Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[malphono]

First of all there is no proof that the Baptism was valid, but in any case, it was done forcibly against the will of his parents.
The six year old boy was kidnapped on orders of the Pope against the will of his parents who did not want him to be brought up as a Catholic. His parents were told if they wanted him back, then they would have to convert to Catholicism, otherwise they could not have their own son back. His parents never wanted him to be baptised and the six year old was baptised agaisnt the will of his parnets. Sounds like a forced conversion and forced kidnapping of a Jewish boy to me.
Personally, I am against kidnapping six year old Jewish boys and bringing them up as Catholics against the will of their parents. The parents were blackmailed by Pope Pius IX- you can’t have your kidnapped son back unless you convert to Roman Catholicism. We will give you your kidnapped son back only if you convert from Judaism to Roman Catholicism.

Looks like this thread is going off on a tangent. I’m not about to get into the fray as whether the particular incident is “forced conversion” or not, but whatever it is, it concerns the Papal States and the Western Church and certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the OP or even with the theme of this forum.

And BTW, “forced conversion” is not the same as kidnapping. You mentioned “forced kidnapping” and I have to add that I have never heard of a kidnapping that was voluntary.

 

[bobzills]

Looks like this thread is going off on a tangent. I’m not about to get into the fray as whether the particular incident is “forced conversion” or not, but whatever it is, it concerns the Papal States and the Western Church and certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the OP or even with the theme of this forum.

And BTW, “forced conversion” is not the same as kidnapping. You mentioned “forced kidnapping” and I have to add that I have never heard of a kidnapping that was voluntary.

Someone else, not me, brought up the question of forced conversions. They said: “I don’t see anything in your quotes that states conversions were forced. Please point it out exactly.”
I gave two examples to point out exactly two well known situations where conversions were forced:

1. Serbian Orthodox in Croatia in WWII.
2. A six year old Jewish boy who was forced to convert to Catholicism against the will of his parents. Further, the parents were told by the Vatican that if they wanted the kidnapped boy returned, they would have to convert to Catholicism. This is a form of coercion also.

 

[Ghosty]

First of all there is no proof that the Baptism was valid, but in any case, it was done forcibly against the will of his parents.
The six year old boy was kidnapped on orders of the Pope against the will of his parents who did not want him to be brought up as a Catholic. His parents were told if they wanted him back, then they would have to convert to Catholicism, otherwise they could not have their own son back. His parents never wanted him to be baptised and the six year old was baptised agaisnt the will of his parnets. Sounds like a forced conversion and forced kidnapping of a Jewish boy to me.
Personally, I am against kidnapping six year old Jewish boys and bringing them up as Catholics against the will of their parents. The parents were blackmailed by Pope Pius IX- you can’t have your kidnapped son back unless you convert to Roman Catholicism. We will give you your kidnapped son back only if you convert from Judaism to Roman Catholicism.

I with you on being against what happened, but it doesn’t help the case to make accusations that simply aren’t true.

First off, there was no reason to presume the Baptism invalid; it had all the indicators of a valid Baptism, especially under the circumstances. Had he been Baptised against the expressed orders of his parents, there would be some case for invalidity, but that isn’t how it played out.

Secondly there was no force involved in the Baptism; he was Baptised while near death by a servant of his family, because that is what she had been taught to do in such situations (under normal circumstances she would be absolutely correct to do so). She didn’t understand that it could be a problem later on, and in fact didn’t think of it for some time until she mentioned it when the boy was six. While his parents didn’t will his Baptism, it’s not as if it was carried out with ill-intent, or that the boy was secreted away from them for it to occur.

It was only when the boy turned six, and the fact of his Baptism came to light, that a decision was made to take the child so he could be raised in his Faith. I’m sure you understand that, ontologically speaking, a child who is Baptised is a Christian, period. The people involved believed they were doing the child a service by bringing him up according to his inheritance. For what it’s worth, the boy agreed and held the Pope in high esteem, becoming a priest and testifying on his behalf. It’s not as if his Baptism was part of a kidnapping plot, or that it was used as a convenient excuse to cover the crime.

All that being said, the natural rights of the parents were indeed violated, IMO, and I don’t condone the action. I’m not sure if I can condemn it so harshly as to call it callous kidnapping, however. It had more to do with their perceived fitness to raise a Christian child, and though I disagree with the judgement I can’t consider it much differently than other cases of the state taking parental rights from parents in questionable circumstances (as happens in the U.S. today, such as the recent case of the boy with cancer who was refusing treatment that would save his life).

Peace and God bless!

 

[bobzills]

I with you on being against what happened, but it doesn’t help the case to make accusations that simply aren’t true.

First off, there was no reason to presume the Baptism invalid; it had all the indicators of a valid Baptism, especially under the circumstances. Had he been Baptised against the expressed orders of his parents, there would be some case for invalidity, but that isn’t how it played out.

Secondly there was no force involved in the Baptism; he was Baptised while near death by a servant of his family, because that is what she had been taught to do in such situations (under normal circumstances she would be absolutely correct to do so). She didn’t understand that it could be a problem later on, and in fact didn’t think of it for some time until she mentioned it when the boy was six. While his parents didn’t will his Baptism, it’s not as if it was carried out with ill-intent, or that the boy was secreted away from them for it to occur.

It was only when the boy turned six, and the fact of his Baptism came to light, that a decision was made to take the child so he could be raised in his Faith. I’m sure you understand that, ontologically speaking, a child who is Baptised is a Christian, period. The people involved believed they were doing the child a service by bringing him up according to his inheritance. For what it’s worth, the boy agreed and held the Pope in high esteem, becoming a priest and testifying on his behalf. It’s not as if his Baptism was part of a kidnapping plot, or that it was used as a convenient excuse to cover the crime.

All that being said, the natural rights of the parents were indeed violated, IMO, and I don’t condone the action. I’m not sure if I can condemn it so harshly as to call it callous kidnapping, however. It had more to do with their perceived fitness to raise a Christian child, and though I disagree with the judgement I can’t consider it much differently than other cases of the state taking parental rights from parents in questionable circumstances (as happens in the U.S. today, such as the recent case of the boy with cancer who was refusing treatment that would save his life).

Peace and God bless!

There was a forced conversion of a six year old boy and there was another attempt at a forced conversion of the Jewish parents. The baptism was done against the will of the parents, so in that sense it was forced upon the boy without the permission of the boy or the parents. Police with loaded guns came to the house of the boy and demanded that the parents hand over the boy. The mother got on her knees and pleaded and cried and begged to the police asking them not to take her six year old boy, but the armed police refused the request of the parents and they said it had been ordered by the Pope. Later on, after the kidnapping of the boy on orders from Pope Pius IX, the parents were informed that if they wanted their son back, they would have to convert to Roman
Catholicism. Now is this or is this not a form of coercion to get a person to convert to Catholicism?

 

[Ghosty]

There was a forced conversion of a six year old boy and there was another attempt at a forced conversion of the Jewish parents.

There was no forced conversion of the boy; he was a Catholic, period. As for the parents, they were told that to raise a Catholic child, they must be Catholic. It wasn’t blackmail, but a “good of the child” situation. We may disagree with them about it, but that’s ultimately what it was. To call it blackmail is to be unfair to the term and the people involved; the government wasn’t trying to “get something” out of the parents, which is what blackmail is about.

Later on, after the kidnapping of the boy on orders from Pope Pius IX, the parents were informed that if they wanted their son back, they would have to convert to Roman
Catholicism. Now is this or is this not a form of coercion to get a person to convert to Catholicism?

It’s not because it has nothing to do with the parents at all. A Catholic child is ideally raised in a Catholic home, and that was the expectation. Again, I think that in such circumstances more harm is done by the methods the Papal States used, but I don’t disagree with their fundamental premise.

It would only be coercion if the intention was to make a conversion, but the point was simply to provide the proper upbringing for the child. The child wasn’t held so as to make the parents convert, he was held because his parents were deemed unfit to raise a Catholic child.

This is actually a bit off-topic, however. Perhaps we should leave it for a different discussion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

This is actually a bit off-topic, however. Perhaps we should leave it for a different discussion.

You’ve amply refuted Bobzills. As you know, Bobzill’s only purpose in these forums is to incite misunderstanding against the Catholic Church (while claiming to be “Catholic”). His usual tactic is to take any tangent as an excuse to bash the Catholic Church or the papacy. Others have PM’d or e-mailed me to just ignore him. I would like to pass on that brotherly advice to you.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

There was no forced conversion of the boy; he was a Catholic, !

Not true. This is totally false. The boy was a Jew until he was forcibly converted to be a Catholic by a baptism that was forced upon him.

 

[bobzills]

Dear brother Ghosty,

You’ve amply refuted Bobzills. As you know, Bobzill’s only purpose in these forums is to incite misunderstanding against the Catholic Church (while claiming to be “Catholic”). His usual tactic is to take any tangent as an excuse to bash the Catholic Church or the papacy. Others have PM’d or e-mailed me to just ignore him. I would like to pass on that brotherly advice to you.

Blessings

As anyone can see here Mardukm is playing a vicious slanderous ad hominem character assasination game. He asks the following question: “I don’t see anything in your quotes that states conversions were forced. Please point it out exactly.”

I give two examples to point out exactly two well known situations where conversions were forced:

1. Serbian Orthodox in Croatia in WWII.
2. A six year old Jewish boy who was forced to convert to Catholicism against the will of his parents. Further, the parents were told by the Vatican that if they wanted the kidnapped boy returned, they would have to convert to Catholicism. This is a form of coercion also.
   After I give these two examples, which he said he wanted, he then launches into a vicious ad hominem personal attack against my character.

 

[mardukm]

As anyone can see here Mardukm is playing a vicious slanderous ad hominem character assasination game. He asks the following question: “I don’t see anything in your quotes that states conversions were forced. Please point it out exactly.”

I give two examples to point out exactly two well known situations where conversions were forced:

So, were your “examples” from the quotes given by brother Ignatios?

So I spoke the truth.

Besides, you weren’t asked. When people want to participate in someone else’s discussion, they normally actually try to respond to the questions being asked, instead of using it as a cowardly opportunity to further their own anti-Catholic agenda. EO in this Forum are fair and smart enough to know that playing the “forced conversion” card against the Catholic Church would only expose them to the charge of hypocrisy. You claim to be “Catholic,” so I guess you feel that gives you licencse to mock the Catholic Church in this regard. But then that only makes you a hypocrite. If you were sincere, then you would stop using the name “Catholic.” As it is, you can lie in the same bed you have made.

Your only purpose here is exactly as I stated. There’s no ad hominem in truth.

 

[bobzills]

You’ve amply refuted Bobzills.

the fact is that the topic here is the differences between RC, EC and EO.
there is the question of forced conversions, which have been practiced by the RCC against the EO. This is perhaps a major difference between RC and EO. One practices forced conversions and kidnapping, the other does not. I do not see any refutation at all of the question of the forced conversion of Serbian Orthodox to RC during WWII. This issue was not even addressed, so it is ridiculous to say that it has been refuted.

 

[Ghosty]

Not true. This is totally false. The boy was a Jew until he was forcibly converted to be a Catholic by a baptism that was forced upon him.

By that logic every infant is forcibly converted with Baptism. It seems to be a very weak assertion, especially for a professed Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

the fact is that the topic here is the differences between RC, EC and EO.
there is the question of forced conversions, which have been practiced by the RCC against the EO. This is perhaps a major difference between RC and EO. One practices forced conversions and kidnapping, the other does not. I do not see any refutation at all of the question of the forced conversion of Serbian Orthodox to RC during WWII. This issue was not even addressed, so it is ridiculous to say that it has been refuted.

You are so ignorant in your anti-Catholicism, it’s not even funny. Your only purpose here is to incite bad feelings on the past between Eastern/Oriental Catholics against our Orthodox brethren. I’m not going to take the bait.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Ghosty,

There was no forced conversion of the boy; he was a Catholic, period.

I am really surprised that you defend the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara.

It was so shocking at the time it happened (late 19th century) that Roman Catholics all over Europe were appalled. The incident definitely hurt the papacy at a time when it needed friends.

If the same thing was to happen today in the USA (perhaps in Italy as well) an Amber Alert would be called, and the perpetrator, even if he was a bishop, would find himself in the pokey for a long time, and deservedly so!

Kidnapping children is a scandal and a sin, no one has the right to take a child away from it’s natural parents. It is possible to still feel the pain of anguish for those parents.

Michael

 

[Ghosty]

I am really surprised that you defend the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara.

I don’t believe I’ve defended the “kidnapping” at all. In fact I’ve clearly said that I’m against what happened.

I’ve merely stated that no sensationalism is justified in the case, and that terms like blackmail and kidnapping don’t apply.

I have said repeatedly that I disagree with the actions that were taken, and that they were a violation of rights of the parents. I also said that more harm than good was done by the action. If that’s defending the actions, then I can’t imagine what a real and honest condemnation is.

I’ve tried to take the emotional sensationalism out of the equation, but I’m not defending the action. The action is perfectly condemnable without clouding the issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

It was so shocking at the time it happened (late 19th century) that Roman Catholics all over Europe were appalled. The incident definitely hurt the papacy at a time when it needed friends.

If the same thing was to happen today in the USA (perhaps in Italy as well) an Amber Alert would be called, and the perpetrator, even if he was a bishop, would find himself in the pokey for a long time, and deservedly so!

The U.S does not have a clean history on the matter. Please read this: tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-irish-orphan-abduction/Content?oid=1087070.

Such a thing is obviously appalling from the perspective of modern society, much more so from the perspecitve of any parent. But it seems in the olden days, even the secular courts would turn a blind eye if the “welfare” of the child was at stake (which occurs even today!). One has to remember that the 19th century was still a time when prejudices ran high and it was commonplace even in WESTERN nations to kill for the sake of one’s belief (whether they were religious beliefs or atheistic beliefs).

Further, I think one must seriously consider that the secular states were generally very anti-Catholic during this period in history. It’s a bit naive to think that if the Pope had done differently, it would have been better for the Church in either case.

I think brother Ghosty did good to attempt to take the sensationalism out of matter.

Anyway, I hope we can get back on topic, and whoever wants to pursue this tangent does so in another thread.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

The U.S does not have a clean history on the matter. Please read this: tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-irish-orphan-abduction/Content?oid=1087070.

Such a thing is obviously appalling from the perspective of modern society, much more so from the perspecitve of any parent. But it seems in the olden days, even the secular courts would turn a blind eye if the “welfare” of the child was at stake (which occurs even today!). One has to remember that the 19th century was still a time when prejudices ran high and it was commonplace even in WESTERN nations to kill for the sake of one’s belief (whether they were religious beliefs or atheistic beliefs).

Further, I think one must seriously consider that the secular states were generally very anti-Catholic during this period in history. It’s a bit naive to think that if the Pope had done differently, it would have been better for the Church in either case.

I think brother Ghosty did good to attempt to take the sensationalism out of matter.

Anyway, I hope we can get back on topic, and whoever wants to pursue this tangent does so in another thread.

Blessings

The topic here is the differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. As we have seen here, in Roman Catholicism, it is justifiable to kidnap a six year old Jewish boy from his parents and to demand that his parents convert to Roman Catholicism if they want their son back. On the other hand, this would not be justified in the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is a pretty big difference.
Further, those on the Catholic side who deplore such action are subject to rather vicious personal ad hominem attack as can be seen from the posts above.
Also we have the example of the forced conversion of Serbian Orthodox to Catholicism during WWII, and many of those who did not convert were either killed or placed in a murderous concentration camp at Jasenovac. Perhaps this is also a difference, but in any case, it does answer the question raised as to whether or not Orthodox were forced to convert to Catholicism.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The topic here is the differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. As we have seen here, in Roman Catholicism, it is justifiable to kidnap a six year old Jewish boy from his parents and to demand that his parents convert to Roman Catholicism if they want their son back. On the other hand, this would not be justified in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Okay; let’s level the playing field:

(1) Most of the 20th century has been a history of Catholic and Orthodox scrambling to convert each other’s adherents. Catholics tried to convert Serbs; Orthodox tried to convert Ukranian and Ruthenian Catholics. I think history bears out that nobody’s wearing the white mitre here. Score so far: RC: 1; EO: 1.

(2) Yes, the Papal States did some questionable things re. Jews in Italy. Termination of parental rights due to baptism is not good domestic policy. Score one for the EO. But, when you look at, for example, the EO Church’s active participation in the pogroms agains Jews in Russia, our score finds itself tied again. RC: 2; EO: 2.

So, now that we’ve established the banal truism that awful things have been done in the name of religion, what now?

 

[mardukm]

The topic here is the differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. As we have seen here, in Roman Catholicism, it is justifiable to kidnap a six year old Jewish boy from his parents and to demand that his parents convert to Roman Catholicism if they want their son back. On the other hand, this would not be justified in the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is a pretty big difference.
Further, those on the Catholic side who deplore such action are subject to rather vicious personal ad hominem attack as can be seen from the posts above.
Also we have the example of the forced conversion of Serbian Orthodox to Catholicism during WWII, and many of those who did not convert were either killed or placed in a murderous concentration camp at Jasenovac. Perhaps this is also a difference, but in any case, it does answer the question raised as to whether or not Orthodox were forced to convert to Catholicism.

Lesson 101 in how to do Satan’s work in the Church - Let Bobzill open up old wounds so Catholics and Orthodox can tear each other apart accusing each other of past crimes.

 

[mardukm]

Okay; let’s level the playing field:

(1) Most of the 20th century has been a history of Catholic and Orthodox scrambling to convert each other’s adherents. Catholics tried to convert Serbs; Orthodox tried to convert Ukranian and Ruthenian Catholics. I think history bears out that nobody’s wearing the white mitre here. Score so far: RC: 1; EO: 1.

(2) Yes, the Papal States did some questionable things re. Jews in Italy. Termination of parental rights due to baptism is not good domestic policy. Score one for the EO. But, when you look at, for example, the EO Church’s active participation in the pogroms agains Jews in Russia, our score finds itself tied again. RC: 2; EO: 2.

So, now that we’ve established the banal truism that awful things have been done in the name of religion, what now?

Thank you for “evening the field.” I’d rather we don’t take Bob’s bait, but thank you for that.

Yes, since there are horrible sinners in both Churches, no matter what particulars there may be, then there is really no “difference” to speak of. This portion of the thread has nothing to do with the topic, and should be stopped now, or deleted from this thread.

The mudslinging should be done on a new thread entitled “How to incite fear and hatred between Catholics and Orthodox,” to which Bob would no doubt be the main contributor.

Blessings

 

[Hesychios]

The U.S does not have a clean history on the matter. Please read this: tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-irish-orphan-abduction/Content?oid=1087070.

I am glad to see you agree that abduction is always wrong, no matter who the perpetrator is.

And I am glad we can all agree that forcing conversion is also always wrong, even when it involves other peoples babies who can not speak for themselves.