Intentional misrepresentation?

[witega]

To clear up some confusion I caused by not doing this earlier, the following thread started here: Imaculate Conception. I split this off and made it its own thread in an effort to clean up a runaway thread that jumped the tracks and caused a huge wreck.  -PtA

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

 

[J Michael]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I'm not reading anything into anything here--just commenting that anytime any Orthodox or Catholic Christian paints a negative picture of or bashes in any way the other's Church (OR is perceived to be doing so), it is, for me, an occasion of sadness.  Is it not for you, too?

Now, hopefully Fr. Ambrose will log-in sometime today and answer our questions  .

 

[witega]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I'm not reading anything into anything here--just commenting that anytime any Orthodox or Catholic Christian paints a negative picture of or bashes in any way the other's Church (OR is perceived to be doing so), it is, for me, an occasion of sadness.  Is it not for you, too?

If it's a valid picture, then the reality may sadden me, but I don't see any grounds for criticizing the messenger. "Bashing", I agree is bad, but it's often a very subjective accusation--just because someone says something I don't like, or don't agree with about my church doesn't actually make it bashing.

 

[J Michael]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I'm not reading anything into anything here--just commenting that anytime any Orthodox or Catholic Christian paints a negative picture of or bashes in any way the other's Church (OR is perceived to be doing so), it is, for me, an occasion of sadness.  Is it not for you, too?

If it's a valid picture, then the reality may sadden me, but I don't see any grounds for criticizing the messenger. "Bashing", I agree is bad, but it's often a very subjective accusation--just because someone says something I don't like, or don't agree with about my church doesn't actually make it bashing.

I agree with you as far as it goes, but many times it's in "how" something is said as much as in "what" is being said, not to mention the intent that may be behind it.  Over time and with experience it is often possible to discern another's intent in the patterns of what they say or write when it may not be blatantly obvious.

But, let's not belabor the point, alright?  We really *do* keep digressing here, don't we  ?

Now, hopefully Fr. Ambrose will log-in sometime today and answer our questions  .  It's about 8:15 tomorrow morning in N.Z., so I imagine he's finishing his prayers and corn flakes.... ;D.

 

[PJ]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

 

[JR]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Surly the above mentioned would not be discussing The immaculate conception on an orthodox forum  :-\

 

[J Michael]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Okay, okay....I didn't mean to slight anyone by leaving them out.  Please feel free to consider my post amended to include all Christians  .  (Are you *not* Catholic, then?  Why did I think you were?)

 

[J Michael]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Surly the above mentioned would not be discussing The immaculate conception on an orthodox forum  :-\

Far, far stranger things have happened  ;D.

 

[PJ]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Surly the above mentioned would not be discussing The immaculate conception on an orthodox forum  :-\

I'm not too sure any of us are talking about the Immaculate Conception.

P.S. In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that there's already a conversation (see this post and the references therein) about the whole “Orthodox or Catholic, just not Protestant” idea, which seems to be a pretty standard idea on OCnet. I'm not trying to turn this thread into another conversation about it, just pointing out an example of it.

 

[PJ]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Okay, okay....I didn't mean to slight anyone by leaving them out.  Please feel free to consider my post amended to include all Christians  .  (Are you *not* Catholic, then?  Why did I think you were?)

That's understandable. See here.

 

[Papist]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

 

[J Michael]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

No mention, of course, of the rest of us, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. (I guess I should be used to it by now.)

Okay, okay....I didn't mean to slight anyone by leaving them out.  Please feel free to consider my post amended to include all Christians  .  (Are you *not* Catholic, then?  Why did I think you were?)

That's understandable. See here.

Well....butter my butt and call me a biscuit  ;D ;D ;D!



Seriously, though...I hope you've found the home you're looking for--I'm just sorry it's not the Catholic Church.  Maybe one day you'll come back home to us.

 

[Irish Hermit]

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here.  The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults".  Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"?  Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else  ;D?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins".  Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however,  has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins.  Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist.  You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things.  I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them  !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism [size=10pt][size=10pt]PRECISELY[/size][/size] the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can. 

Rather, [size=10pt]ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here[/size] from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link.  This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?

1.  I say that you have proved your point that it was never "official" teaching.

2.  I say that you have also proved my point.  For centuries bishops and priests deceived the gullible faithful about it.  For centuries they terrified the people with threats of mortal sin and hell fire for missing Mass on Sundays and eating meat on Fridays.

3.  I say that if your bishops were happily deceiving and telling fibs then how can you know they are not doing so now.  Over all, the level of perceived integrity among Catholic bishops is at a low ebb (refer their handling of the sex abuse. Anybody read the government report on the Diocese of Cloynes?)

4.  I say that there may be an exculpatory factor for the bishops and priests - that they were uneducated men without any training in theology?

5.  I say that the Vatican itself is mired in ignorance since after Vatican II a decree was sent forth abolishing obligatory fasting from meat on Fridays on pain of mortal skin.  The Vatican also thought that it was official teaching.  Obviously the Vatican had never read the Catechism of Trent.  The Vatican still believes it was official teaching because it insists that those who ate meat on Fridays when it was proscribed by the Church will remain in hell.

 

[Irish Hermit]

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here.  The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults".  Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"?  Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else  ;D?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins".  Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however,  has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins.  Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist.  You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things.  I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them  !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism [size=10pt][size=10pt]PRECISELY[/size][/size] the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can.  

Rather, [size=10pt]ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here[/size] from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link.  This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?

Amrosian Resonse: "I'm so clever. I'm going to find a way to paint what the Catholic Church teaches in the most negative aspect possible. It will give me a nice little straw man to beat the crap out of."

Not to distract from J Michael's question, but I'd like to ask a question of my own: What does this mean for the other catechisms? What say you 3 Catholics (or anyone else who wants to respond)?

I personally don't know, as I'm not yet familiar enough with the Trent Catechism to be able to make a comparison--but I'm workin' on it  .  

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

It impacts me and my family personally.  To this day some of my family believes that there are family members in hell either because they did not bother going to Mass on Sundays or they used to eat meat on Fridays.   The Vatican has proclaimed that the meat-eaters are still in hell and aren't getting out.  

If there is any 'it saddens me" it is because the Popes arbitrarily used their powers to create a mortal sin (meat on Fridays) and there are people in hell because of it.  In a misguided attempt to impose penitential exercises on the faithful the Popes turned their Church into a vehicle of damnation for many.  Let the Pope release them from hell and I'll stop bitching!

 

[J Michael]

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here.  The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults".  Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"?  Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else  ;D?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins".  Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however,  has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins.  Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist.  You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things.  I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them  !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism [size=10pt][size=10pt]PRECISELY[/size][/size] the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can. 

Rather, [size=10pt]ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here[/size] from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link.  This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?

1.  I say that you have proved your point that it was never "official" teaching.

2.  I say that you have also proved my point.  For centuries bishops and priests deceived the gullible faithful about it.  For centuries they terrified the people with threats of mortal sin and hell fire for missing Mass on Sundays and eating meat on Fridays.

3.  I say that if your bishops were happily deceiving and telling fibs then how can you know they are not doing so now.  Over all, the level of perceived integrity among Catholic bishops is at a low ebb (refer their handling of the sex abuse. Anybody read the government report on the Diocese of Cloynes?)

4.  I say that there may be an exculpatory factor for the bishops and priests - that they were uneducated men without any training in theology?

5.  I say that the Vatican itself is mired in ignorance since after Vatican II a decree was sent forth abolishing obligatory fasting from meat on Fridays on pain of mortal skin.  The Vatican also thought that it was official teaching.  Obviously the Vatican had never read the Catechism of Trent.  The Vatican still believes it was official teaching because it insists that those who ate meat on Fridays when it was proscribed by the Church will remain in hell.

Well...for all your saying, you have failed to shows us precisely from the Catechism of Trent (or any other Catechism for that matter) and in its words the kinds of things you were talking about in replies #624, 625, and 628 above.

 

[PJ]

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

”1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

There is a certain dichotomy here.  The Catechism asserts that the purifying fire is for lesser faults and immediately states this is based on the incident in Maccabees which is not about lesser faults at all but about one of the most heinous of sins.... idolatry, which caused God to allow the idolaters to be slain in battle.

To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

I know the paragraph you quoted says "lesser faults".  Do we know for a fact that that means "venial sins"?  Or, might it mean sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

You're the Catholic!   You tell me me about "lesser faults."    Is kicking your dog a lesser fault?  Is kicking your grandmother a serious fault which will land you in hell?

Has the venial sin/mortal sin system been scrapped.  Has it been replaced by lesser faults/serious faults?

Perhaps we can at least try to stay on the subject for a moment or two without digressing into something else  ;D?

To be honest with you, I don't know if "lesser faults" (as used in the aforementioned paragraphs) = "venial sins".  Nowhere in the quotes from the Catechism that we've been discussing, however,  has there been mention of confining the forgiveness of sins...to venial sins.  Based on that, the way I read it is that the "lesser faults" (in this context) are those sins lesser than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

So that would mean that what were once termed "mortal sin" -- murder, masturbation, meat of Friday are less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So they consitute lesser faults and the catechism says that they may be forgiven after death.

So say you.

I'm no expert, nor am I a priest, a theologian, or a catechist.  You, on the other hand, are a priest, raised and educated in the Catholic Church, and purport to know these things.  I can't help but wonder why you even ask questions.....Even more so, I can't help but wonder why I bother to try to answer them  !

Send him to the Catechism of Trent, the mother of all local catechisms from Trent to the CCC, and ask him to show you in that universal catechism [size=10pt][size=10pt]PRECISELY[/size][/size] the kinds of things he's chuntering on about here, trying to tie you into knots, because he can. 

Rather, [size=10pt]ask him to show you the items in the universal catechism that are PRECISELY the words that he offers here[/size] from the local and pastoral, fear-mongering texts that he sucked on as a babe in Catholic clothing:

Here's the link.  This book is older than all of the catechisms that informed Father Ambrose from Ireland.

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?

1.  I say that you have proved your point that it was never "official" teaching.

2.  I say that you have also proved my point.  For centuries bishops and priests deceived the gullible faithful about it.  For centuries they terrified the people with threats of mortal sin and hell fire for missing Mass on Sundays and eating meat on Fridays.

3.  I say that if your bishops were happily deceiving and telling fibs then how can you know they are not doing so now.

See my post, on the other thread, about the Catholic Answers Forum.

 

[Irish Hermit]

Well...for all your saying, you have failed to shows us precisely from the Catechism of Trent (or any other Catechism for that matter) and in its words the kinds of things you were talking about in replies #624, 625, and 628 above.

Post 624

"To confine the forgiveness of sins after death to venial sins is contrary to scripture."

I have shown this with the incident in Maccabees

It won't be found in Trent since Catholics abandoned belief in the forgiveness of serious sin after death.

---

Post 625

Michael is asking me if  "we know for a fact that that [lesser faults] means "venial sins"? "

That does not compute for me?  Are there people in Purgatory for something called "lesser faults" but these are not venial sins?  

What is the Catholic definition of the "lesser faults" which land a soul in Purgatory?

It is not found in Trent. Trent believes people are in Purgatory for two categories of sins - venial sins and confessed mortal sins.

This third category of "lesser faults" which take you to Purgatory would seem to be a new teaching

 

[witega]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

 

[Papist]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

 

[Irish Hermit]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

I think that what your reaction indicates is simply unfamiliarity with the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, and it is so unfamiliar that you think somebody who experienced it and now speaks about it is a liar.

 

[witega]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

But what evidence do you have that he is misrepresenting his actual experience from 40+ years ago? It seems fairly consistent with what I've heard from other RC's of that generation (though generally with less passion).

 

[Irish Hermit]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

But what evidence do you have that he is misrepresenting his actual experience from 40+ years ago? It seems fairly consistent with what I've heard from other RC's of that generation (though generally with less passion).

Papist,

I've taken this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia.  It shows I am speaking the truth.  Read the whole article.

"As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII."
[Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Boccioni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)].

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01067a.htm

and

The Baltimore Catechism...

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.
   

 

[Irish Hermit]

Here's askin' you, Fr. Ambrose.....What say you?

So how did I go with answering that one?  :laugh:

 

[elijahmaria]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I am Father Ambrose's age and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church the same way that he was in an Irish Catholic family in America, rather than in Ireland.  And even I know that his caricatures are just that: cartoons of his experiences.  The things I talk about here and the interpretations that I offer were given to me back in the years before influence of Vatican II took hold fully, or more fully.

So you cannot just paint a happy face on what Father Ambrose does here...at least you will not ever convince me.

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy and so it is his aim to do as much damage as he can to the face of the Catholic Church in public venues to send that message to other Orthodox believers.  He fans the flames of a fire that he knows already consumes.  And he is not ashamed to say so in his own words.

Mary

 

[elijahmaria]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

If you believe that Fr. Ambrose is really reporting what he has really experienced... otherwise...

And I should doubt him, why?

Because he is consistently misrepresents Catholics and Catholic teaching.

But what evidence do you have that he is misrepresenting his actual experience from 40+ years ago? It seems fairly consistent with what I've heard from other RC's of that generation (though generally with less passion).

Papist,

I've taken this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia.   It shows I am speaking the truth.  Read the whole article.

"As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII."
[Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Boccioni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)].

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01067a.htm

and

The Baltimore Catechism...

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.
     

I fail to see the need for Father Ambrose's hysteria over mortal sin.

Also I fail to see any indication in Father's cartoon of a Church's teachings that "sends" souls to hell to be more than a little over the top...as though there is no relief from sin in the Catholic Church through repentance and the sacrament of penance and confession.

Father should remember that even in the Catholic Church children are expected to grow up and develop the faith of an adult.

If there is some impediment to that psychological and spiritual development then the Church mitigates for those souls through prayer, fasting and alms-giving.

We are still stuck with Father's admission that he believes the Catholic Church is trying to destroy Orthodoxy.

I must say that it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that he is trying to return the favor...

M.

 

[Irish Hermit]

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

 

[PJ]

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

 

[Wyatt]

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  :

 

[Irish Hermit]

You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction? 

See message 332 also
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg697681.html#msg697681
where I agree with her.

 

[Irish Hermit]

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism. 

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  :

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches? 

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.  Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 

 

[PJ]

You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction? 

See message 332 also
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg697681.html#msg697681
where I agree with her.

OIC. I thought I remembered you saying something like the "destroy" line.

 

[PJ]

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  :

    Gas Station Employee: I'm picking up your sarcasm.
    Richard: Well, I should hope so, because I'm laying it on pretty thick.
(Tommy Boy)

 

[Wyatt]

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism. 

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  :

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 

So are all Catholics going to hell, or just our clergy?

 

[Irish Hermit]

And even more to the point Father Ambrose makes it abundantly clear that he believes that the Catholic Church is out to destroy Orthodoxy ...

Loving individual Catholics as I do and many of them,  yet I think we must not be blind to the nature of Catholicism and its ambitions and intentions in the high echelons of their Church.  The Curia does not dig and it does not plough but it never sleeps.  Saint Paul says in Ephesians “ For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

Now the mighty powers of this dark world within the Catholic Church have waged war on our holy Church for a thousand years, assaulting us spiritually and physically and militarily with great armies, and also attempting to weaken and wound us with the creation of look-alike Churches with look-alike Patriarchs.  They have tried, and they have succeeded, in inflicting great damage on the Church of Christ..

Is it not naive to be too complacent about the new “peace offensive” which has been occurring for only the last 40 years?  Just a new tactic which continues the 1000 war against us in the high places of Catholicism.  

Repeating myself I know, but the 1997 words of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom come as a needed warning, from a man well seasoned in these things - Do not be complacent!  The age old enemy of the Church has not fallen asleep.

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

Yes...because no Orthodox people have ever ever EVER persecuted Catholics. What a silly thought. I better join the Orthodox Church since you all have advanced so far in holiness that none of you are capable of sin any longer.  :

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?  

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country.  

So are all Catholics going to hell, or just our clergy?

I'm sure none of your soldier boys are in hell, Wyatt. During his famous apologies Pope John Paul prayed that God would forgive them and since he "holds on earth the place of God Almighty" he is sure to have been heard.

"But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty...”

PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE
Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII
June 20, 1894

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

 

[Wyatt]

How many Greek armies have invaded Italy, set a prostitute on the papal throne, raped your nuns, and then looted the treasures of the Vatican?  How many Russian armies have invaded France and created pseudo-Catholic Churches?   

I am not denying the Orthodox have been vile to Catholics but it has been small scale and sporadic.   Your assaults on us have been consistent century after century, country after country. 

Also, by this logic (i.e. the one who cast the fewest stones is the "True Church"), shouldn't you be Oriental Orthodox then?

 

[Wyatt]

I'm sure none of your soldier boys are in hell, Wyatt. During his famous apologies Pope John Paul prayed that God would forgive them and since he "holds on earth the place of God Almighty" he is sure to have been heard.

Clearly you have some deep seeded bitterness you need to work out, and since I'm somewhat spiritually fragile right now and this place seems to be spiritual poison for the most part, I think I'm bowing out for the night.

 

[elijahmaria]

You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction? 

That phrase originally came from you.  I don't think in those terms when I think of our respective Churches.  

 

[Irish Hermit]

You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  

That phrase originally came from you.  I don't think in those terms when I think of our respective Churches.  

Gosh!  you are right.  I must apologise.  I see I wrote to Alonso...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27476.msg435353.html#msg435353

I am sure you do not know this, but within Orthodoxy there is a deep-seated fear of Roman Catholicism.  It has been conditioned by long centuries of aggression - the Crusades, the 60 year occupation of Constantinople, the bloodbath in Jerusalem, the attempt to fragment and destroy Orthodoxy by the creation of parallel look-alike Churches in many Orthodox countries (always accompanied by violence), the Croatian policy in WWII of "kill 1/3 of the Orthodox, convert 1/3, and marry 1/3."    

Things such as this have become an integral part of Orthodoxy's innermost psyche when they think of Roman Catholics.  Brushing it aside as polemics damages the bilateral dialogue because it does not acknowledge a deep-rooted problem in our relationship which cries out for attention.  

Pope John Paul II spoke often of the "healing of memory."  The Orthodox attitude could be summed up in the well-known words of Patriarch Pavle of Serbia when he dedicated the monument at the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia - "Forgive we must, forget we dare not."  Oprostiti moramo, zaboraviti ne smemo.

Don't shoot me for saying this.  I am just the messenger.  But what I am reporting is how the average Orthodox Christian sees things.

 

[stashko]

You can feel free to tell me I'm splitting hair(s), but I find I'm more likely to tune-out an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "destroy the Orthodox Church", than an Orthodox who says the RCC is out to "swallow up the Orthodox Church".

Of course that phrase was written by Mary, and it is not the first time she has used it.  Is she intimating her own deeper wish for our destruction?  

That phrase originally came from you.  I don't think in those terms when I think of our respective Churches.  

Gosh!  you are right.  I must apologise.  I see I wrote to Alonso...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27476.msg435353.html#msg435353

I am sure you do not know this, but within Orthodoxy there is a deep-seated fear of Roman Catholicism.  It has been conditioned by long centuries of aggression - the Crusades, the 60 year occupation of Constantinople, the bloodbath in Jerusalem, the attempt to fragment and destroy Orthodoxy by the creation of parallel look-alike Churches in many Orthodox countries (always accompanied by violence), the Croatian policy in WWII of "kill 1/3 of the Orthodox, convert 1/3, and marry 1/3."    

Things such as this have become an integral part of Orthodoxy's innermost psyche when they think of Roman Catholics.  Brushing it aside as polemics damages the bilateral dialogue because it does not acknowledge a deep-rooted problem in our relationship which cries out for attention.  

Pope John Paul II spoke often of the "healing of memory."  The Orthodox attitude could be summed up in the well-known words of Patriarch Pavle of Serbia when he dedicated the monument at the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia - "Forgive we must, forget we dare not."  Oprostiti moramo, zaboraviti ne smemo.

Don't shoot me for saying this.  I am just the messenger.  But what I am reporting is how the average Orthodox Christian sees things.

Well Said Father, In the Quote.......Just to add Franciscan Run ,Jesenovac Death Camp  ...Catholic Church At it's Best, If one Doesn't join them Thru covert activity ,then use force ,if neither works, destruction the only alternative ..... olice:

 

[witega]

It saddens me that anyone in either of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) would even want to find ways to paint negative pictures of the other.  To what end, really?

That seems to be reading quite a bit into Fr. Ambrose's motivations. What I see is Fr. Ambrose talking about his *actual* experience as an RC decades ago. And he tends to get a bit impassioned when people blow off the actuality of his experience because it doesn't fit their theoretical models--a not incomprehensible reaction.

I am Father Ambrose's age and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church the same way that he was in an Irish Catholic family in America, rather than in Ireland.  And even I know that his caricatures are just that: cartoons of his experiences.  The things I talk about here and the interpretations that I offer were given to me back in the years before influence of Vatican II took hold fully, or more fully.

So you cannot just paint a happy face on what Father Ambrose does here...at least you will not ever convince me.

So in other words, your personal experience is different from Fr. Ambrose's and I should believe yours and not his? Why? Indeed, given that you were in different countries and therefore different families, different parochial schools, different parishes, why should I believe that your experiences are mutually exclusive?

Fr. Ambrose's memories are clearly colored by his eventual conversion to Orthodoxy--but I could say the same thing for yours being colored by your need to maintain cognitive assonance for your continued commitment to the Roman communion.

And then, of course, there are the cases where Fr. Ambrose has produced documentary evidence that his assertions (e.g., meat on Friday or missing Mass were mortal sins) were in fact held by some significant portion of Roman Catholics, supporting his contention that that is what he experienced at the time whether you shared those experiences or not.