox, Lutherans, and Jews all were free to practicve their religion.

Just as the communists were free to advance atheism. If you wanted to get
somewhere, you had better not be one of the "others".

> The leaders of the Church decided to be in communion with Rome.

And then demanded that the people follow them. With no priests, no bishops, no
church building but a counterfeit church, what did you expect to happen?

> This was not changed until the Tsarist Russian Government took over. This
> Government also wiped out the independent Orthodox churches. There is
> now a autocehlphus movement in the Orthodox Church.

Where do you pick up this stuff?

> > Property that the Roman Catholic Church stole from the Orthodox before.
>

> This is not usually the case. Many of the churches were <Roman>Catholic at the

> beginning. Many of the those old 15th Century churches, monasteries and

> schools were built by <Roman>Catholic religious orders.

Such as the Caves at Kiev that the Roman Catholics attempted to steal when communism
fell? What belonged to the Roman Catholic Church should be returned to the Roman
Catholic Church. What the Roman Catholic Church stole from the Orthodox Catholics
should be returned to the Orthodox Catholics. The problem is that the Roman
Catholics want it all.

> > It is the attempt to steal property from the Orthodox Church that has
> > prevented any meeting between your pope and the Patriarch of the Russian
> > Orthodox Church.

> It has to be done on a case by case basis based upon the history of the church.

> What about all of the <Roman> Catholic churches closed down by the Tsars and

> Communists in Belarus and Ukraine. Some are being used for city halls, museums,
> cultural centers, etc.

See above. Wouldn't it be nice if the Polish government did the same to the Polish
Orthodox Church?

> > Papal infallibility is well recognized by the Church as one of Rome's greatest
> > heresies.
>
> This is not answering the question. Show me official statements about the
> status of the schism, not about papal infallibility.

I think that the letter of 1848 to Pope Leo by the Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs says
it well.

> How did you arbitrarily just decide that the Churches are no longer just in
> schism? Show me an official Orthodox statement that Catholics are just like
> Anglicans. This
> is the kind of statement that reveals your anti-Catholic fanaticism. Just
> because Orthodox don't believe in papal infallibility, doesn't mean that
> they believe that they are no longer in schism.

When you introduce new beliefs, you cease to just be in schism. When you introduce
heretical beliefs you are even in worse shape.

> > Bishops are bishops. No bishop is a "vicar" of another bishop. Read some
> history of > the Church.
>
> Bulloney..there is a hierarchy of bishops in the Orthodox Church just like
> Catholic Church.

Again, you know nothing about what you are talking about. Please read about the
history of the Church.

> > Yet they came up with the forgery "The Donation of Constantine" to try to
> promote
> > it.
>
> Bulloney....Catholics have not used the Donation thing in 500 years. Whether
> you like it or not, Constantine made the Pope the spritual leader of the Church.

That it may have fallen out of favor today or over the past 500 years is
meaningless. The Roman Catholic Church developed much of her claims based on a
forgery. Then, to boot, you use that same forgery, that you claim wasn't used in
500 years, to support your claim about St. Constantine. How quick you are to return
to hypocrisy.

> > No? What about that priest named "Jerzy" or something like that who was killed
> in
> > the late 1980's.
>
> This is one guy against thousands killed by the Soviets.

Ah, yes, the "Soviets". Yet when you were talking about the "Soviets" in Russia you
turned them into Russians. Here they are "Soviets". Polish soviets perhaps? Nice
dancing, Mike.

> > Regardless, look at what the Roman Catholic Church is doing
> > there.
>
> The Catholic Church was important in the fall of Communism and rise in
> democracy in Poland. I like what they did there.

And what they are doing there. Persecuting the Orthodox Faith, closing parishes,
taking them over, etc. Of course you would like them.

> > It is no different than what the Latin American Roman Catholic Bishops are
> > screaming about regarding Protestants going there. The Roman Catholic bishop
> over
> > Jersey City, NJ made a big stink about Mormons going into "Roman Catholic areas"
>
> > recently. But again, it is the double standard.
>
> Where is the double standard? This is stupid. We have freedom of
> religion in this country. They don't in Russia. We complain..the Russians
> pass laws. No American Catholic bishop is asking the Government to pass
> any laws to prevent other denominations from proselytizing in their
> neighborhoods. No American Catholic bishop is asking the government to not
> let other churches own property or have tax breaks.

The double standard is that I did not see you complain about the Roman Catholic
Bishop in New Jersey, just as I did not hear you complain about the Latin American
Bishops proposing to do what you object to. Nor do I hear you complain about the
same kind of law that exists in a certain Baltic nation that favors the Roman
Catholic Church.

> I am afraid that you are not a reasonable person and just another

> anti-<Roman> Catholic religious fanatic from the Old World.

Why? Just because you have no idea what you are talking about? Just because you
have a double standard when it comes to what the Roman Catholic Church does against
anyone else?

I realize that you have no knowledge of the Orthodox Catholic Church, her Faith, her
Organization, etc. But like Pat you like to make things up. That is most
unfortunate.

Evan

[Edward Thorne]

In <34CD43A5...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> >> >The defeat of communism was a result of the faithful of Russia
who
>> kept
>> >> >the holy Orthodox Catholic Church and Orthodox faith against
decades
>> of
>> >> >incredible persecution.
>>
>> Well, you are delusional. What are you taking? Or smoking?
>
>My, my, my. When you grow up come back and perhaps we can have a
civil
>discussion.
>
>> It had nothing to do with the schismatic Roman
>> >> >Catholic Church.
>>
>> Hmmnn ...you are into name-calling again.
>
>The Roman Catholic Church left the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic
Church
>founded by Christ to form papal Christianity. When you left you
became
>schismatic. When you took on heretical beliefs you became....
>
>> YOu never seem to grow up, do you?
>
>My, my, my. Diaper rash bothering you again?
>
>> >> Hmmnn ...what about Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia? Or do you
claim
>> >> them for Greek Orthodoxy as well?
>> >
>> >Who is talking about "Greek" Orthodoxy? The issue was Russia and
the
>> fall
>> >of communism there. While I will admit that the largest cause was
the
>> >fundamental errors of communism itself, it was the Russian Orthodox
>> Church
>> >which helped bring it down.

Of course, the Metropolitan of Russia --Pimen ? -- was a catspaw of the
Communists - a difficult position for him, perhaps, but one that is
sadly true.

> With it went communism in Poland, Germany,
>> >Czchoslovakia and elsewhere. If the Soviet Union did not come
down, it
>> >wouldn't have elsewhere. It may have been one of the last, but its
legs
>>
>> >had been cut out from under it which allowed the others to be free
>> first.
>>
>> Hmmnn ...I guesss that the fact that Poland is a <roman>Catholic
country,
>> and
>> was visited by the Pope, had nothing to do with it at all. That is
>> Evan's unique view of history.

See, you are doctoring my writing. It is one thing to be blind to
history, it is another to falsify what another has written. That is
what Evan does, he falsifies, adulterates, and doctors.
>
>Which has nothing to do with the discussion that was being held.
Communism
>was on its way out. If the pope of Rome never visited Poland it still
>would have ceased to be their economic system.
>
>> How can the Greek church be the true church, when it rejected the
>> enactments of the council of Florence, an ecumenical council?
>
>I don't know what "Greek Church" you are talking about. As for
Florence
>being an "ecumenical council", which one of the last three popes
rightly
>called it a western council?

Lets' see, Florence was attended by the Roman Emperor, he brought with
him the Patriarch and quite a number of bishops.
>
>> The schism between East and West from 1440 on is absolutely the
fault
>> of the Greeks.
>
>What "Greeks"? The problem was and is the vanity and the pride and
the
>heretical beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. All that the Roman
>Catholic Church has to do is give up all of her changes to the faith
once
>given and come back to the Church that Christ established.
>
>Evan
>
My-Oh-my-oh-my! What polemic! What vitriol!

Mary, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary: pray for us!

Ed

[Edward Thorne]

In <34CF495E...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

Well, you are merely repeating yourself, Evan.

Please remember, that the bishop is a stand in for Christ, as well, as
Ignatius pointed out.

So, if you say that Jesus needed no stand ins, then there is no need
for bishops, hence there is no need for any kind of episcopal polity in
the church, we can adopt a congregational one.

Ergo, no more need for a Orthodox church.

Evan, congratulations! You have just ended the schism between Latins
and Greeks by abolishing the Greek church.

It's your greatest achievement, Evan! Keep up the good work!

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Please remember, that the bishop is a stand in for Christ, as well, as
> Ignatius pointed out.

Bishops, like priests are icons of Christ. The bishop is head of the
eucharistic community. Christ is the head of the Church.

> So, if you say that Jesus needed no stand ins, then there is no need
> for bishops, hence there is no need for any kind of episcopal polity in
> the church, we can adopt a congregational one.

If your logic made sense, then Christ would not have made some folks his
apostles, he would have made them "little Christ's". Those apostles did
not consecrate new apostles, they consecrated bishops. The apostles and
the earliest bishops knew the difference between themselves and Christ.
That distinction is lost in the Roman Catholic Church when it talks about
the pope.

> Ergo, no more need for a Orthodox <Catholic> church.

> Evan, congratulations! You have just ended the schism between Latins
> and Greeks by abolishing the Greek church.

From your faulty logic, you can conclude anything. And obviously have.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Of course, the Metropolitan of Russia --Pimen ? -- was a catspaw of the
> Communists - a difficult position for him, perhaps, but one that is
> sadly true.

Really? How do you mean that? What did he do? Let's see some facts.

> See, you are doctoring my writing. It is one thing to be blind to
> history, it is another to falsify what another has written. That is
> what Evan does, he falsifies, adulterates, and doctors.

What "doctoring" did I do? What did I do that changed what you said?
NOTHING. Of course you must resort to attacks when you have nothing to say
or can't disprove what I have said. Since you also know that you have been
lied to by the Roman Catholic Church you must be going through the same
difficulties that Pat is in accepting that fact.

> >I don't know what "Greek Church" you are talking about. As for Florence
>
> >being an "ecumenical council", which one of the last three popes rightly
>
> >called it a western council?
>
> Lets' see, Florence was attended by the Roman Emperor, he brought with
> him the Patriarch and quite a number of bishops.

So what? Was it accepted by the Church, something required? No. It did
have the chance to become an ecumenical council, but it didn't and it
wasn't.

> >> The schism between East and West from 1440 on is absolutely the fault
> >> of the Greeks.
> >
> >What "Greeks"? The problem was and is the vanity and the pride and the
> >heretical beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. All that the Roman
> >Catholic Church has to do is give up all of her changes to the faith
> once
> >given and come back to the Church that Christ established.
>

> My-Oh-my-oh-my! What polemic! What vitriol!
>

Since you have been lied to so much and so long one would have to expect
that reply. However, what I said was the truth. You know that the Roman
Catholic Church now believes things that the Church never believed. And
have dogmatized it so it is required beliefs. You know that the Roman
Catholic Church lies about her history when she says that they were
"always" the belief of the Church. Perhaps that is why the truth bothers
you so much.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

Evan's arguments just don't make sense. He says that there can be no singular
authority in the Church except Jesus, but there can be infallible authority
when all the bishops get together and vote. Except when they vote for a Pope.

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

Again, like Pat, why make up stuff that I never said and say that I did? I guess
you too have figured out that the Roman Catholic Church has lied to you about her
history and you also are having a hard time coming to terms with the truth. I
would think that it would bother you knowing that you believed what has been
proven to be lies. I guess this is your way of showing your anger at that fact.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

Evan says:

>Again, like Pat, why make up stuff that I never said and say that I did? I
>guess
>you too have figured out that the Roman Catholic Church has lied to you about
>her
>history and you also are having a hard time coming to terms with the truth.
>I
>would think that it would bother you knowing that you believed what has been
>proven to be lies. I guess this is your way of showing your anger at that
>fact.

Evan basically sticks his tongue out, like a three year old brat. Nothing of
any intellectual value though. stuff...lied...I never...hard
time....truth...bother.....proven.......guess....anger....HAHAAA!!!!!!!!

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan basically sticks his tongue out, like a three year old brat. Nothing of
> any intellectual value though. stuff...lied...I never...hard
> time....truth...bother.....proven.......guess....anger....HAHAAA!!!!!!!!

BAM, do you now feel better? Do you feel that you have accomplished anything?

If you wish to discuss issues, please let me know. I see no reason for your
little temper tantrum unless, of course, you think that somehow it will raise the
opinion of you that others have. If that is you way of thinking, I suggest that
you give it a bit more thought.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

Evan asks:

>BAM, do you now feel better?

Yes

Do you feel that you have accomplished
>anything?

Yes.

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Do you feel that you have accomplished
> >anything?
>
> Yes.

I agree. I just don't understand why you would be proud to come off
like a spoiled brat, but then again, to each their own.

Evan