S
- Status
M
Matthew_P
Guest
Dear Orthodoc,
Don’t click on that new advent link. It’s a trick, you could get a contagious virus in your system.
Don’t click on that new advent link. It’s a trick, you could get a contagious virus in your system.
S
steve_b
Guest
Cracow? What’s the point you’re trying to make? Did you miss the word ***UNION ***?
Part of the area marked Polish/Lithuanian union, is now Russia, but it wasn’t so circa 1600. Those lands were later conquored by force, and borders got moved. The area called Polish Lithuanian Union, including Kiev, beloned to who, circa 1600?
Excuses excuses.
Leave it to you to think that union means attack. You still haven’t identified what “land” you call “Orthodox land.”
The map shows the Polish Lithuanian union. Is it Catholic, Orthodox, both? What part of the map is solely Orthodox?
Which pope refused beatification of Josaphat?
Let’s cut to the chase. I have a hunch you think Lithuania is Orthodox country. Maybe Poland also for that matter. Here are the statistics from the State Department on Lithuania…
state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5379.htm in this, there is a short history of the Polish Lithuanian Union, and who did what to who during the centuries.
S
steve_b
Guest
Matthew P.:
Truth is contagious.
Truth is contagious.
S
steve_b
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Fr Ambrose:
Speaking of Jews, and your venemous comnments, you’ll love this bit of history
*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.” ***
**Apparantly the saints words here, as an Orthodox bishop, has the same venemous effect on you as it did the mob who murdered Josaphat. **
*But aside from words, 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 as they plotted more direct action. 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. *
*Josaphat knew of the plot against him and spent his day in prayer. In the evening he had a long conversation with a beggar he had invited in off the streets. *
*When Elias was back the next morning of November 12, the servants were at their wits’ ends and begged Josaphat’s permission to do something. Before he went off to say his office he told them they could lock Elias away if he caused trouble again. When he returned to the house he found that the servants had done just that and Josaphat let Elias out of the room. *
*But it was too late. The mistake had been made. 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. Bells were rung and mobs descended on the house. By the time they reached the house, Elias had been released but the mob didn’t care; 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. He cried out, “My children what are you doing with my 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. Through their courage, lives were saved. These same Jewish people were the only ones to publicly accuse the killers and mourn the death of Josaphat while the Catholics of the city hid in fear of their lives. *
*As usual violence had the opposite affect from that intended. 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. *
The blood of martyrs is the seedbed of the Church.
Today, this area spoken of, is 70% Catholic and 3% Orthodox. Even after communism, and Alexis II Partiarch of Russia a KGB operative had confiscated Catholic Churches and gave them to the Orthodox.
state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5379.htm
Now Alexis blocks JPII from even visiting Catholics in the Ukraine.
english.pravda.ru/society/2001/06/25/8674.html
You opened a new topic, the unia. Josaphat is part of it.
Fr Ambrose:
Orthodox Bp Meletius Smotritsky was Orthodox Bp Josaphat’s rival. He led the seperatist against Josaphat from uniting with the pope. And in so doing he ignited Orthodox mobs to brutally kill his rival Bp Josaphat. And you liken St Josaphat, to hitler?
Speaking of Jews, and your venemous comnments, you’ll love this bit of history
*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.” ***
**Apparantly the saints words here, as an Orthodox bishop, has the same venemous effect on you as it did the mob who murdered Josaphat. **
*But aside from words, 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 as they plotted more direct action. 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. *
*Josaphat knew of the plot against him and spent his day in prayer. In the evening he had a long conversation with a beggar he had invited in off the streets. *
*When Elias was back the next morning of November 12, the servants were at their wits’ ends and begged Josaphat’s permission to do something. Before he went off to say his office he told them they could lock Elias away if he caused trouble again. When he returned to the house he found that the servants had done just that and Josaphat let Elias out of the room. *
*But it was too late. The mistake had been made. 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. Bells were rung and mobs descended on the house. By the time they reached the house, Elias had been released but the mob didn’t care; 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. He cried out, “My children what are you doing with my 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. Through their courage, lives were saved. These same Jewish people were the only ones to publicly accuse the killers and mourn the death of Josaphat while the Catholics of the city hid in fear of their lives. *
*As usual violence had the opposite affect from that intended. 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. *
The blood of martyrs is the seedbed of the Church.
Today, this area spoken of, is 70% Catholic and 3% Orthodox. Even after communism, and Alexis II Partiarch of Russia a KGB operative had confiscated Catholic Churches and gave them to the Orthodox.
state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5379.htm
Now Alexis blocks JPII from even visiting Catholics in the Ukraine.
english.pravda.ru/society/2001/06/25/8674.html
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
steve b:
There is some logic missing here though. The Pope refuses to visit Russia without an invitation from the Patriarch but he visits the Ukraine without an invitation. And the Pope ackowledges that the Patriarch heads the canonical Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. I suspect that Orthodoc is right and a lot of this nonsense is organised by Vatican PR boys.
That’s a bit misleading, isn’t it? I can only guess that you did not notice the date of the article (back in 2001) nor that the article itself speaks of the Pope’s visit to the Ukraine.
There is some logic missing here though. The Pope refuses to visit Russia without an invitation from the Patriarch but he visits the Ukraine without an invitation. And the Pope ackowledges that the Patriarch heads the canonical Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. I suspect that Orthodoc is right and a lot of this nonsense is organised by Vatican PR boys.
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear Father,
The only misleading PR being done here is by you, I regret to say. You have yet to address the issues I raised on another thread. Why, if you say the RP is not preventing the Pope from visiting Russia is he forcing conditions on that visit? Why are you, in your misleading PR, neglecting the canon of the universal Church which states that an hierarch cannot cross over into the territory of another hierarch without permission? Why have you not addressed the fact that the UOC-MP is the minority Christian group in relation to those who do NOT recognize that all of Ukraine is NOT under the jurisidiction of the ROC-MP? Your supposed statistics on the other thread is another instance of your misleading PR – you base your stats on the number of parishes, not the number of adherents. BTW, to say that the Pope recognizes that the UOC-MP is under the jurisdiction of the ROC-MP is NOT the same as saying the Pope recognizes that the Ukrainian province is under the jurisdiction of the ROC-MP. Just another instance of your misleading PR.
God bless,
Greg
The only misleading PR being done here is by you, I regret to say. You have yet to address the issues I raised on another thread. Why, if you say the RP is not preventing the Pope from visiting Russia is he forcing conditions on that visit? Why are you, in your misleading PR, neglecting the canon of the universal Church which states that an hierarch cannot cross over into the territory of another hierarch without permission? Why have you not addressed the fact that the UOC-MP is the minority Christian group in relation to those who do NOT recognize that all of Ukraine is NOT under the jurisidiction of the ROC-MP? Your supposed statistics on the other thread is another instance of your misleading PR – you base your stats on the number of parishes, not the number of adherents. BTW, to say that the Pope recognizes that the UOC-MP is under the jurisdiction of the ROC-MP is NOT the same as saying the Pope recognizes that the Ukrainian province is under the jurisdiction of the ROC-MP. Just another instance of your misleading PR.
God bless,
Greg
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
So why did he enter the territory of the Russian Patriarch in the Ukraine?
It is not the minority. It is the large majority.
I really have no idea what this means
The Pope recognises that the UOC-MP is the canonical Church in the Ukraine. One needs only go back and read the mountain of press releases from the Vatican at the time of the Ukrainian visit.
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear Orthodoc,
You brought up similar issues on the Eastern Orthodox Anti-Catholicism thread regarding the jurisdiction of the Ukraine. I hope my response here will be sufficient to answer your posts there as well. No one denies that the Orthodox presence in the Ukraine has been around for a while. However, you cannot deny that MOST of Ukraine was originally Catholic. The only parts of the map that Steve B posted that the Orthodox can lay claim to are, as you yourself admitted, on the BORDER between the Polish-Lithuanian Union and the Ottoman Empire. But the very great majority of the Polish-Lithuanian lands were Catholic and evangelized by Catholics in the 14th century, not from the Orthodox, but from pagans. During all this time, the Orthodox on the borderlands were in existence, none were “forced” as you keep lying about, into Catholic Communion.
The Union of Brest was signed by all the relevant bishops on the borderlands, this of their own free will. AFTER they signed, some bishops reneged and that was the cause of the violence between Catholics and Orthodox. Orthodox hierarchs, intent on forcing Orthodox-turned-Catholic back into Orthodoxy set up rival Orthodox dioceses in these borderlands. This, again, fomented much violence among the common folk, but one can see that the Orthodox hierarchy had as much role to play in the violence in that region as anyone else. There was never a time before then, as you so slyly try to paint, when the Catholics forced the Orthodox to become Catholics.
The Union was in place for several centuries until Tsarist Russia invaded Poland and set up the Orthodox there, forcibly converting the Catholics in those areas.
SO we are at this point. Orthodoc, your argument is based COMPLETELY on a misleading inference. First, you claim that the Orthodox were already present in the Ukraine since the turn of the millennium. GRANTED, but what you fail to mention is that the Orthodox presence in that region was very small, and that most of that region was still pagan. When the Polish-Lithuanian alliance took effect in the fourteenth century, it is a given that the Orthodox had a presence in the Lithuanian (i.e., Ukrainian) lands, but, again, it was very small, and most of the region was still pagan. These pagan regions, comprising most of Lithuania/Ukraine, by virtue of its contact with Poland, were evangelized at that time NOT by Orthodox, but by CATHOLICS.
Understand that during all this time, the Catholics did not bother the Orthodox in the region. It was not until the freely established Union of Brest came about that all the violence started taking place.
Later on, Tsarist Russian takes Poland-Lithuania by conquest, and violently forces its majority Catholic population to become Orthodox. THIS is actually the FIRST time that there was ever any major presence by the Orthodox in the Ukrainian region of the Polish-Lithuanian lands.
Because of Orthodox propaganda, many Orthodox have been misled to believe that the Ukrainian lands were originally principally Orthodox. But history attests that the only thing that the Orthodox can claim is that they had a PRESENCE in the Ukrainian lands since the turn of the millennium, NOT that Ukraine was Orthodox (implying that it was under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox at that time or that the majority population was Orthodox).
Face the truth, Orthodoc. There is ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for you to claim Orthodox jurisdictional hegemony in the Ukrainian lands.
God bless,
Greg
You brought up similar issues on the Eastern Orthodox Anti-Catholicism thread regarding the jurisdiction of the Ukraine. I hope my response here will be sufficient to answer your posts there as well. No one denies that the Orthodox presence in the Ukraine has been around for a while. However, you cannot deny that MOST of Ukraine was originally Catholic. The only parts of the map that Steve B posted that the Orthodox can lay claim to are, as you yourself admitted, on the BORDER between the Polish-Lithuanian Union and the Ottoman Empire. But the very great majority of the Polish-Lithuanian lands were Catholic and evangelized by Catholics in the 14th century, not from the Orthodox, but from pagans. During all this time, the Orthodox on the borderlands were in existence, none were “forced” as you keep lying about, into Catholic Communion.
The Union of Brest was signed by all the relevant bishops on the borderlands, this of their own free will. AFTER they signed, some bishops reneged and that was the cause of the violence between Catholics and Orthodox. Orthodox hierarchs, intent on forcing Orthodox-turned-Catholic back into Orthodoxy set up rival Orthodox dioceses in these borderlands. This, again, fomented much violence among the common folk, but one can see that the Orthodox hierarchy had as much role to play in the violence in that region as anyone else. There was never a time before then, as you so slyly try to paint, when the Catholics forced the Orthodox to become Catholics.
The Union was in place for several centuries until Tsarist Russia invaded Poland and set up the Orthodox there, forcibly converting the Catholics in those areas.
SO we are at this point. Orthodoc, your argument is based COMPLETELY on a misleading inference. First, you claim that the Orthodox were already present in the Ukraine since the turn of the millennium. GRANTED, but what you fail to mention is that the Orthodox presence in that region was very small, and that most of that region was still pagan. When the Polish-Lithuanian alliance took effect in the fourteenth century, it is a given that the Orthodox had a presence in the Lithuanian (i.e., Ukrainian) lands, but, again, it was very small, and most of the region was still pagan. These pagan regions, comprising most of Lithuania/Ukraine, by virtue of its contact with Poland, were evangelized at that time NOT by Orthodox, but by CATHOLICS.
Understand that during all this time, the Catholics did not bother the Orthodox in the region. It was not until the freely established Union of Brest came about that all the violence started taking place.
Later on, Tsarist Russian takes Poland-Lithuania by conquest, and violently forces its majority Catholic population to become Orthodox. THIS is actually the FIRST time that there was ever any major presence by the Orthodox in the Ukrainian region of the Polish-Lithuanian lands.
Because of Orthodox propaganda, many Orthodox have been misled to believe that the Ukrainian lands were originally principally Orthodox. But history attests that the only thing that the Orthodox can claim is that they had a PRESENCE in the Ukrainian lands since the turn of the millennium, NOT that Ukraine was Orthodox (implying that it was under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox at that time or that the majority population was Orthodox).
Face the truth, Orthodoc. There is ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for you to claim Orthodox jurisdictional hegemony in the Ukrainian lands.
God bless,
Greg
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear Father,
The Pope felt free to visit the Ukraine because the Ukraine is not under the jurisdictional hegemony of the MP.
You have yet to prove that the majority of people belonging to hierarchical churches belongs to the UOC-MP. In contrast, I have given you solid, non-partisan proof (in the other thread) that they are not.
Your last instance is again an example of your misleading PR. Though the Pope recognizes that the UOC-MP is “canonical,” that only goes as far as Russian Orthodoxy is concerned, and that does not translate to an admission that the Ukraine is under the jurisdictional hegemony of the MP. As noted, a fact you cannot disprove, the majority of Christians belonging to hierarchical churches in the Ukraine DO NOT accept that the Ukraine is under the jurisdictional hegemony of the MP, though we can admit that the UOC-MP has the most church buildings.
God bless,
Greg
The Pope felt free to visit the Ukraine because the Ukraine is not under the jurisdictional hegemony of the MP.
You have yet to prove that the majority of people belonging to hierarchical churches belongs to the UOC-MP. In contrast, I have given you solid, non-partisan proof (in the other thread) that they are not.
Your last instance is again an example of your misleading PR. Though the Pope recognizes that the UOC-MP is “canonical,” that only goes as far as Russian Orthodoxy is concerned, and that does not translate to an admission that the Ukraine is under the jurisdictional hegemony of the MP. As noted, a fact you cannot disprove, the majority of Christians belonging to hierarchical churches in the Ukraine DO NOT accept that the Ukraine is under the jurisdictional hegemony of the MP, though we can admit that the UOC-MP has the most church buildings.
God bless,
Greg
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Spooky! Somewhere in a parallel universe, I am sure that all the above may well have happened.
Read the history of the Ukraine. How its baptism began in 988 with Prince Saint Volodymyr who rejected both Islam and Western Catholicism as the religion for his new state, chose Byzantine Christianity, formed an alliance with Constantinople and baptized, sometimes at the point of a sword, thousands of his people. During this period bishops came from Constantinople.
Read of the christianisation of Kiev which soon after Saint Vladimir’s death boasted, so the Ukrainians say, 300 churches - every one of them under the Metropolitan of Kiev who was subject to Constantinople…
Read of the foundation of Kiev’s greatest monastery the Percherska (Caves) Lavra which was founded in 1050 for the express purpose of acting as a missionary centre to convert the whole region to Orthodoxy.
Read the lives of the hundreds of Orthodox saints, mainly monks, who crisscrossed the land with their churches and monasteries and taught the people their Christianity.
Until the transfer of the Metropolitan’s seat from Kiev to Moscow in the late 13th century, Kiev had been the centre of what was known as Kievan Rus and thoroughly Orthodox.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The Pope acknowledges it to be. Perhaps you have information to the contrary of which the Pope is unaware.
Why is the Pope NOT raising the Ukrainian Catholic Church to a Patriarchate? Because he knows that the Russian Patriarch is the ruling Orthodox Primate for the Ukraine and he won’t offend him.
Take the time to run through something like the archives of zenit.org and you will see that the Pope acknowledges the canonical authority of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Ukraine.
Can you produce even just one statement from the Pope or from Vatican sources which denies that the Russian Patriarch is the canonical Orthodox authority in the Ukraine?
I wonder from where you are receiving your information. It is quite skewed. Your credibility is taking a bruising
G
GAssisi
Guest
Sorry, Father. The Orthodox version of history leaves a bit to be desired. Vladimir did NOT accept Eastern Orthodoxy. He accepted CHRISTIANITY – i.e., the faith of the undivided Church. Ask any competent historian if the Church was still united in 989 A.D. Vladimir died almost 40 years before the excommunications of 1054. So wherefore this Orthodox lie that Vladimir explicitly rejected Catholicism (as distinct from Orthodoxy)? You want further proof? Yaroslav (Vladimir’s Son), the very one who established a church center at Kiev, MARRIED HIS DAUGHTERS TO THE PRINCES OF HUNGARY AND FRANCE (i.e., “Catholics,” not “Orthodox”). Obviously, in the eyes of Kievan Rus before the 1054 Schism, and perhaps even for a generation after that, there was no such thing as “Catholic” and “Orthodox” – there was only the one faith of Christianity. Understand this. POLAND WAS CONVERTED TO THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH IN 966 A.D, EVEN BEFORE KIEVAN RUS. BEFORE THE 1054 SCHISM, MUCH OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF KIEVAN RUS WAS UNDER POLISH RULE. The boundaries shifted according to successive conquests between Poland and Kievan Rus. So if one were to claim whether the Orthodox or the Catholic Church was in the majority in the region of the Ukraine when Christianity was first introduced, history would definitely side with Catholicism.
The state of the Church – the very state of the people - in the Ukraine region was in a deplorable condition when the greatest portions of Kievan Rus were conquered by Poland. The Orthodox Church, despite its missionary efforts, was not doing a good job. During that whole time until the reign of Sigismund III, Catholics and Orthodox were living peaceably together, and the differences between the two were primarily intellectual. It was not until the Union of Brest, when the Orthodox intruded rival episcopal sees in areas that had by free choice come into union with Rome, that the violence began.
Thus do I maintain, by solid historical proof, not the biased version of history proposed by Orthodox propaganda, that the Orthodox has historically been a minority in what is presently the Ukraine, and that the ROC-MP has no right to claim absolute hegemony over that territory.
God bless,
Greg
The state of the Church – the very state of the people - in the Ukraine region was in a deplorable condition when the greatest portions of Kievan Rus were conquered by Poland. The Orthodox Church, despite its missionary efforts, was not doing a good job. During that whole time until the reign of Sigismund III, Catholics and Orthodox were living peaceably together, and the differences between the two were primarily intellectual. It was not until the Union of Brest, when the Orthodox intruded rival episcopal sees in areas that had by free choice come into union with Rome, that the violence began.
Thus do I maintain, by solid historical proof, not the biased version of history proposed by Orthodox propaganda, that the Orthodox has historically been a minority in what is presently the Ukraine, and that the ROC-MP has no right to claim absolute hegemony over that territory.
God bless,
Greg
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear Father,
Can you produce even one document that HH JP2 maintains that the RP-MP has SOLE hegemony in Ukraine? Sorry, but it is your own credibility on the line here.
God bless,
Greg
Can you produce even one document that HH JP2 maintains that the RP-MP has SOLE hegemony in Ukraine? Sorry, but it is your own credibility on the line here.
God bless,
Greg
S
steve_b
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Greg took care of the answer.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I think it is silly to attempt to say that my credibility is on the line.
The fact of the matter is that the Pope recognises the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church in the Ukraine.
It would be impossible really for him not to. This Church is recognised as the sole canonical Orthodox Church in the Ukraine by every Orthodox Church in the world. Not one of them would dream of concelebrating with either of the schismatic Churches. If the Pope accepted our schismatic Churches as valid Churches, imagine the instant death that would bring to all Catholic-Orthodox dialogue! You must give the Pope credit for more savvy than you seem to.
If you wish to assert that the Pope recognises either or both of the schismatic Churches, I truly think that it is up to you to demonstrate this… Your failure to do so may impair your own credibility
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I believe that I wrote that Saint Vladimir Equal to the Apostles accepted Byzantine Christianity -please see my message on this. You have not noticed the distiction between “Eastern Orthodoxy” and “Byzantine Christianity” at this period?
You seem to be unaware of the generally well known account of how Saint Vladimir sought a religion for his emerging state and he rejected Islam and Judaism and the Church of Rome and instead he looked to Byzantium. From there he obtained priests and bishops and everything necessary for church life.
Who has denied it? Not me. But any competent historian would have a more sophisticated approach than you allow.
If as you claim the Holy Spirit is coaching you when you write your messages then he has a really lousy memory for history
or maybe he is not getting through to you?
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
That is very interesting. I called a Franciscan Friar here in Boston a ‘monk’ and I was quickly corrected. He did tell me that anybody can become a ‘Friar’ but that you needed a college degree to become ordained.
The majority of Friars at St. Anthony’s Shrine here in Boston, MA. are not ordained.
Thank you Fr. Ambrose.
Fr Ambrose:
The majority of Friars at St. Anthony’s Shrine here in Boston, MA. are not ordained.
Thank you Fr. Ambrose.
Fr Ambrose:
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
Also, you can find the word “Surpremacy” used in the letter DOMINUS IESUS.
O
Orthodoc
Guest
[If as you claim the Holy Spirit is coaching you when you write your messages then he has a really lousy memory for history or maybe he is not getting through to you? 
]
Hahahaha! Thanks for the laugh Fr Ambrose. Truer words were never spoken. The Holy Spirit must sure be having some meory lapses. It’s gotten to the point that Greg answers border on the ridiculous. Ukraine a (papal) Catholic country! After all the history and statistics we’ve supplied! Including the Nestor Chronicles. To claim that the land of ‘Rus’ accepted Christianity under Roman Catholicism because it came about 66 years before the schism is about as ridiculous as us trying to claim that all of western europe is really Orthodox Catholic since it also accepted Christianity before the schism in 1054!
Obviously if Greg took the time to read my posts, especially the excerpt from the Nestor Chronicles he would have had to have the intelligence to see that because the emmissaries went first to Rome and then Constantinople indicates that they definitely saw a difference between the two centers of Christianity. And were trying to distinguish which was the true faith.
I guess the Holy Spirit told Greg to pass over the following comment they made to St Vladimir when they reported back to him -
So selected ten good, wise men were at first sent to Bulgars, then to Germans (Rome) and to Greeks (Constantinople). On return they told Volodymyr that Greek customs and FAITH was by far the best: “When they took us where they serve their God, we did not know whether we are in heaven or on earth. Because there is no such spectacle and beauty on earth, we cannot describe.” They also mentioned that if it was not THE BEST FAITH then his Grandmother Olha, the wisest of all people, would not have adopted it. And when Volodymyr asked: “Where shall we conduct christening?”, they replied: "Wherever it may be convenient for you."
If the Pope was the supreme head of the church at the time and constantinople under its authority then wouldn’t they have returned to rome to tell the so called ‘universal bishop’ and ‘vicar of christ on earth’ they had chosen the ‘Greek Rite’ over the ‘Latin Rite’?
I’m beginning to see that any dialogue this this guy is a lost cause. His knowledge of both history and geography in the 16th century is almost non existent. So he does a quick read makes a hasty decision to defend his claims and posts it. And claims he is being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Orthodoc
or maybe he is not getting through to you? ]Hahahaha! Thanks for the laugh Fr Ambrose. Truer words were never spoken. The Holy Spirit must sure be having some meory lapses. It’s gotten to the point that Greg answers border on the ridiculous. Ukraine a (papal) Catholic country! After all the history and statistics we’ve supplied! Including the Nestor Chronicles. To claim that the land of ‘Rus’ accepted Christianity under Roman Catholicism because it came about 66 years before the schism is about as ridiculous as us trying to claim that all of western europe is really Orthodox Catholic since it also accepted Christianity before the schism in 1054!
Obviously if Greg took the time to read my posts, especially the excerpt from the Nestor Chronicles he would have had to have the intelligence to see that because the emmissaries went first to Rome and then Constantinople indicates that they definitely saw a difference between the two centers of Christianity. And were trying to distinguish which was the true faith.
I guess the Holy Spirit told Greg to pass over the following comment they made to St Vladimir when they reported back to him -
So selected ten good, wise men were at first sent to Bulgars, then to Germans (Rome) and to Greeks (Constantinople). On return they told Volodymyr that Greek customs and FAITH was by far the best: “When they took us where they serve their God, we did not know whether we are in heaven or on earth. Because there is no such spectacle and beauty on earth, we cannot describe.” They also mentioned that if it was not THE BEST FAITH then his Grandmother Olha, the wisest of all people, would not have adopted it. And when Volodymyr asked: “Where shall we conduct christening?”, they replied: "Wherever it may be convenient for you."
If the Pope was the supreme head of the church at the time and constantinople under its authority then wouldn’t they have returned to rome to tell the so called ‘universal bishop’ and ‘vicar of christ on earth’ they had chosen the ‘Greek Rite’ over the ‘Latin Rite’?
I’m beginning to see that any dialogue this this guy is a lost cause. His knowledge of both history and geography in the 16th century is almost non existent. So he does a quick read makes a hasty decision to defend his claims and posts it. And claims he is being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Orthodoc
- Status