Define "Supremacy"

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Where’s all this misinformation? What thread are you talking about?

It was way back in July last year and I have now forgotten. You could search my earliest messages from that period.

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicingwithout end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[HagiaSophia]

Fr Ambrose:

I have not posted on that board for months -apart from a few non-controversial contributions to the Saints’ section --which was actually the reason why I first became involved there - I put out a daily e-mail with the Lives of the Celtic Saints.

If anyone is interested then please go to
Celtic & Old English Saints
groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints/
You can simply read the Lives or you can sign up for the daily e-mail.

Another way to sign up is to send a blank e-mail to
celt-saints-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

But I more or less abandoned that previous board when some Catholic people appealed to me to contribute to this Forum where they said Orthodoxy was getting a bad rap.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

You gotta be kiddin!!! If you in particular, didn’t initiate, this thread would have no posts.

Back up, steve b, to the first post in this thread which was initiated by GASissi, and I quote:

**GAssisi: ** What is the non-Catholic definition of papal supremacy?

and

These are the questions I must ask in order to comprehend the apparent inconsistencies in the Orthodox rhetoric. Can anyone answer these latter questions?

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[HagiaSophia]

Fr Ambrose:

It was way back in July last year and I have now forgotten. You could search my earliest messages from that period.

I am really somewhat confused by the last few posts: to the best of my knowledge,

It is not required that people posting here be “invited” - they are welcome to come.

It is none of anyone else’s business where people post besides this board and I have noted that many Catholics have stated various boards they go to and participate in or just to check out posts from other faiths. Unless they mention it, it’s not really of any particular interest to me.

I do not feel that Fr. Ambrose or anyone else here has to find threads for other posters who want to jibe or provoke them. My suggestion is that if some find themselves unable to, due to some social weakness in manners or civility, discuss other faiths, you are perhaps in the wrong section of the forum, but need to understand that others enjoy conversation back and forth among differing groups - sometimes we argue, sometimes we talk, sometimes we share, sometimes we debate, but we are here because we CHOOSE to be here - and I would expect that ALL of us are interested in at least some of the others who come.

It is a GIVEN when discussing faith issues between differing beliefs that there are issues which cannot be found in agreement - else we wouldnt be different any longer, we would be the same and then we wouldn’t be in this section of the forum any longer either.

But no one here should have to defend why they are here unless they are egregiously encourging anti-Catholicism or anti Christian postures. So far on this board I have met Muslims, Orthodox, Eastern Rites, RC’s, Anglicans, Lutherans and even a couple of Masons.

I do not consider people stating what their particular faith holds, and why they hold it, in a civil and courteous manner to have to do more than that.

We are called by the Logos who was Light Unto the World to follow His example - I trust that all of us, no matter how heated the exchanges, no matter how painful some of the historical facts, can slowly work our way along that path.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Back up, steve b, to the first post in this thread which was initiated by GASissi, and I quote:

To be fair this thread is a continuance of many other threads that are now closed because of tempers that got out of hand. Greg summarized a few points from past conversations. He didn’t introduce anything new.

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

To be fair this thread is a continuance of many other threads that are now closed because of tempers that got out of hand.

Not really. In threads where tempers are riding high, the moderators will first issue one or two warnings about charity levels before they close it.

Our threads were closed by the Super Moderator because, as she says: “This thread has gone off topic and is now closed.”

The Orthodox do find it hard to stay on topic

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

It’s just a little surprising to find anti-semitism in the mouth of a 20th century friar canonised by the present Pope

1. We don’t know for sure Padre Pio made the statement.
2. If he did, I’d like to see the source and the context.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

I would not be writing this if you did not use the sad smiley. It is a fact that Russian Orthodox actively and currently support the anti-Semitic language of the Fathers. I even read an article from OrthodoxInfo.org (or a link given on it) defending the anti-Semitic language of the Fathers on the principle that Orthodox – unlike Catholics, stated the article – cannot readily ascribe error to the statements of Church Fathers that the Church has canonized as Saints. Of course, this is on the assumption that you understand and accept such efforts by Orthodox to rationalize anti-Semitic statements by the Fathers. If you do, then I do not see why you would use a sad smiley; if you don’t, then neglect what I have said.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

It is a fact that Russian Orthodox actively and currently support the anti-Semitic language of the Fathers

You are not correct.

Here is a sermon by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) - a renowned theologian of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was offered the Patriarchal Throne of the Church of Antioch but he declined and in 1922 he became the first Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

“O brethren, I wish to make you understand this so that you would comprehend that even today the Jewish tribe is dear to God’s heart, and realise that God is angered by anyone who would offend that people…”

“How sinful is enmity against Jews, based on an ignorance of God’s law, and how shall it be forgiven when it arises from abominable and disgraceful impulses.”

“O believers in God and His Christ! Fear the Lord’s judgment in behalf of His people. Fear to offend the inheritors of the promise, even though they have been renounced. We are not empowered to judge them for their unbelief; the Lord and not we will judge. We, looking upon their zeal even though it is “not according to knowledge” (Rm.10:2) would do better to contemplate their fathers: the righteous Abraham…”

Saint Antony Khrapovitsky not only preached against the pogroms, and attempted to influence the government to intervene, but on at least one occasion, he placed himself in the breach. While he was bishop in Volyn, a mob of pogromists was marching on the local synagogue. Metropolitan Antony drove his carriage into the path of the surging march, placing himself between the mob and the synagogue, and censured the crowd for their intended crime.

The text of the full sermon:
new-ostrog.org/pogroms.html

http://www.roca.org/OA/61/61f.ht2.jpg

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[HagiaSophia]

1. We don’t know for sure Padre Pio made the statement.

1. If he did, I’d like to see the source and the context.

Me too and as widely quoted as Pio is, I find it rather remarkable that neither yahoo nor google can find such a quote. I wish the poster who is using that quote would provide a context and reference.

 

[HagiaSophia]

GAssisi:

Dear Father,

I would not be writing this if you did not use the sad smiley. It is a fact that Russian Orthodox actively and currently support the anti-Semitic language of the Fathers. I even read an article from OrthodoxInfo.org (or a link given on it) defending the anti-Semitic language of the Fathers on the principle that Orthodox – unlike Catholics, stated the article – cannot readily ascribe error to the statements of Church Fathers that the Church has canonized as Saints. Of course, this is on the assumption that you understand and accept such efforts by Orthodox to rationalize anti-Semitic statements by the Fathers. If you do, then I do not see why you would use a sad smiley; if you don’t, then neglect what I have said.

God bless,

Greg

I have never heard this from any Russian nor Greek Orthodox that I’ve ever met or known. Quotes from the past I have seen used in an attempt to blacken the name of the great Damascene, but certainly not in current times have I ever seen anything by anyone REPUTABLE stating these kinds of things.

As for the past - perhaps since this thread has wandered hither, thither and yon, you can start a new one as 300 posts is getting far too long for anyone to sustain one subject and stay on focus.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Matthew,

Can you please provide evidence that I have ever called Father Ambrose “ignorant.” I do admit that I have regarded Orthodox as “invincibly ignorant,” but that phrase does not at all contain any sort of deprecatory implication (if you feel it does, you need to read up on it a bit more).

Isn’t accusing someone falsely a sin greater than (apparent) disrespect for a priest?

Dear Father,

Such examples of bravery against anti-Semitism have many counterparts in the Catholic Church. But I am not talking about anti-Semitism today. I am talking about defending the anti-Semitic language of the Church Fathers. Can you please re-read my post and answer my question accordingly? Thanks.

God bless,

Greg

 

[HagiaSophia]

GAssisi:

Can you please provide evidence that I have ever called Father Ambrose “ignorant.” I do admit that I have regarded Orthodox as “invincibly ignorant,” but that phrase does not at all contain any sort of deprecatory implication (if you feel it does, you need to read up on it a bit more).

Well I’m not Fr. Ambrose, but I can tell you this, if I was invited into your home or at a meeting and had to interface with you, and you had the poor judgment to call me invincibly ignorant, I’d get up and leave the room. As I have remarked to you before, and as I believe others have gently intimated, it ain’t always what you do, sometimes it is HOW you do it.

Do you think that when the Pope talks to the patriarchs he tells them when they point out the difficulties and questions and reservations tht they have, “well, you are invincibly ignorant”? Dear Heavens - may I ask— did you have a Catholic education?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

I am talking about defending the anti-Semitic language of the Church Fathers. Can you please re-read my post and answer my question accordingly? Thanks

I do not wish to defend the anti-semitic language of the Fathers of the early and mid 4th century. But I do understand some of its origin.

During the 300 years of the Roman persecution the Jews had enthusiastically collaborated with the Romans in killing Christians. They denounced their Christian neighbours to the authorities and this led to the torture and martyrdom of the Christians.

Chrysostom is writing a few years after this all ceased.

Of course this is perhaps not all that could be said. Some scholars say that the roots of anti-semitism are found in the Gospel and epistles of Saint John - and they can actually make quite a good case for it.

 

[steve_b]

Orthodoc:

Seems like this Mary has her facts a little off balance.

Orthodoc

You and I have different sources of history. Notice the Orthodox view of Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky(3/4 down page) a player in the murder of Josephat, vs how Catholics see him (1/4 down page).

orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjob.aspx

saintannparish.org/communication/newsletters/112001/139N11.html

Byelorussia and the Ukraine was then part of Poland-Lithuania, an Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev and five Orthodox bishops decided to commit the millions of Christians under their pastoral care to reunion with Rome.[snip] Many of the millions of Christians did not agree with the bishops decision to return and both sides tried to resolve this disagreement unfortunately not only with words but with violence. Josaphat was a voice of peace in this dissent.

Josaphat found a soulmate in Joseph Benjamin Rutsky. Rutsky who had joined the Byzantine Rite under orders of Pope Clement VIII after converting from Calvinism shared Josaphat’s passion for reunion with Rome. The two friends spent long hours making plans on how they could bring about that communion.

Rutsky became metropolitan of Kiev. Josaphat put into practice his early plans of reform. Josaphat faced problems when he became first bishop of Vitebsk and then Polotsk in 1617. The church there was literally and figuratively in ruins with buildings falling apart, clergy marrying two or three times, and monks and clergy everywhere not really interested in pastoral care or model Christian living. Within three years, Josaphat had rebuilt the church by holding synods, publishing a catechism to be used all over, and enforcing rules of conduct for clergy. The Orthodox separatists set up their own bishops in the exact same area. Meletius Smotritsky was named his rival archbishop of Polotsk. It hurt Josaphat to see the people he had served so faithfully break into riots when the King of Poland declared Josaphat the only legitimate archbishop. His former diocese of Vitebsk turned completely against the reunion and him along with two other cities.

The separatists saw their chance to get rid of Josaphat and discredit him if they could only stir Josaphat’s party to strike the first blow. Then they would have an excuse to strike back. Their threats were so public that Josaphat preached on the gospel verse John 16:2, “Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.” He told the people, “You people want to kill me. You wait in ambush for me in the streets, on the bridges, on the highways, in the marketplace, everywhere. Here I am; I came to you as a shepherd. You know I would be happy to give my life for you. I am ready to die for union of the Church under St. Peter and his successor the Pope.”
Josaphat insisted that his party not react in anyway that did not show patience and forbearance. When the separatists saw that they were not getting the violent response they had hoped for they decided to wear Josaphat and the others down. A priest named Elias went to the house where everyone was staying and shouted insults and threats to everyone he saw, focusing on calumniating Josaphat and the Church of Rome.

Elias had not been hurt in anyway but as soon as the mob saw that Elias had been locked up they rejoiced in the excuse they had been waiting for. They wanted the blood they had been denied for so long.

Josaphat came out in the courtyard to see the mob beating and trampling his friends and servants. If you have anything against me, here I am, but leave them alone!" With shouts of “Kill the papist” Josaphat was hit with a stick, then an axe, and finally shot through the head. His bloody body was dragged to the river and thrown in, along with the body of a dog who had tried to protect him.

The unsung heroes of this horrible terrorism were the Jewish people of Vitebsk. Some of the Jewish people risked their own lives to rush into the courtyard and rescue Josaphat’s friends and servants from the bloodthirsty mobs. These same Jewish people were the only ones to publicly accuse the killers and mourn the death of Josaphat

Regret and horror at how far the violence had gone and the loss of their archbishop swung public opinion over toward the Catholics and unity. Eventually even Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky, Josaphat’s rival, was reconciled with Rome. And in 1867 Josaphat became the first saint of the Eastern church to be formally canonized by Rome.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

You and I have different sources of history. Notice the Orthodox view of Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky(3/4 down page) a player in the murder of Josephat, vs how Catholics see him (1/4 down page).

Ugh! Did we have to bring Josephat Kuntsevich into this thread?

OK, so you’ve given the Orthodox line and the Catholic line. Now here is the Catholic line from the actual time when he was alive…

Here is another historical source - the the Catholic Chancellor of Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, the representative of the Catholic Polish King, wrote to Josaphat Kuntsevich on 12 March, 1622, which is one and a half years before Josaphat’s death:

“…By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism.”

Just before his “martyr’s end,” which occurred on November 12, 1623 in Vitebsk, Kuntsevich ordered the disposal of dead Orthodox by having their corpses exhumed and thrown to dogs. In all of his Polotsky diocese, both in Mogilyov and in Orsha, he pillaged and terrorized the Orthodox, closing and burning churches. Eloquent complaints were sent to judges and to the Polish Sejm.

For more information see this message on a Catholic Forum

cin.org/archives/apolo/199810/0580.html

Since the Pope encourages us to move from the “dialogue of love” to the “dialogue of truth” here is the Orthodox view of this dreadful man. The Jesuit bishop Saint Josaphat Kuntsevich - killed by an Orthodox crowd and therefore proclaimed a Saint and Martyr by Rome. A martyr for Rome - yes. A martyr for Christ - no.

"In the sixteenth Century shifting political boundaries found large numbers of Orthodox within a united Polish-Lithuanian kingdom, at once anti-Russian and militantly Catholic. The forceful conversion of the Orthodox, conducted primarily by the Jesuits, was “legitimised” in 1596 by the Council of Brest-Litovsk, which proclaimed the “union” of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches within the Polish-Lithuanian State. (A medal coined at the creation of the Unia showed Pope Clement VIII on his throne with a Russian prostrated before him.)

"To facilitate this conversion, the Orthodox were allowed to retain the Eastern (Byzantine) rite and many externals of Orthodox worship–icons, iconostasis, Orthodox style vestments, the eight-point cross… They continued using the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and simply commemorated the pope instead of the patriarch. Many simple people thus converted without realising the theological consequences. Those who refused to join this Uniate Church were persecuted; thousands were martyred.

"A leader in this campaign, the Polish Jesuit Josaphat Kuntsevich, admitted that he freely drowned the Orthodox, chopped off their heads and profaned their churches; he ordered their dead bodies to be thrown to dogs.

"But one day, arriving in Vitebsk on the 12th of November, 1623, with a band of his cohorts, Kuntsevich proceeded to knock down the tents where the Orthodox secretly held divine services. One of Kuntsevich’s deacons attacked an Orthodox priest. The crowd, which had run out of patience, then turned on Kuntsevich, who was personally leading this pogrom, and with sticks and stones beat him to death. His maimed body was placed in a sack and tossed into the Diva river. "

Such was the inglorious end of the earthly life of this poor soul.

In those evil times, there is no denying that the hands of Orthodox and Catholics alike were stained with the blood of their fellow men. But for the Pope to proclaim Josephat Kuntsevich a Saint is an endorsement of savagery and murder against the Orthodox.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Fr Ambrose:

I do not wish to defend the anti-semitic language of the Fathers of the early and mid 4th century. But I do understand some of its origin.

We had a thread a long time ago about anti semitism re early Fathers and several of us found that the one thing missing was context - as you are well aware, what is going on in the backround is critical to properly hear them when they speak, they are addressing the issues of their day and time - so that I don’t have to retype it all, here is an old post of my own I made at that time:

">>>(Old post) One of the reasons I have not joined this thread was in looking through it there seemed to be no historical context to it - anti semitism, today and during WWII is vastly different from what was going on in the late 4th century, there were more Jews in the Roman Empire than there were Christians. The Judiasim of that day was an aggressively proselytizing faith, competing with Christianity for new converts. Most of Chrysostom’s flock were recent, very simply catechized former pagans, bombarded with apologetics from Jews and Judaizing sects, and in light of the living memory of many at that time, the Jews had sided with Julian the Apostate (who promised to evict the Christians from Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple), and you have the situation for “anti-Judaizing”, not anti-Semitic polemics.

You also have to know that the preaching style of the times, in which Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Basil the Great and Gregory were trained, required a certain amount of negativity to be heaped upon the “other side”. It is still a cause for applause in the marketplaces of some places in the world to be able to curse out, tell off, and vent with prose which covers your oppositon’s anatomy, geneaology, apearance, and familial antecedents without repeating yourself. This will get you a round of applause from those in the street who happen to hear it.

It would be the same as taking the polemics of Luther’s time as the Reformation is being countered and Catholics and Protestants are dying for their beliefs and comparing it with how Lutherans and Catholics speak to one another today. You cannot have a civil discussion with much factual information in it, unless you have a “context”.going on.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

I assure you there are Eastern Catholic priests that are married and serve in the North American territories. Feel free to consult an Eastern Catholic source, and you may also want to read my post #291. The restriction is being lifted on local levels, and not collectively, because there are areas where the prescription is still relevant. Simple as that.

I do not understand the purpose of your explanation of the term “sui juris.” Please re-read my posts #271 and #278 for the canonical considerations that you keep neglecting to take into account. I wonder: how does the Orthodox Church handle immigrations of Orthodox members of one jurisdiction into another jurisdiction? From what I know, those Orthodox immigrants simply become members of the new jurisdiction; when an immigrant population becomes large enough, a formal move is made, if desired or necessary, to establish another separate jurisdiction. If my understanding is correct, your argument fails miserably on two points: 1) the Eastern Catholic immigrant population in the Western jurisdiction of the North American territories have not applied nor made any formal moves to create a separate jurisdiction; 2) the Church of the Ukraine has made several moves to establish a separate jurisdiction from the Russian Orthodox Church, but the powers that be of that Church have consistently refused to allow their independence. It seems that whatever it is you are (falsely) accusing the Catholic Church of in North America, the Russian Orthodox is actually guilty of in their own backyard. Does the phrase “log in the eye” ring any bells? The fact of the matter is, the situation of the Church today is rather different from the situation in the undivided Church. There are no canons of the undivided Church to which we can refer that can mitigate the present situation of large congregations of one sui juris Church immigrating into the jurisdiction of another sui juris Church. We have customs, but no canons, and present custom indicates that there is nothing wrong with what the Catholic Church is presently doing.

And you stated “when it suited the purpose of Rome to do so.” I guess you selectively failed to read the part of my post which stated that Rome did not initiate the celibacy directive. It was initiated by an Archbishop of the North American territories. I believe this was the proper canonical procedure in the undivided Church, so I do not know what you are ranting and raving about.

Finally, I made absolutely no suggestion that Russia was aggressively evangelized. This is an instance of eisegesis – a rhetorical error in which person A imposes premises or beliefs on person B’s argument that are actually the premises or beliefs of person A. The notion of being aggressively evangelized was your own presumption of how Catholics evangelized Latin America, and you falsely attributed that notion to me. Sheesh, the extent that anti-Catholics will go to in order to defend erroneous statements! I assume you agree with the point I intended for mentioning the Russian situation, since you did not bother to refute it.

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Hagia Sophia,

Father Ambrose, and I believe all the Orthodox who participate here (perhaps not Matthew), are aware of the definition of “invincible ignorance.” I have used that term three or four times to explain why Catholics do not regard Orthodox as heretics - not one has ever chided me for the explanation. And I have never directly told someone on this board that they are in fact invincibly ignorant.

Exactly what education do you propose I receive?

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

I assure you there are Eastern Catholic priests that are married and serve in the North American territories

Married Clergy
On Saturday, December 20, 1996, Bishop John Elya [defied the Vatican - Fr A] ordained the first married American priest for the American Melkite Church. The church has traditionally had married clergy in other parts of the world, but within the United States the clergy had remained unmarried due to a 1929 Vatican decision that married clergy would be restricted to the patriarchal territories. This 1929 “ban” was imposed so that the mixture of married and celibate would not be “confusing” to American Catholics. In recent years, Canadian Eastern Catholic (Ukrainian) bishops have ordained some married men without the approval or disapproval of Rome - although these ordinations have caused some negative comments from the more conservative members of the Eastern Congregation.

There are have been married Melkite clergy in America over the past two decades, but these men have been in the New World on temporary assignments or they were ordained in the old country and then came to Canada. Father Andre St. Germain is believed to be the first openly ordained Melkite priest in America for the American Eparchy.

Father St. Germain lives with his wife in Manchester, New Hampshire and is currently the economos (treasurer) of the eparchy.

melkite.org/latin.htm#Married