Define "Supremacy"

[Orthodoc]

From Another post

[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.]

Today this area being spoken of is divided into two nations. Lithuania and Belarus.

Orthodoxy & Lithuania

belarusguide.com/culture1/religion/BAOC.htm

988-1385: Early Development
With the unification of Belarusian principalities into the centralized and powerful the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the civil authorities exhibited increasing interest in the well-being of the Orthodox Church as the stabilizing factor in the life of the state and became especially concerned when, after the Mongol destruction of Kiev in 1240, the Kievan Metropolitans abandoned Kiev eventually moving to Moscow.

In response, the rulers of Lithuania gained from the Patriarch of Constantinople the appointment of the separate Metropolitan for the Orthodox Church of Lithuania, who was installed in 1316 in Novahradak. This autonomous Metropolitanate, which, in addition to Novahradak, included the eparchies of Polatsk and Turau was accorded the 82nd place by the Ecclesiastical Synod in Constantinople. The Orthodox Church of Lithuania had its own Metropolitans who, when Kiev itself became a part of Lithuania, bore the title “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’”. The Church continued its steady growth and development until the calamitous year of 1385.
1385-1596: Struggle for Survival
The ill-advised Act of Union between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland dealt a disastrous blow to the Orthodox Church of Lithuania. The Union, the personal union of dynastic houses, was reached in order to thwart the advances of the German Teutonic Knights. One of the provisions of the Act required the Grand Duke Jacob (formerly Jahajla) of Lithuania, a baptized Orthodox Christian, and the rest of his dynasty and the nobility, to be baptized in the Latin Roman Church. The result of the Act of Union was the intrusion of the Roman Church into the religious and the temporal affairs of Lithuania. The Orthodox Church, which had spread the true Apostolic faith without coercion or compulsion, was faced with a rival that had no qualms in using whatever means necessary to gain power and influence.

After the death of Metropolitan Kyprian in 1413, the Patriarch of Constantinople sent Photius to be the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’. Metropolitan Photius, preferring the centralized Moscow to democratic Lithuania, fled to Moscow. In response, Grand Duke Vitaut of Lithuania and the Orthodox bishops, demanded that the Patriarch appoint another Metropolitan. The Patriarch remained silent and so Metropolitan Ryhor(Tsamblak) was elected by a Sobor(Council) held in Navahradak in 1415. The Patriach made no attempt to remove Metropolitan Ryhor recognizing autonomy of the Metropolitanate of Lithuania. Thus the Orthodox Metropolia of Lithuania became autocephalous (self-governing).

The Roman Church, unable to gain the adherence of the Orthodox faithful, forced the government to pressure Metropolitan Ryhor to attend a Roman Council in Konstanz in 1418. At this council an attempt was made to unite the Orthodox Church of Lithuania with Rome. The Metropolitan refused and was forced to resign upon his return to Lithuania. These intrusions did not pass unnoticed by the growing power to the east, Moscow, which began to assert itself as the sponsor and defender of Orthodoxy in Lithuania and throughout eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, in 1448, a meeting of bishops in Moscow elected its bishop Iona to be “Metropolitan of Moscow” without Patriarchal approval. The siege and subsequent fall of Constantinople in 1453 prevented the Patriarch from responding.

Pressure on Orthodox hierarchs by the Poles and Roman Church authorities continued unabated. **King Kasimir of Poland, in 1481, forbade building or even repair of Orthodox churches in the Polish-Lithuanian state. The Polish kings granted Orthodox churches, monasteries and Church property to Catholic lay people and nobility. **

Meanwhile, to the east, the Muscovites in 1514 occupied Smalensk and in 1513, following the Livonian War, occupied Polatsk, both of which where principal cities of the Lithuanian nation.

Poland took advantage of Lithuania’s weakened position to annex the province of Padlassa and the Ukrainian possessions of Lithuania. Seeing themselves under attack from both sides Lithuania had no choice but to agree to the Union of Lyublin with Poland in 1569. Though the Union formally ended the independence of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy remained a separate entity within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and defended and preserved its autonomy to the end. 1596-1839:

contd.

Orthodoc

 

[Orthodoc]

Part Two

In Partial Union with Rome
Pressure on the Orthodox hierarchy of Lithuania for union with Rome rose dramatically following the Union of Lublin. With the establishment of the Patriarchate in Moscow in 1589, and the expected new pressure from Moscow, the Union of Bierascie(Brest Litovsk) was forged in October 1596 which created the Uniate church. The Union was expected to raise the social status of the Orthodox, but since most of the upper class had already become fully polonized and Roman Catholic, the anticipated reprieve was not realized for even the Uniate church was prosecuted and proselitized by fanatic Latin-rite Catholics under the leadership of Jesuits.

In 1620, Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem restored an Orthodox hierarchy for Lithuania and Ukraine. Seeking a moderation in the terror against the Orthodox populace in order to gain support for his war with Moscow, Polish king Wladyslaw IV issued the “Points of Contentment” in 1632, which recognized the rights of those who remained Orthodox. Because it was considered harmful to Catholicism, Pope Urban VIII urged its rejection by Latin and Uniate Catholics alike, and the oppression continued unabated.

The Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654, between Moscow and the Ukrainian Cossacks, gave Moscow the opening required to begin its march into Lithuania and Ukraine as anti-Orthodox persecution raged out of control in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Belarusian language was outlawed in public life. Those who converted from Catholicism could receive the death penalty; non-Catholics were not permitted to serve in the legislature, courts or any other official commission or committee. Spokesmen for non-Catholics were considered enemies of the state.

The Polish Seim (parliament) forbade the Orthodox to be in contact with the Patriarch of Constantinople forcing them to look for Moscow. The primary effect of the Union of Lublin and its resultant massive persecution of the Orthodox in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was to encourage Moscow to undertake its mission of imperialism under the pretext of defending Orthodoxy.

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

I am not the one attempting to use the Pope’s recognition of the canonical existence of the UOC-MP as identical to an admission that the ROC-MP has patriarchal hegemony over the Ukraine. On the other hand, I have made nary a comment nor any grandiose claims (as you have) based on the fact that the other two Orthodox jurisdictions are in schism from the UOC-MP, so my credibility is not in question here, since I am not the one making any unsupportable claims. Your own statements put your credibility to the test. Now, you seek to question my credibility by putting words in my mouth! Hahaha! Nice tactic Father, but I expected as much. Once again, please give just one shred of evidence to demonstrate your claim that the Pope recognizes the patriarchal hegemony of the ROC-MP over the Ukraine.

Oh, and don’t evade (per your modus operandi) by attempting to deny that you never made that claim. If you have followed the course of this discussion, you will discover that after I explicitly stated that the Pope does not recognize the patriarchal hegemony of the ROC-MP over the Ukraine, YOU responded by stating that the Pope recognizes the UOC-MP as the canonical Orthodox Church in the area. Thus, you must (for some strange reason, apparently only privy to the Orthodox mind) be claiming that “UOC-MP is canonical” is a statement identical to “the ROC-MP has patriarchal hegemony over the Ukraine.”

For the last time, stop evading, and give just one shred of evidence to demonstrate your claim that the Pope recognizes the patriarchal hegemony of the ROC-MP over the Ukraine.

And again, Father, your tactic of evasion becomes sadly evident in your post#393. You cry and plead, “I did not say that Vladimir accepted Orthodoxy, I said he accepted Byzantine Christianity,” yet in the very same breath you state that Vladimir “rejected the Church of Rome.” Hahaha! Truly, you are a master of evasive rhetoric! Please do show us just one shred of evidence where and when Vladimir ever “rejected the Church of Rome.” Where is this historical lie and revisionism contained except in Orthodox “history” books, or in essays that use such sources? Once again, Father, your credibility is already on the line given your unsupportable claims regarding the UOC/ROC-MP; will you now utterly demolish it by evading the issue once again? I look forward to see how you evade the issue this time!

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I stand in awe… a polemical masterpiece… an outstanding number of ad hominems… whoever is doing the coaching is a past master indeed… black belt level

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Ad hominems by definition come under the category of rhetorical errors that seek to evade the issue by proposing something that is not relevant to the topic at hand. Please demonstrate how I have been evading any issues. Remember, YOU are the one proposing that the Pope accepts (or accepted) the patriarchal hegemony of the ROC-MP over Ukraine. YOU are the one proposing that Vladimir rejected the Church of Rome. Knocks on my coach the Holy Spirit aside, how is it an ad hominem argument to insist that you present such evidence? How is it an ad hominem to simply point out that you are evading the issue, since you have amply demonstrated you have and keep doing so. How is it an ad hominem to point out that this is Orthodox revisionism at work when that cuts to the truth of the matter? Truly, there have been instances of Latin revisionism in the past, and Latin apologists admit to it. It is certainly no ad hominem to state that. Why is it an ad hominem to state that about Orthodox revisionism? Please quit it with the victim mentality. It does not do justice to the greatness of Eastern Christianity.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Ad hominems

by definition come under the category of rhetorical errors that seek to evade the issue by proposing something that is not relevant to the topic at hand.

I think that the coach must be having a day off That is such a nebulous definition that it misses the meaning Since I may not be believed -we inhabit parallel universes- please look it up.

 

[Orthodoc]

yet in the very same breath you state that Vladimir “rejected the Church of Rome.” Hahaha! Truly, you are a master of evasive rhetoric! Please do show us just one shred of evidence where and when Vladimir ever “rejected the Church of Rome.” Where is this historical lie and revisionism contained except in Orthodox “history” books, or in essays that use such sources? Once again, Father, your credibility is already on the line given your unsupportable claims regarding the UOC/ROC-MP; will you now utterly demolish it by evading the issue once again? I look forward to see how you evade the issue this time! ]

Father this man is a lost cause. I have shown more than once the source this comes from but he brushes it off as some type of Orthodox propaganda. He obviously has some type of reading comprehension level problem. Any evidence presented that he doesn’t like, doesn’t fit with his preceived misconceptions of the history of the region we are talking about is automatically brushed aside.

Greg: The Nestor Chronicles is an accepted source of the ‘History of Rus’. You will find it mentioned in every reference source that either mentions either the history of ‘Rus’ or the history of ‘Ukraine’ as some people would say. Yet you poo poo it as unsupportable claims. Personally my patience has been worn thin. You cannot have an intelligent conversation with him.

Sometimes while reading some of his more outlandish replies I can’t help but wonder if he’s trying to convince himself rather than you and I.

You try and tell him that the Pope recognizes the UOC_MP as the only canonical Orthodox Catholic church in Ukraine. And he comes back with all kind of bogus replies. The fact of the matter is the Pope is right. The so called leader of the UOC-KP is a defrocked and self proclaimed Patriarch. He is no different than the self proclaimed Pope Micheal who claims to be the only valid Pope of the Roman Catholic Church that lives here in the U.S. and even has his very own website -

popemichael.homestead.com/

So then I guess if Pope John Paul II did one day recognize self proclaimed Filaret as the ligitimate Orthodox leader of Ukraine and turned his back on Patriarch Alexi; then we could use the same criteria to do the same and start dealing with Pope Micheal as the only legit head of Roman Catholicism. According to Pope Micheal that is.

However, both our churches are too smart to even think of that possibility. Only Greg.

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

You can joke all you like that the Holy Spirit has memory lapses. But at least we can be SURE that YOUR coach isn’t the Holy Spirit, because your rhetoric is based on false interpretations, conjectures, and straw men argumentations.

First of all, can you please indicate where I claimed the land of Rus accepted Christianity under Roman Catholicism (actually, if you want to get technical, it DID, because the world “Roman” in those times was used not in specific connection to the Roman Patriarchate, but in connection to the ideal of the Holy Roman Empire which many empires thereafter, even as late as Napoleon, claimed continuity)? Where did I claim that the Ukraine was a (papal) Catholic country? So now you boast that you have refuted me because you refute things I never said?! Hahahaha! Does the word “straw man” mean any thing to you?

Actually, what I claimed was that Vladimir accepted Christianity, I NEVER said Greek or Latin, and this I still maintain. And I never claimed the Ukraine as a “papal” country. What I said was that much of WESTERN Ukraine was under Polish rule when Kievan Rus gained ascendancy, so it CANNOT be said that Ukraine (in general) was under Orthodox rule. I think you could not see what it was I was actually saying, Orthodoc, because you are blinded by prejudice.

And what is this talk about the Holy Spirit causing me to pass over your information? Your own history states, “So selected ten good, wise men, were at first sent to Bulgars, then to Germans (Rome), then to Greeks (Constantinople).” From which you have concluded that “the emissaries first went to Rome, and then to Constantinople.” No, Orthodoc, Vladimir’s emissaries NEVER WENT TO ROME. They went to the GERMANS.

What is noticeable here, if you really are interested in utilizing history as a witness to truth, is that the Bulgars at this time had already accepted Christianity through the writings of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. They had the same Christianity as the “Greeks.” Why does this chronicler, then, make a distinction between the Bulgars and the Greeks? How could the “Greek” faith be any better than the Bulgarian faith? Impartial historians have opined that Vladimir’s interests were not inspired so much by a search for the true faith, but a search for a politically expedient faith. Greek Christianity (from Constantinople) was always more malleable to the dictates of the State than Latin Christianity; and Bulgar Christianity, though it was Greek in nature, was already married to the State of the Bulgars (which was politically in conflict with Kievan Rus). THIS was the deciding factor for Vladimir, not the minutae of theology that occupied the more religiously-minded. So it cannot be said that Vladimir truly rejected the Church of Rome, certainly not for its theology. Orthodoc, it is not a matter of me passing over information (much less that we should blame the Holy Spirit for any such fault as I may do) which you have given, it is a matter of you, as I mentioned in the first paragraph above, insinuating false interpretations and conjectures into history.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

http://saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/sm/october/1027NestorChronicler(Zenon).jpg
Venerable Nestor the Chronicler

**Grand Prince Vladimir and the Conversion of Russia **
according to the Chronicle of Nestor
shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Vladimir.html

The full text of the Chronicle “The Tale of By-Gone Days” is here
fordham.edu/halsall/source/nestor.html

---

“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

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Please do give us a definition of ad hominem, and please show that I have not accurately portrayed it. Evasive as ever, I see. Let me thumb through some of my rhetoric books ….

“The ad hominem fallacy is commited when the premise of an argument provides information about the author of some statement in an attempt to show that this statement is false, when this information is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the statement.”

William Hughes, Critical Thinking, Broadview Press, 1997.

This was my college textbook for Logic class.

I can see now that, regardless of your worthiness as a person or as a priest, you are not a person who likes to engage in serious discussion.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Dear Father,

Please do give us a definition of ad hominem, and please show that I have not accurately portrayed it. Evasive as ever, I see. Let me thumb through some of my rhetoric books ….

“The ad hominem fallacy is commited when the premise of an argument provides information about the author of some statement in an attempt to show that this statement is false, when this information is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the statement.”

William Hughes, Critical Thinking, Broadview Press, 1997.

This was my college textbook for Logic class.

I can see now that, regardless of your worthiness as a person or as a priest, you are not a person who likes to engage in serious discussion.

God bless,

Greg

I suspect that you may be right about that. Go in peace. I will try not to intrude my lack of seriousness upon you in the future.

---

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

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

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.

RISU (Roman Catholic News Service - a project of the Institute of Religion and Society of the Ukrainian Catholic University) reports two more Ukrainian Orthodox Churches…

So the score is ONE canonical Church (UOC-MP) and FOUR schismatic. From what GAssisi has been posting one would assume that Rome recognises them all as legit?

13.01.2005, [18:38] // UAOC //

Kyiv - The press service of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) on 10 January 2005 explained the situation of the UAOC after Metropolitan Moisei (Kulyk), head of the separate UAOC-Canonical, spread information against the head and episcopate of the UAOC. The UAOC press service says that the organization bearing the name Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church -Canonical neither has nor ever had any connection with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

The statement says, among other things: "Oleh Kulyk, alias Hieromonk Sava, alias Metropolitan Moisei, was ordained bishop in October 2002 by the UAOC-Sobornopravna in North America. “Sobornopravna” means “governed by the sobor or church assembly.”] He was forbidden to serve as priest and ddispossessed of the title of bishop for heretical teachings and the practice of non-Orthodox and unchristian traditions on 30 January 2004 (Protocol No. 33104).

"He started his own artificial organization called the ‘Canonical
UAOC-Sobornopravna.’ The press service of the UAOC says that the organization bearing that name neither has nor ever had anything to do with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. We do not consider it necessary to comment on and evaluate the actions of Oleh Kulyk, and we call on our faithful to treat his unchristian behavior with understanding.

"We also accent the public’s attention to the fact that the use and copying of the name of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the name of his organization, which Oleh Kulyk has done, brings confusion to the Ukrainian flock not only in Ukraine, but also abroad.

“The UAOC in Ukraine is a single historical Church, which has been headed by Patriarch Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) and Patriarch Dymytrii (Yarema) of blessed memory. Today, the church is headed by Metropolitan Mefodii (Kudriakov),” reads the statement.

Source:
risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;4318/

 

[Orthodoc]

[What is noticeable here, if you really are interested in utilizing history as a witness to truth, is that the Bulgars at this time had already accepted Christianity through the writings of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. They had the same Christianity as the “Greeks.” Why does this chronicler, then, make a distinction between the Bulgars and the Greeks? ]

Because the tribe of Bulgars being referred to are not the same as the modern day Bulgarians that hvae the same faith as the Greeks.

Once again you are not taking the time to research the history of the times were are talking about. And because of that, assume that everything then is the same as it is now. Just like your analysis of Lithuania. I sent your reply to a Bulgarian friend of mine who was born and raised in modern day Bulgaria. He also specialized in Bulgarian history. Here is his reply -

---

The Bulgars that the person on the list is referring
to are not the modern-day Bulgarians.

Modern- day Bulgarians are predominantly Slav in
ethnicity. Their name comes from the Proto-Bulgars
that lived near the sea of Azov. **There in the early
7th Century they established what was known as “Great
Bulgaria” (not to be confused with the eponymas modern
day country). ** Upon the end of Khan Kubrat’s reign,
his five sons split up. After khan Kubrat’s death
Great Bulgaria suffered further Khazar raids. The
Khazars succeeded in occupying the Bulgarian
territories in the Caucasian region, the river valleys
of the Kuban and the Don, as well as the Crimean
Peninsula. Some of the Bulgarian tribes accepted their
dependence on the Khazars, while others withdrew to
the north, as far as the valleys of the rivers Kama
and Volga. There they founded a big Bulgarian state,
the so-called Volgo-Kama Bulgaria which existed up
till the 13th century when it vanished under the
smashing blows of the Tatars. Descendants of those
Bulgarians are still extant in the present-day
autonomous region of Chuvashia in Russia. - THE PERSON
ON THE LIST IS CONFUSING THOSE PROTO-BULGARS WHO LATER ACCEPTED ISLAM WITH MODERN BULGARIANS WHO ARE SLAVS.

=====

Please resesarch more before you are so hell bent on trying to disprove the truths of the Orthodox Church history.

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

When did I ever claim that the other Orthodox Churches are legitimate? I have only ever claimed that 1) the Pope does not recognize that the ROC-MP has jurisdictional hegemony over the Ukraine, and 2) the ROC-MP does not in fact have any jurisdictional hegemony over the Ukraine. Trying to knock down straw men again? Well, I guess that’s easier to knock down than the truth.

BTW, the reason that the Pope does not explicitly approve the UCC Patriarchate is NOT because he believes the Ukraine is under the hegemony of the MP, but simply because he knows the RP will again have a tantrum, which will widen the rift between the present amicable relations among all Christians in the Ukraine. The Pope is very wise in these matters – Holy Spirit wise. He looks out for the well-being of the entire Christian population of the Ukraine. All the MP worries about is his “territory.” Go figure.

Dear Orthodoc,

Thanks for the info on the Bulgars. The truth is what we’re after. Now, if you and Father Ambrose will be so kind as to admit, as you both have stated, that St. Vladimir never rejected the Church of Rome (i.e., its theology), we can finally settle this part of the conversation. Don’t forget, Vladimir is a Catholic saint too.

If there are no further objections (I’ll take your silence on the above issue as an admission) we can get move on to the real topic at hand – was the Ukraine mostly Orthodox when Poland-Lithuania acquired much of its lands by conquest.

The only argument (singular) so far has been that Vladimir accepted Greek Christianity. But this does not advance the Orthodox argument at all because Vladimir accepted Christianity when the East and West were united. I guess our only option is to investigate just how far Christianity penetrated into the Kiev principalities (quite large to be sure), or if Orthodoxy was really only restricted to a small part of Vladimir’s kingdom.

I have already started my investigation. So far, the results have been very interesting, to say the least. I will present the facts and my conclusions soon, in a post entitled Ukraine/Polish/Lithuania Orthodox “History”.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

[The Pope is very wise in these matters – Holy Spirit wise. He looks out for the well-being of the entire Christian population of the Ukraine. All the MP worries about is his “territory.” Go figure

I wonder why you say that? It seems an unchristian and judgemental remark which you are not qualified to make. The MP is caring for the great majority of Christians in the Ukraine who have chosen to stay with the canonical Church. Do you expect the Patriarch to look out for the well-being of the Ukrainian Catholics? Or for the flock of a self-appointed Patriach who broke his monastic vows and lived with a wife while still a monk and a bishop? You have seen in the RISU article how crazy religious life is among the schismatics in the Ukraine. Try and imagine that situation transposed to Italy, with five Catholic Churches all competing and claiming to be the Church. Why, we have seen that the poor Pope cannot even take care of the ‘traditionalists’ groups and the schismatic groups in his own Church. How would be cope with multiple schismatic groups on his own home territory? Would he not excommunicate them as he has done with the contemporary schismatic Catholic groups? On this Forum it is forbidden by the Moderators even to discuss these groups!
[/quote]

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

I will present the facts and my conclusions soon, in a post entitled Ukraine/Polish/Lithuania Orthodox “History”.

I would not bother if I were you, and I don’t think I shall read it. Why? The placing of History in inverted commas is enough evidence of your bias.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Hagia Sophia,

I often wonder how we get out the truth to people without hurting their feelings. I think all of us here are doing it the best way we can. The problem I see is that some people cannot admit they are wrong when they are proven wrong, and instead of rejoining the conversation, they go off in a huff with sarcastic commentary to boot! Such attitudes cannot be helped and none of us here can help that such people are like that, and that goes for people of all faiths.

The issue here, I propose, is not love, but humility. One can show all the love in the world when discussing a topic, but when one of the parties is proven wrong and does not have the humility to admit it, while at the same time engages in snide remarks instead of addressing the issue, what else indeed can one do? Do we say, “I retract the truth for the sake of your feelings”?

No. I think we simply need to admit that some egos will be bruised, with or without justification. And pray that the Truth will indeed make an impression upon those whom God intends it for.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Now, if you and Father Ambrose will be so kind as to admit, as you both have stated, that St. Vladimir never rejected the Church of Rome (i.e., its theology), we can finally settle this part of the conversation. Don’t forget, Vladimir is a Catholic saint too.

If there are no further objections (I’ll take your silence on the above issue as an admission)

“Et surgens princeps sacerdotum ait illi nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testificantur, Iesus autem tacebat.”

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

I say that the MP cares about his “territory,” you criticize me, and then have the gall to say exactly the same thing (paraphrase: “why would the MP care about Catholics? Why would he care about schismatic congregations?)? You think you can give little euphemisms and don’t expect people to see that you are saying exactly the same thing I am saying, while all the while criticizing me for what I said? Go figure! Now THAT is unchristian!

If you do not want to read my commentary on the Orthodox version of history, that is just fine. It is really only for the benefit of those people who may be in danger of being deceived by the blatant lies and false inferences in the Orthodox version of history that I have discovered in my research. I would not at all have othered about this, if you did not keep repeating that canard about the Pope believing that the MP has jurisdictional hegemony over the Ukraine. So sleep well that it was largely due to you that this exposé has been pursued.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

If you do not want to read my commentary on the Orthodox version of history, that is just fine. It is really only for the benefit of those people who may be in danger of being deceived by the blatant lies and false inferences in the Orthodox version of history that I have discovered in my research

It eludes me why any intelligent Catholic would prefer ‘scholarship’ and ‘research’ cobbled together in 24 hours by a cursory reading of websites when they may refer to books written by reputable historians.