• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Peter the Rock

Status
Not open for further replies.

moronikos

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
58
Location
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Website
www.triodion.com
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Dan Lauffer said:
There should be no more "bi-ritual" priests. They are a scurge (sp?) upon the Church.
My friends had a bad experience with one of these priests. The only one I personally know is a blessing to the EC parish he ministers to. He took a black marker and marked out the filioque in the creed in the liturgy books. If it wasn't for him there would not be an EC community in Tulsa. OTOH, that might be a better thing for those who truly wanted to be Orthodox. Many EC communities would die out if not for folks like him.
 

Byzantino

Elder
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Pardon my posting this comment so late in this thread, but I was under the impression that this 'negotiation' of the nature of the Papacy was EXACTLY what the Pope JPII offered when he visited Greece (and was embarrassingly abused while there.) We Orthodox (Greeks at least) did squander a genuine opportunity based on a sincere offer and not on some weak platitudes. Sad, another millinnieum of schism awaits until another enlightened pope comes to the Throne of Peter.
Demetri
Actually Demetri, the Pope's appeal to the Orthodox world to help him re-examine the Petrine ministry didn't fall on deaf ears. One work which i keep mentioning on this matter is Olivier Clement's "You Are Peter," which i found to be the most forthright, cordial and objective piece ever written on the papacy from an Orthodox perspective, despite its short length. Just how many heeded his call i don't know.

Also, interestingly, after the Pope's visit to Greece, a Greek newspaper conducted a poll which revealed almost 60% in favour of reunion with Rome. If i remember correctly, around 25% were opposed and the rest didn't give a darn.

I believe the key to future progress in healing the schism will depend on how soon the decrees of Vatican II take full root in the life of the RCC, for, as many RCs are quick to point out, it can often take decades before a council's decrees are fully adapted. I remain very optimistic precisely because of Vatican II, which did what everybody thought was impossible after the definitions of Vatican I - define ecclesiology using collegial principles and almost totally eschewing the characteristic authoritarianism and juridical language. This was the seed whose planting made any rapproachment between Rome and Orthodoxy possible, a seed so congenial and palatable with Orthodoxy it can grow into a healthy tree, albeit one that still needs some pruning. The baton of all the hard work of the post-Vatican II popes is sure to be handed on to future popes who will strive to reach the finish line; God appointed a miraculous pope to revolutionize the RCC with Vatican II, and no doubt He'll do the same to bring about the revolution we all yearn for to unite the Church.
 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Age
59
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
Faith
Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Patriarchal Diocese
I'll try to get hold of Olivier Clement's work as soon as possible and study it. Are there also works that can be recommended by RC authors who present the RC position to an Orthodox audience?
 

ByzantineSerb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There is a seemingly well-educated Catholic author named James Likoudis wrote a book titled "The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church".

Only one I could find.
 

Byzantino

Elder
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, Australia
There is a seemingly well-educated Catholic author named James Likoudis wrote a book titled "The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church".
By all means check out the book and his website. In my opinion, his writings aren't all that much different to the other RC internet apologists; the only difference is they're from a former-Orthodox perspective. I recall being struck by his downplaying of the forged documents and his denigration of one of the greatest historians in the history of the Church, Johanne Ignaz von Dollinger, because he (and his historian colleagues) had the gall to oppose papal infallibility :eek: If the website is any indication of what to expect from the book then i'd rather read something else. I'd stick to RC scholars (eg. Johanne Quasten; Philip Hughes has a good 3 volume church history set.)
 

carpo-rusyn

Elder
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Philadelphia, Pa.
[one of the greatest historians in the history of the Church, Johanne Ignaz von Dollinger, because he (and his historian colleagues) had the gall to oppose papal infallibility]

Dollinger later had a hand in founding one of the Old Catholic churches which now ordains women didn't he? So perhaps a case could be made that Dollinger was gradually losing his grip on tradition when he questioned papal infallibility. Also what do you base the "one of the greatest historians in the history of the Church" on? Have you read Dollinger? What about Baronius, Eusebius, Newman, etc. Are you accounting him one of the "greatest historians of the Church" because he supports your own views on the papacy?

Carpo-Rusyn
 

Byzantino

Elder
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Dollinger later had a hand in founding one of the Old Catholic churches which now ordains women didn't he?
Ad hominem arguments like this won't convince me i'm afraid.

So perhaps a case could be made that Dollinger was gradually losing his grip on tradition when he questioned papal infallibility.
Maybe Karl Hefele and John Henry Newman were losing their grips when they expressed similar sentiments of the inconsistency of papal infallibility with history and logic. Do you expect somebody with 50 yrs of church history to his name to slavishly comply with a doctrine he knew was only a theological opinion even in his own day and age? What happened to St. Vincent Lerin's criterion, quod ubique, quod semper, quad ab obnibus creditum est (what has been believed everywhere, always, by all.) To the leading historians of the time papal infallibility had nothing to do with Tradition and history. It's no secret that some of the Ultramontanes at the Vatican council purposely rejected the witness of history in order to justify their position, such as Cardinal Henry Edward "dogma has conquered history" Manning.

Also what do you base the "one of the greatest historians in the history of the Church" on? Have you read Dollinger?
hmm...reputation, scholarship, fame...i get the impression that RCs have to resort to impugning a historian's credibility if they disagree with a dogma of the RCC. J.N.D. Kelly was an Oxford Church historian who also finds no evidence for the modern RC papal claims in the early church, yet he doesn't suffer the same fate.

What about Baronius, Eusebius, Newman, etc.
What about them?

Are you accounting him one of the "greatest historians of the Church" because he supports your own views on the papacy?
The same could be asked of you: are you dismissing Dollinger's credibility because he doesn't support your view of the papacy? Johanne Quasten is another brilliant (RC) historical mind who's frankness about the denial of any papal universal jurisdiction in St. Cyprian doesn't prevent RC apologists from citing him as a great historian.

Must run.
 

carpo-rusyn

Elder
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Philadelphia, Pa.
[The same could be asked of you: are you dismissing Dollinger's credibility because he doesn't support your view of the papacy]

I'm dismissing Dollinger because he ran off and helped found a church which has now drifted off into modernism.

Have you actually read Dollinger though?

[ John Henry Newman were losing their grips when they expressed similar sentiments of the inconsistency of papal infallibility with]

Perhaps you can explain why he submitted to the idea of papal infallibility?

Carpo-Rusyn
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
ByzantineSerb said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but did not (His Holiness) Innocent III excommunicate the Crusaders for their barbarous trechery against the Greeks?

That is what I have heard and read.
I think you are correct here; but the excommunications themselves did not last long as the Pope was molified by the resulting forced re-union.
And the reunion didn't last long either -these actions actually were like throwing gasoline on smoldering embers. Fire still burns today.

Demetri
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
Gentlemen,

I.e., Carpo-Rusyn and Byzantino, please don't be cross with each other. After years of study myself (I really am an old goat) I've discovered that academic pedigree "don't necessarily mean a thing". I tend to believe that "infallibility" is one claim best left unclaimed. But if we get bogged down in which scholar claims what about infallibility we will never get any closer to the truth let alone closer to recommunion. The West has always tended to be good "definers" but sometimes "definitions" should best be left "undefined". I think VC I did a disservice to the Church and will of necessity have to be revisited if there is any hope of recommunion. I hope my opinion does not excommunicate me from Rome.

BTW I think the East needs the West. Sometimes the East is to dogmatic without being very reasonable.

Dan L

 

TomS

Archon
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Messages
3,186
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
65
Location
Maryland
Dan Lauffer said:
BTW I think the East needs the West.
Yes. based upon what I have seen predicting the birth rate of Musilims and speed of the growth of the Muslim "faith", we definitely need each other!
 

Byzantino

Elder
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I'm dismissing Dollinger because he ran off and helped found a church which has now drifted off into modernism.

But how are the actions (100 years later) of a church he helped found related to his scholarship and the points i raised? It doesn't - which is why the argument is fallacious.

Have you actually read Dollinger though?
I've read a decent portion of his writings cited by numerous secondary sources. Anything by Dollinger is rare and worth over $300 Australian, which i can't afford right now. I haven't read much of Dante's works either but i know he's a literary giant.

After years of study myself (I really am an old goat) I've discovered that academic pedigree "don't necessarily mean a thing". I tend to believe that "infallibility" is one claim best left unclaimed. But if we get bogged down in which scholar claims what about infallibility we will never get any closer to the truth let alone closer to recommunion. The West has always tended to be good "definers" but sometimes "definitions" should best be left "undefined". I think VC I did a disservice to the Church and will of necessity have to be revisited if there is any hope of recommunion. I hope my opinion does not excommunicate me from Rome.
Well ultimately we have to rely on some kind of historical authority and data to evaluate the issue. I value the evidence of Fathers Dollinger and Hefele because of their credentials and their first-hand witness to the matter at hand as historians. There is such a thing as an appeal to reliable authority, and i believe the evidence against papal infallibility on that basis is overwhelmingly against it; we have evidence of medieval popes, canonists and theologians attributing doctrinal error to popes and interpreting Matt 16:18 in a collegial sense. Is it any wonder why someone like Cardinal Manning would exclaim "dogma has conquered history"? The overwhelming majority at the Vatican council was made up of clergy embued in the Ultramontanist mindset; funnily enough Ultramontanism is condemned as a heresy today. But i think you're absolutely right about Vatican I, Dan. The council was a source of scandal for me too. I'd like to know what good the dogma of papal infallibility has done for the RCC and for better relations between Orthodoxy, the RCC being a Church whose laity 100+ years later is no longer ignorant or constrained by the inaccessibility of information. It surprises me how the sentiment of the majority at Vatican I represented that of the minority at Vatican II. Woud there have been a definition of papal infallibility if the Bishops of Vatican II were present en masse at Vatican I?
 

Byzantino

Elder
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Here's some insight into Cardinal Newman's thought at the time:

"Is this the proper work of an oecumenical Council? as to myself personally, pleae God, I do not expect trial at all; but I cannot help suffering with the various souls which are suffering, and I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to defend decisions which may not be difficult to my private judgement, but may be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts. What have we done to be treated as the faithful never were treated before? When has a definition of a doctrine de Fide been a luxury of devotion and not a stern practical necessity? Why should an aggressive, insolent faction be allowed to "make the heart of the just mourn"...? Why can't we be let alone, when we have pursued peace and thought no evil?" (Robert McClory, Power and the Papacy: the People and Politics Behind the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, Liguori, 1997, p. 88.)

Newman, to be fair, believed in a version of infallibility consistent with his theology of collegiality, which laid the foundations for Vatican II. Why he ended up assenting to the dogma is not for me to judge, nonetheless we can catch a glimpse of the trepidations facing those who found the new dogma too hard to swallow:

'As a historian, [Hefele] could find no justification for papal infallibility in past ages, and unlike de Las Casas, he could not affirm today what he denied yesterday. "i'm sitting on a volcano," he wrote a few months after returning to his diocese in Austria....Nor, he believed, could the Church bear the scandal of a possible schism over his convictions. That, he reasoned would be a disaster even worse than the doctrine. So Hefele, more than a year after the declaration of the dogma, sent in his written submission, burned all the papers he had written on the council, and asked his friends to return his letters so he could burn them as well. He called it a "sacrifice of the intellect."' (Ibid, p. 131.)
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
byzantino,

Newman is a primary source of information. I think my former criticism of "scholars" was not well written by me. My comment was directed against too great a reliance upon secondary sources.

I agree with Cardinal Newman's trepidation. I don't know what good this doctrine has done the RCC and I can't imagine that VCII would have developed it if given the chance. I do believe that it will eventually be overthrown...er...reinterpreted. It will be a wrenching move because it will necessarily fly in the face of the claimed authority of dogmatic pronouncements. I think the RCC has some rough days ahead but eventually they will all be for the good. My prayer is that Orthodoxy will press the issue and not simply go off in the corner and point fingers. In this matter the West desperately needs the East.

May I copy and paste your note to the Catholic Convert forum when it comes back on line?

Dan L
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
Texas
I think Vat I sums up pretty well what we have always known in the west. I wouldn't call it a "new" dogma to be "over-turned," or "reinterpreted."

It was promulgated, not invented. (Papal infalliblity is also a powerful weapon against modernism.)
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
Cafeinator,

"It was promulgated, not invented. (Papal infalliblity is also a powerful weapon against modernism.)"

In theory, and if we are all puppets, you are correct. In practice that's another story. Have you been keeping up with the American RCC? For much of it it is difficult to tell the difference between it and liberal protestantism. If Papal infallibility were a good weapon why hasn't it been used? Or on the other hand, if it has been used it doesn't seem to work.

Perhaps you have a better slant. Could you elaborate?

Dan L


 
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
Texas
Well, as far as the American RCC goes, it is a question of obedience. Much of the liberal american hierarchy has fallen into heresy. Heretical bishops are nothing new, for east or west. What would be new is if the Roman Catholic Church as a whole does not recover from the current crisis. But restoration will happen (and is happening) on God's time, and not ours. The Church moves very slowly, but from what I have seen, is recovering from the crisis.

The weapon I have spoken of has been used, to good effect. We have not seen the entrenched liberal hierarchy overturned, of course. But Catholics can still learn what Catholicism is, and in that respect, the attempted revision failed. Catholic doctrine has been reiterated by successive popes.

One should look to Rome for examples of the indefectible, infallible Church...not the American bishops.
 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
peterfarrington said:
I hope I am thinking like a Christian. The UK has as many ancient enmities it could dredge up if it wished, but the mark of a Christian is not to be bound by them. I see no place whatsoever for any Orthodox christian hating anyone, let alone for something that happened 600 years ago.
How protestant and er Roman Catholic to think like that.
People in the East have lonnnnnnng memories. And it's hard to set aside enmity for ppl who did you harm.

 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
Dan Lauffer said:
I believe true Orthodoxy is expressed in what Patriarch Bartholomew has done. It is not expressed in what a couple of the posters here have stated.

Dan lauffer
Wrong.
He's singlehandedly destroying Orthodoxy.
I will not follow this Bishop blindly into The Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism. But I will remain in Canonical Orthodoxy and fight, I will not "wall myself off".

I hope he gets replaced.
 

jbc1949

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Dan Lauffer writes:

I agree with Cardinal Newman's trepidation. I don't know what good this doctrine has done the RCC and I can't imagine that VCII would have developed it if given the chance. I do believe that it will eventually be overthrown...er...reinterpreted. It will be a wrenching move because it will necessarily fly in the face of the claimed authority of dogmatic pronouncements. I think the RCC has some rough days ahead but eventually they will all be for the good. My prayer is that Orthodoxy will press the issue and not simply go off in the corner and point fingers. In this matter the West desperately needs the East.



If what you have written is true, then the RCC is in big trouble with itself! To overthrow the dogma is to admit error and thus say to the whole world that the Church in union with Rome is defectible. Reinterpretation also is problematical in the effective meaning of the dogma. Reinterpretation could be tantamount to overthrow of the dogma no matter what pretty words are used to explain it away. How do you soften a blatantly declared dogma without the practical implications that Rome was wrong . . . i.e., defectible . . . during all these centuries since (insert your preferred year), the split between East and West?

The only way that I can see the dogma's potential "reinterpretation" is to say something along the line that the Pope makes an "infallible" pronouncement in the sense of his exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church during or only after consultation, agreement, and union with all the bishops of the world united in an Ecumenical Council. This would also suggest that "Ecumenical" means Catholic and Orthodox bishops united in a General Council. And if I understand the purpose of an ecumenical council as the Orthodox understand it--correct me please if I err in this regard--is to witness to the Faith of the Church, not to make new theology. I perceive that the Orthodox will always look upon the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Pope as new or innovative theology and not a witness to the Faith of the Church no matter how well it has been "reinterpreted" or packaged.

Could you imagine the agenda of an 8th General Council? Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Purgatory, Indulgences, Grace, Original/Ancestral Sin, the merits of the saints, the celibate/married parish priesthood, baptism by immersion/infusion, . . . , the Filioque clause (I personally favor "From the Father through the Son"), and azymes (well this one may now be moot)! I surmise that it would take 20 years+ for an 8th General Council to settle these issues.

If some miracle of God leads us eventually to an 8th General Council--i.e., recognized as 8th by Catholics and Orthodox--whatever happens let's not let the liberals interpret it according to the "spirit of Nicea III." [or is it Nicea IV or V?]


I hope I haven't (inadvertently) offended the non-Chalcedonians!

JBC
 

ByzantineSerb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dan Lauffer said:
Have you been keeping up with the American RCC? For much of it it is difficult to tell the difference between it and liberal protestantism.

Papal authority works very nicely when it is applied accordingly. (St.) Pope Pius X is a very good example. Under his papacy, modernism in the Church was subdued and forced under ground. In the seminaries, he issued the Oath against Modernism. When he issued statements and decisions, by God he delivered!

The current pope is not that good of a disciplinarian. He allows too many liberals to get away with mischievous deeds (the same goes for many of the bishops and cardinals). Of course, he nails traditionl Catholics, but not lberals... ::)



 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
jbc1949 said:
....

Could you imagine the agenda of an 8th General Council? Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Purgatory, Indulgences, Grace, Original/Ancestral Sin, the merits of the saints, the celibate/married parish priesthood, baptism by immersion/infusion, . . . , the Filioque clause (I personally favor "From the Father through the Son"), and azymes (well this one may now be moot)! I surmise that it would take 20 years+ for an 8th General Council to settle these issues.

If some miracle of God leads us eventually to an 8th General Council--i.e., recognized as 8th by Catholics and Orthodox--whatever happens let's not let the liberals interpret it according to the "spirit of Nicea III." [or is it Nicea IV or V?]
JBC, Our Eighth Council, as you note has already happened in 879-881 and was so accepted, no? Our Ninth Council was 1341-1351. So our next will be the 10th. Given we've had no General Council in 650+ years, it will take us 20 years to clean up our issues before we can take Rome to task on their innovations ;)

Demetri
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
Demetri,

You make a good point. I think the council will take much longer than 20 years and may or may not bring success. However, I think it is worth it. I agree with your assessment about the cleaning up of Orthodox issues as well.

Dan L
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
A council such as we suggest would help clean out some of the arrogance on both sides, I should think.

Dan L
 

jbc1949

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Albuquerque, NM
JBC, Our Eighth Council, as you note has already happened in 879-881 and was so accepted, no? Our Ninth Council was 1341-1351. So our next will be the 10th. Given we've had no General Council in 650+ years, it will take us 20 years to clean up our issues before we can take Rome to task on their innovations
Demetri



I suppose this means that before a "General" Council involving Catholic and Orthodox bishops is held, we will have to beat each other up first on council number. The Catholics would of course counter that the 8th General Council is the 4th Council of Constantinople (869) and the 9th is the First Lateran Council (1123). I estimate that this will take another 650+ years of arguing, fighting, anathemizing, and cursing each other before some number is agreed-upon.

Then once the number is settled 20+ years will be required for the Orthodox to settle their internal issues and 100+ years for the Catholics to recover from the "spirit" of Vatican II. Then we can argue, fight, curse each other, etc., in a Xth General Council for another 100+ years until the issues are beaten to death. Boy is this going to be a lot of fun! The Jews, Protestants, Moslems, and pagans throughout the world will enjoy watching this latest version of SmackDown!

What could be the end result of all this bickering???? The Moslems will be 90% of the world's population with the Orthodox/Catholics somewhere in that 10% along with other sundry religious groups. Oh . . . we will be paying the Dhimmitude and suffering through all the extortion and loss of civil rights that a Dhimmi experiences. All this because of mutual Catholic-Orthodox arrogance and triumphalism. :mad:

How do you think that Islam triumphed in the Middle East and Northern Africa in the first place??? You know what they say . . . a house divided . . . . On the other hand, like the Flood, Assyria, Babylon, etc., for the Hebrews, perhaps Islam is a Judgement of God on the so called Christians.

JBC

PS: In my aforementioned jeremiad I in no way intend to marginalize the theological, pastoral, and Church polity differences between Orthodox and Catholics.

 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Age
59
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
Faith
Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Patriarchal Diocese
sdcheung said:
How protestant and er Roman Catholic to think like that.
People in the East have lonnnnnnng memories. And it's hard to set aside enmity for ppl who did you harm.
What a load of rubbish. Such thinking is not Orthodox, not even Christian. If you think that is Protestant or Roman Catholic then it shows that there is something seriously wrong with your Orthodoxy.
 

James

Archon
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
71
Location
Ventura, California
Today we should all down a shooter to the next Ecumenical Council, I'm sure we won't be around to drink to it then.

james
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,444
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
sdcheung said:
How protestant and er Roman Catholic to think like that.
People in the East have lonnnnnnng memories. And it's hard to set aside enmity for ppl who did you harm.
Just because it is hard doesn't mean it is not necessary to set aside enmity for people who did you harm. Christianity is all about dying to self, and that is a difficult thing. Since when does Orthodoxy shrink from proper struggle?

The other poster's attitude may be "protestant" or "Roman Catholic", but it is far more Orthodox than what you suggest.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
jbc1949 said:
JBC

PS: In my aforementioned jeremiad I in no way intend to marginalize the theological, pastoral, and Church polity differences between Orthodox and Catholics.
Not to dismiss your lengthy reply. We need to clean up our house first. As to a Great Council with both communions involved, I could not even begin to speculate how that would happen ;) We can't get past the first two issues now over 950 years old between east and West.

Demetri

Demetri
 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
peterfarrington said:
What a load of rubbish. Such thinking is not Orthodox, not even Christian. If you think that is Protestant or Roman Catholic then it shows that there is something seriously wrong with your Orthodoxy.
You simply don't know the Balkans or the middle east.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,444
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
sdcheung said:
You simply don't know the Balkans or the middle east.
Since when does the Orthodox Church get to put aside Christ and His Gospel in favour of the Balkans and the Middle East?
 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Age
59
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
Faith
Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Patriarchal Diocese
Maybe not, but I do know Christianity, and hatred of any person is anti-Christ. Such attitudes bring shame upon all Christians and diminish the ability of Christianity to offer the gospel of love without seeming completely hypocritical.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

They which hate shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven!
 

jbc1949

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Jakub said:
Today we should all down a shooter to the next Ecumenical Council, I'm sure we won't be around to drink to it then.

james
Make mine 12 year old scotch and leave the bottle!

Jim C.
 

jbc1949

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Albuquerque, NM
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é said:
Not to dismiss your lengthy reply. We need to clean up our house first. As to a Great Council with both communions involved, I could not even begin to speculate how that would happen ;) We can't get past the first two issues now over 950 years old between east and West.

Demetri

Demetri
Unfortunately "prolix" is my middle name as my good friends on another forum know only too well and tolerate charitably.

I once read a comment analogous to yours on the web site of a very traditional Orthodox jurisdiction (well what Orthodox jurisdiction isn't traditional?) that stated that Catholics and Protestants must come together 1st before approaching union with Orthodoxy. If this is true, then add another 650 to 1,000 years to my aforementioned timetable.

Jim C.
 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Age
59
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
Faith
Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Patriarchal Diocese
Why on earth would that be necessary, or likely. Sounds like some so called traditionalist just doesn't want to even have to consider doing whatever is necessary and permissible to bring about reconciliation between Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
 

jbc1949

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Mor Ephrem said:
Not at all. Everyone knows that any reunion council would only be the Fourth. :p
Good gracious! Add another 300+ years to mutually argue, anathemize, curse, etc. the non-Chalcedonians. But what will it be? Orthodox & Catholics vs. non-Chalcedonians or a 3 way fight?

Jim C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top