bartholomew-to-reinvigorate-dialogue-with-catholics

[Mickey]

Of course the message of Fatima has always been interpreted to mean the conversion of Russia to Roman Catholicism. Why do you think Traditionalists to this day keep calling for the “Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”?

Yes. The zealots like to throw that one around.

Russia, I believe from what I observe, is more Christian than the entire North America.

I agree with you.

In Russia, they have scaled down on abortion that only specific cases are allowed after 12 weeks.

I am praying that Russia can continue to pass more stringent abortion laws and be an example to America.

The problem with democracy is that we haven’t realized that our government is atheistic. As much as the communists in Russia

It is very sad. I read an article on CNN yesterday that said: for the first time, there is a majority in America who support gay “marriage” and legalization of pot. The tide has turned because of the those under the age of thirty. Our government has also convinced many that they have a right to abortion health care coverage. We are sinking fast, my friend. The author of the article was almost rejoicing in this news. I hope we can learn some lessons from countries such as Russia.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes. The zealots like to throw that one around.
I agree with you.
I am praying that Russia can continue to pass more stringent abortion laws and be an example to America.
It is very sad. I read an article on CNN yesterday that said: for the first time, there is a majority in America who support gay “marriage” and legalization of pot. The tide has turned because of the those under the age of thirty. Our government has also convinced many that they have a right to abortion health care coverage. We are sinking fast, my friend. The author of the article was almost rejoicing in this news. I hope we can learn some lessons from countries such as Russia.

The persecution of Russia is what made them holy. Given the paganistic ways of our society comes hand-in-hand with the freedom of democracy, I don’t think we as a society will learn.

The only real way I believe is for us faithful Christians to have as many kids as we can, do our best to raise them as good Christians, and let God work through time and hopefully our decendants will prevail as those who choose the culture of death die off through abortion and contraception.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes. The zealots like to throw that one around.
I agree with you.
I am praying that Russia can continue to pass more stringent abortion laws and be an example to America.
It is very sad. I read an article on CNN yesterday that said: for the first time, there is a majority in America who support gay “marriage” and legalization of pot. The tide has turned because of the those under the age of thirty. Our government has also convinced many that they have a right to abortion health care coverage. We are sinking fast, my friend. The author of the article was almost rejoicing in this news. I hope we can learn some lessons from countries such as Russia.

I’d like to add something as a side comment.

One of the reasons I choose to become Orthodox is because I see the Orthodox faith as better prepared for the situation we have here in North America. Her recent experience with the Ottoman Emprie (which continues today through Islamic Turkey) and the Bolsheviks and Communism in Russia and the Soviet Republics, the Orthodox Church understands persecution and how to live through it preserving her flock against the tyrany of the secular rulers. Catholicism for the most part has lived in free nations. Of the over 1 billion Catholics in the world, only a handful live in places like China and the Middle East where there is ongoing persecution. Most Catholics lives in Western Europe, North America, South America, and former Western European colonies like the Philippines and East Timor that are democratic nations to this day. While I do not disagree in fighting your own government against immoral laws, I find it sad that the attitude seems to be that if the immoral law is passed, it is the end of good moral living. I think the recent experience of the Orthodox Churches have reminded them, as the early Christians were prior to Constantine, that our rulers will do us no favors. In spite of them we should be good Christians. And it doesn’t matter what is made legal, what is important that we ourselves live our lives accordingly and through our actions we show others the path to Christ.

In the Philippines they were talking about a Catholic Vote. This came from this little sect that is a copy-cat of the LDS. They gained power and influence in the country despite being a small religious sect (about 5 million in a country of 100 million where about half today are practicing Catholics). Their strength is in the perceived power of their vote where their leader tells them who to vote during elections, and they vote for those. So despite small numbers, those are guaranteed votes for the politicians. And the Catholics want to stoop down to the level of a cult? It is sad. Sure, today we are fighting against immoral laws like the Reproductive Health bill which grants government funding to contraceptives. But if this proves effective, what next? Do we use the Church to influence political power? And to what extent? I think in the long run this will create greater evils than the problems it will solve. Political influence is not God’s ways, render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. I think Catholics need to focus on better catechesis of the people they have now, overall there is a poor level of catechesis. If we can prove in our own actions that we are truly of God’s, then other people will follow. Then it will not matter what is legal or not. They can open all the abortion clinics they want, if people are formed well in the faith they will not have an abortion. It is as simple as that. We need to fight the way God fights, that is a spiritual battle aimed at capturing the hearts of men and women. Not a political fight.

 

[Reuben_J]

"Reuben J:

Which is what he has been doing except that it is not his habit to veto the voice of his bishops. On the other hand it is his prerogative to veto any heretic teaching and declaration, he being the defender of the Church.

Pastor Aeternus says the contrary. Even if we say the Pope would require a council to decide on a matter, he is still the only infallible voice. Even if all bishops agree to something and the Pope would object, if he on his own will decides not to declare something infallibly, then it is not declared infallible for whatever reason.

I appreciate your response but dismay at your lack of comprehensive reading of my post. Not that you cannot read but you did not read my post properly. What did I say that is contrary to Pastor Aeternus? Read my post again.

You are merely repeating what I did not dispute. I don’t know why. If you want to make a statement to contribute to the thread you could just do so without referring to my post.
While Pastor Aeternus is clear and which I did not deny, in practice the Pope listens to the voice of the Bishops even though he could veto them. This is often the case of a council that he calls and the bishops deliberate. At the end of the day he makes his decision and very often that would be in conformance to his bishops.

The veto theoretically is more apt to be used to call a heretic teaching. This does not likely to happen but if the bishops come up with something heretical, then the Pope should use that veto power. So yes, I wonder why I must repeat this, but yes, the Pope has veto power. What we would like to explain is that the veto is not always used incredulously and mischievously according to the whim and the fancy of a Pope. The system itself especially in the modern DAY papacy has made a dictatorial Pope almost impossible. The Church is not his personal fiefdom but he is a spiritual leader. It was different in the olden days where information could not be dispersed quickly, where there was lack of literacy and where politic more often than not, ruled.

And there is that issue of universal ordinary jurisdiction which the Orthodox bishops will never ever agree to.

Plus there have been other decrees from the Vatican which places the Pope above all other bishops. In whatever capacity that may be, that is unacceptable to the Orthodox.

Probably this is the statement that you are itching to make. Well, you are free to say that and which I don’t dispute but this is not the intention of my post.

The encouraging development that this thread brings up is that Patriach Bartholomew speaks positively about an ongoing dialogue. That in itself signify hope, no matter how difficult the path that they will tread. We, as lay people, can pray so that we will be one because this is always the prayer of Jesus Christ. Also that the Holy Spirit will empower those who are in the position of power to decide on this. It is in this context that we can only hope. Christianity is a religion of hope. Without hope, we are nothing but with hope we look forward to the future, even death. There is so much promise of the Lord in store for us. We only need just to believe.

 

[Mickey]

I’d like to add something as a side comment.

One of the reasons I choose to become Orthodox is because I see the Orthodox faith as better prepared for the situation we have here in North America. Her recent experience with the Ottoman Emprie (which continues today through Islamic Turkey) and the Bolsheviks and Communism in Russia and the Soviet Republics, the Orthodox Church understands persecution and how to live through it preserving her flock against the tyrany of the secular rulers. Catholicism for the most part has lived in free nations. Of the over 1 billion Catholics in the world, only a handful live in places like China and the Middle East where there is ongoing persecution. Most Catholics lives in Western Europe, North America, South America, and former Western European colonies like the Philippines and East Timor that are democratic nations to this day. While I do not disagree in fighting your own government against immoral laws, I find it sad that the attitude seems to be that if the immoral law is passed, it is the end of good moral living. I think the recent experience of the Orthodox Churches have reminded them, as the early Christians were prior to Constantine, that our rulers will do us no favors. In spite of them we should be good Christians. And it doesn’t matter what is made legal, what is important that we ourselves live our lives accordingly and through our actions we show others the path to Christ.

In the Philippines they were talking about a Catholic Vote. This came from this little sect that is a copy-cat of the LDS. They gained power and influence in the country despite being a small religious sect (about 5 million in a country of 100 million where about half today are practicing Catholics). Their strength is in the perceived power of their vote where their leader tells them who to vote during elections, and they vote for those. So despite small numbers, those are guaranteed votes for the politicians. And the Catholics want to stoop down to the level of a cult? It is sad. Sure, today we are fighting against immoral laws like the Reproductive Health bill which grants government funding to contraceptives. But if this proves effective, what next? Do we use the Church to influence political power? And to what extent? I think in the long run this will create greater evils than the problems it will solve. Political influence is not God’s ways, render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. I think Catholics need to focus on better catechesis of the people they have now, overall there is a poor level of catechesis. If we can prove in our own actions that we are truly of God’s, then other people will follow. Then it will not matter what is legal or not. They can open all the abortion clinics they want, if people are formed well in the faith they will not have an abortion. It is as simple as that. We need to fight the way God fights, that is a spiritual battle aimed at capturing the hearts of men and women. Not a political fight.

Good post.

Christ is Born!
Glorify Him!

 

[Schism_hater]

Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

I hope that you are not under the popular misimpression that that is a quote from St. Augustine supporting papal supremacy and infallibility. It isn’t, and he didn’t.

 

[CopticChristian]

10180788]Compared to what you have repeatedly attempted to do. You have completely removed all of the below from the context given in UUS 18. By the way I strongly suggest you look into a little something called the hermeneutic of continuity.

I fail to see where this is in contradiction with what I have asserted. In fact I find no contradiction with anything I’ve said in this thread with Ut Unum Sint.

Let me ask you a very clear question with which you only need to answer yes or no.

**Is it your contention that the Roman Catholic Church can, for example, drop Her teaching of Papal infallibility and remove it from the deposit of the faith so as it is not longer binding on the faithful to believe?/**QUOTE]

LD,

It is my contention that the Magesterium and the Orthodox leaders can dialogue and understand something that some accept and others reject so as to explain how it is the Bishop of Rome might be seen in the eyes of ecumenism and to this I stand in awe as no theologian.

You want me to tell you that as Catholics we believe this or that? You can consult the Catechism for that…what is happening in dialogue is not for us to take as this must be so or that must be so and you do a diservice when you place the Miter on your head and speak out of turn.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thank you. I am happy for you also. Slava Isusu Christu!

Slava Naviki…

 

[Mickey]

Slava Naviki…

 

[CopticChristian]

Compared to what you have repeatedly attempted to do. You have completely removed all of the below from the context given in UUS 18. By the way I strongly suggest you look into a little something called the hermeneutic of continuity.

I fail to see where this is in contradiction with what I have asserted. In fact I find no contradiction with anything I’ve said in this thread with Ut Unum Sint.

Let me ask you a very clear question with which you only need to answer yes or no.

Is it your contention that the Roman Catholic Church can, for example, drop Her teaching of Papal infallibility and remove it from the deposit of the faith so as it is not longer binding on the faithful to believe?

LD,

You can state what you believe, insist what you insist and then look at rationale approaches…this sounds good.

ncregister.com/daily-news/east-west-catholic-dialogue-in-d.c

The main stumbling block to unity, most speakers agreed, is the papacy: How far must Eastern Catholics go? Metropolitan Kallistos cited what is called the “Ratzinger Formula,” developed by Pope Benedict XVI while he was still a cardinal, as the key document in reflecting on the papacy.

The Ratzinger Formula states that the Catholic Church “must not require from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy” acceptance of anything that they did not accept in the first millennium, before the Church split in 1054. It also requires Eastern Christians to cease to regard as heretical later developments in Catholicism.

So if there is unity, no one has to have anyone like LD telling anyone what to think and believe, we take our advice from those looking to unite and not divide.

Unity has to start somewhere and this is better than someone yelling from one side of the fence…

Jesus loves you and so do I…you heretical progressive…

Thank you and bless you…you incessant schismatic…

May your day be filled with joy and wonder…

 

[Schism_hater]

IBut after the scourge of communism…the faith of Russia is an example to the world…and I will stand by my thoughts about Russia converting the world!

Socialism has come to America…and she should look at lessons of history before she also faces the waves of persecutions.

Russia has gotten rid of one great evil, but may fall into another if it isn’t careful. Predatory capitalists are carving up Russia, and attempting to pollute it with materialism and Social Darwinism, as had happened in America.

America’s problem is not socialism, it is materialism and consumerism. Just because communism was a great evil, doesn’t mean it is the ONLY evil.

 

[CopticChristian]

Russia has gotten rid of one great evil, but may fall into another if it isn’t careful. Predatory capitalists are carving up Russia, and attempting to pollute it with materialism and Social Darwinism, as had happened in America.

America’s problem is not socialism, it is materialism and consumerism. Just because communism was a great evil, doesn’t mean it is the ONLY evil.

SH,

I appreciate what you say however if you look at the bigger picture…and I am sure I will raise some eyebrows here…

The scourge of the East is Islam

The scourge of the West is Protestanism

In Unity, agreeing to bring the Gospel in unity then we can succeed in those areas together you mention.

 

[dvdjs]

You are entitled to your opinion (you have made it no secret that you are not fond of Russia…so your continued attacks do not surprise me).

Please don’t characterize my posts as attacks on Russia, or my feelings about Russia. I have a great love of Russia and Russian culture. But there are limits: facts are stubborn things. The rosy picture of Russia as a bastion of holiness and a great, saving example in the present is utter malarkey - and a delusion that is probably dangerous.

As I said there are far better examples of responses to brutalization, of steadfast resistance to attacks on the faith, and to prevailing against the odds and making a great comeback (5% participation in liturgical life is hardly great comeback). Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, to name a few, are enormously better examples.

A sad but undeniable fact about the communist era in Russia is the very considerable collaboration with the Communists of many in the ROC, including clergy and clergy of high rank, in the persecution of others and even of attacks on true believers within the ROC. After the fall of the Communism there was never the compunction or metanoia that one would expect from Easterners. Instead, we just same business as usual under new state management. In Romania, notwithstanding its continuing problems, the Patriarch who had been suspected of collaboration stepped down and retired to a monastery. (Moved by this example, he was restored by popular acclaim.) No such thing has happened in Russia.

Because of great affection for Russia and Russian culture, I see this situation as tragic. Any hope that the ROC has might have some great teaching to give the west is dashed by its inability to deal honestly with its recent past, with its work against faith, and with the blood, scarcely dried, on its hands. Perhaps this compromised status is part of the problem of the numbers - 80% Orthodox by culture - 5% by practice. Perhaps it explains why the MP still feels it necessary to collude with the state to restrict activities of other religious groups.

The situation in Russia, informed by reality rather than made up numbers about religious adherence, and whitewashed history is not a cause for triumphalistic sloganeering about converting the world, it is a cause for sorrow and continuing prayer for metanoia.

 

[dvdjs]

I am sure that is what Patriarch Sergius and the monothelites were thinking too, when they used imperial power to support their heresy. Similarly, I am sure that when entire Episcopalian parishes go into schism, the Episcopal Church’s hierarchy thinks that they are just doing what is best in suing to retain their property. That does not, however, excuse the fact that using civil authority to enforce matters of church governance contradicts the Scriptures. It is a grave matter which causes scandal and makes a mockery of Christ.

There is no such thing as economia on dogmatic matters. But are you going further and demanding akrebia in cases that you consider grave? Not your call, really.

All bishops are equal in terms of the inherent power of the episcopacy. Were patriarchs unequal, we would ordain them by a different rite.

Ahh but you side step the question: if what you say is true, why the fuss over having Constantinople raise to a Patriarchate, and second in honor, and with the privileges of Old Rome?

The history of the EP is far from consistent, and given the fact that these extra prerogatives picked up by the EP were never added to canon law, it can hardly be used to justify to us the current position of the papacy both dogmatically and in canon law.

I made no such justification. Rome’s primacy is historic. But I am glad to see comments that the history of the EP includes attempts to gain extra perogatives. Yes the history was lumpy, but the overall trend is unmistakable.

 

[Reuben_J]

As I said there are far better examples of responses to brutalization, of steadfast resistance to attacks on the faith, and to prevailing against the odds and making a great comeback (5% participation in liturgical life is hardly great comeback). Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, to name a few, are enormously better examples.

A sad but undeniable fact about the communist era in Russia is the very considerable collaboration with the Communists of many in the ROC, including clergy and clergy of high rank, in the persecution of others and even of attacks on true believers within the ROC. After the fall of the Communism there was never the compunction or metanoia that one would expect from Easterners. Instead, we just same business as usual under new state management. In Romania, notwithstanding its continuing problems, the Patriarch who had been suspected of collaboration stepped down and retired to a monastery. (Moved by this example, he was restored by popular acclaim.) No such thing has happened in Russia.

Because of great affection for Russia and Russian culture, I see this situation as tragic. Any hope that the ROC has might have some great teaching to give the west is dashed by its inability to deal honestly with its recent past, with its work against faith, and with the blood, scarcely dried, on its hands. Perhaps this compromised status is part of the problem of the numbers - 80% Orthodox by culture - 5% by practice. Perhaps it explains why the MP still feels it necessary to collude with the state to restrict activities of other religious groups.

The situation in Russia, informed by reality rather than made up numbers about religious adherence, and whitewashed history is not a cause for triumphalistic sloganeering about converting the world, it is a cause for sorrow and continuing prayer for metanoia.

Interesting disclosure of the ROC in post Communist Russia. That was a result of a very brutal regime. The actions of some of the ROC clergies may be understood if their purpose was to save the Church or whatever that was left of it. But after it was over, the absence of concrete metanoia is saddening which means to say they were nearly overwhelmed and obliterated by a cruel persecuting regime. Without real metanoia there will be no growth. Especially for church leaders, they have to come up like what David did – public repentance. The example of the Romanian Patriarch was exemplary and that kind of action is needed to revive the faith in the country. It reminds us of what JPII did when he officially apologized for the history of the Church. For in weakness we are strong

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is no such thing as economia on dogmatic matters.

I think you misunderstood my point. The monothelites similarly thought that they were justified to use imperial power to suppress the dyothelite faith. Just because in one case the outcome is good and in the other it is bad, it does not change the fact that an abuse of power is an abuse of power, and that the ends do not always justify the means. Economia is a Christian concept, not Machiavellian.

But are you going further and demanding akrebia in cases that you consider grave?

No, that’s not what I wrote. I am only affirming that using the civil authorities to settle ecclesiastical disputes ought not to be done, as the Scriptures teach us.

Not your call, really.

Nor is it your call what qualifies as an abuse, so I suppose we are at an impasse. But seeing as you are not an Orthodox bishop, or even Orthodox, your opinion matters even less than what you appraise mine to be worth on this matter.

Ahh but you side step the question: if what you say is true, why the fuss over having Constantinople raise to a Patriarchate, and second in honor, and with the privileges of Old Rome?

No question is being sidestepped. Bishops are all equal in power, but not in practice. You are trying to spring this line of questioning up as if it were some sort of earth-shattering problem for the affirmation that all bishops are equal, but that is clearly not what the Orthodox mean by the affirmation that all bishops are equal.

I made no such justification.

I am not entirely sure of your point here, except to a perhaps agree that idea that the fear of the imperial papacy ought to be tempered by examination of the actual history of the EP.

What does this mean, except to say that since Constantinople abused its position of primacy, people should not be so uncomfortable with an imperial papacy.

Rome’s primacy is historic.

Nobody denies that. What is disputed is what the nature of this primacy was, and whether this primacy is attached to Rome as a place or if it is a function of the Church.

But I am glad to see comments that the history of the EP includes attempts to gain extra perogatives. Yes the history was lumpy, but the overall trend is unmistakable.

This again presupposes some sort of teleological model which sees the development of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as some sort of motion towards a purpose or end. This is why you seem to treat (erroneously in my opinion) the weaker Ecumenical Patriarchate of today as being an aberration, against the historical trend, while I do not, because I reject this sort of thinking where there is an ideal (or even “historical”) model of primacy towards which the Ecumenical Patriarchate develops over time.

 

[Mickey]

The rosy picture of Russia as a bastion of holiness and a great, saving example in the present is utter malarkey - and a delusion that is probably dangerous.

You are sadly mistaken and I see this as an attack on holy Russia.

As I said there are far better examples of responses to brutalization,

If there are better examples…there surely are not many. The Russian Church and the people overcame unspeakable brutality. The metanoia continues to this day. The return to holy Orthodoxy is inspiring to see after decades of atheistic communism and an attempt to completely eliminate the fath.

A sad but undeniable fact about the communist era in Russia is the very considerable collaboration with the Communists of many in the ROC,

You know quite well (in your continuing attack) that some were weak…and could not bear martydom…others gave their lives.

After the fall of the Communism there was never the compunction or metanoia that one would expect from Easterners.

There were tens of thousands of holy martyrs. And I believe there was a great metanoia which continues to this day.

Instead, we just same business as usual under new state management.

Ah…if only America could emulate some of what you call this “same business as usual.”

Because of great affection for Russia and Russian culture, I see this situation as tragic.

I think you are showing a great bias and misunderstanding of holy Russia.

Any hope that the ROC has might have some great teaching to give the west is dashed by its inability to deal honestly with its recent past,

Nonsense. They continue to deal with their past and the great teaching they have to offer does not miraculously disappear. There are many new holy Russian martyrs who are praying for the world…they even pray for you as you continue your calumny.

80% Orthodox by culture

It will be glorious when they all completely embrace the holy faith.

whitewashed history is not a cause for triumphalistic sloganeering about converting the world,

You are the one who is whitewashing the situation in your anger and bias…this saddens me greatly. Russia will truly convert the world.

it is a cause for sorrow and continuing prayer for metanoia.

I think that you worship at an OCA Church. I will pray that your heart becomes less hardened.

 

[lax16]

Can an Orthodox answer this for me please?

If a priest counsels a couple and tells them it is okay to stop at two children and also tells them due to their very busy work schedule they don’t have to attend Sunday Church on a regular basis, is the priest speaking with authority?

What are the official teachings on these two matters?

thanks!

 

[KathleenGee]

Sorry, Lax, don’t mean to interrupt…I just got up and have alot of work to get done here with my sons…

I just went back a few posts and there is this remark that praying for the conversion of Russia was to make Russia Catholic.

THIS IS NOT TRUE at all! I was even in Fatima.

The issue was Russia, the Soviet Union, spreading her errors throughout the world…militant atheism, spreading her errors of class warfare and hatred of rich and certain races as we are seeing here in America…and how America and the Roman Catholic Church were her goals to subvert and overtake to impose worldwide. We prayed for the Christian Orthodox and read and saw films of those children who handed their parents over to the state because they had religious articles and Bibles in their homes.

Never ever did the nuns bring up any issue of the Orthodox. The Orthodox had nothing to do with our prayers.

I lived among Portuguese people and it was militant atheism.

 

[RyanBlack]

Can an Orthodox answer this for me please?

If a priest counsels a couple and tells them it is okay to stop at two children and also tells them due to their very busy work schedule they don’t have to attend Sunday Church on a regular basis, is the priest speaking with authority?

What are the official teachings on these two matters?

thanks!

It seems unlikely to me that an Orthodox priest would counsel a couple that they are not required to attend Sunday DL on a regular basis due to a busy work schedule, but if that busy work schedule actually requires them to work on Sundays (especially in a job that is essential, like working in a hospital, or as a police officer, firemen, etc.), then I suspect the priest would counsel them that they are not sinning by failing to attend DL on those Sundays when they work. As far as official church teaching, the Orthodox don’t really have the idea of days of obligation like Catholics do, but one should not fail to attend DL simply because you’d rather not go, or for trivial reasons.

As far as the question about having children and how you regulate births, I suspect you would get a range of answers. First of all, there is no Orthodox equivalent to Humanae Vitae that provides answers for the entire Church. Traditionally, the Orthodox have frowned upon contraception, and even today, any use of contraception is generally viewed as less than ideal, and permission to contracept is a matter of accommodating human weakness and frailty–an exercise of oikonomia. It is my understanding that many Orthodox clergy condemn the use of oral contraceptives due to their potential to be abortifacient, and will counsel couples to use forms of birth control that are not abortifacient.