Eastern Catholic Veneration of New Orthodox Saints

[Aramis]

Perhaps on the other hand he was not really from Kodiak, but lived there for a while?

I don’t know, just speculating.
I thought the Bull of suppression was dated 1773?
I don’t know why Franciscans are less likely to be abusers of others. That comment also has some interesting implications about the Society of Jesus.

People are people are people.

The Jesuits, prior to the suppression, had some interesting ideas. Like the use of torture being suitable for extracting confessions even after Rome had discouraged it as part of inquisitorial issues. Their foundation as clerics was different, and very strongly different than franciscans…

Jesuits were consistently noted for abuses of power, and use of violence and torture to achieve their goals. The rampant abuses in what is now Poland, Eastern Germany, the Ukraine and Belarus by the Jesuits are well known. The constant involvement in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Japanese politics are quite well known; they were ambitious. The suppression was well earned. The bull was issued in 1773, but was not promulgated fully until early 1775. A little over a year.

The Rule of St. Francis, coupled with the study of his life, tends to lead one to a much more passive approach; few abuses involving violence can be legitimately traced to Franciscans. It’s just not a typical fruit of their charism and rule of life. And when a franciscan does go bad, he usually isn’t alone enough, and even if the superior, is subject to the others as a group inquiring… it’s just not the kind of rule-breaking consistent with the Franciscans. (franciscans are more likely to administer sacraments to those under interdict than to torture heretics…)

So while people are people, people prone to that kind of violence don’t tend to remain franciscans very long… But Jesuit history is scattered with that kind of action arising from amidst its members. And of those members being later disciplined.

 

[Hesychios]

The Jesuits, prior to the suppression, had some interesting ideas. Like the use of torture being suitable for extracting confessions even after Rome had discouraged it as part of inquisitorial issues. Their foundation as clerics was different, and very strongly different than franciscans…

Jesuits were consistently noted for abuses of power, and use of violence and torture to achieve their goals. The rampant abuses in what is now Poland, Eastern Germany, the Ukraine and Belarus by the Jesuits are well known. The constant involvement in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Japanese politics are quite well known; they were ambitious. The suppression was well earned. The bull was issued in 1773, but was not promulgated fully until early 1775. A little over a year.

The Rule of St. Francis, coupled with the study of his life, tends to lead one to a much more passive approach; few abuses involving violence can be legitimately traced to Franciscans. It’s just not a typical fruit of their charism and rule of life. And when a franciscan does go bad, he usually isn’t alone enough, and even if the superior, is subject to the others as a group inquiring… it’s just not the kind of rule-breaking consistent with the Franciscans. (franciscans are more likely to administer sacraments to those under interdict than to torture heretics…)

So while people are people, people prone to that kind of violence don’t tend to remain franciscans very long… But Jesuit history is scattered with that kind of action arising from amidst its members. And of those members being later disciplined.

OK.

Assuming the facts are substantially correct (something I am personally not qualified to assess) your explanation makes sense to me.

 

[Harpazo]

What is your point? The particular matter is not one for discussion or up to the discretion of the poster. Do you disagree with the suggestion that the rules should be read?

By all means should the rules be read AND respected. You’ll get no argument from me there. I just saw your post as a way to “score points” despite the fact, that you responded to a post before Alveus made an apology. Don’t tell me you didn’t see that.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dvdjs]

By all means should the rules be read AND respected. You’ll get no argument from me there. I just saw your post as a way to “score points” despite the fact, that you responded to a post before Alveus made an apology. Don’t tell me you didn’t see that.

The apology was for possibly offending others. But this issue is not a matter of politeness vs offense, it is just a simple matter of the rules of the forum. Moreover, AL had also made other posts that were in dangerous violation of forum rules - raising questions about prior moderator decisions to ban other posters. At the same time AL, on another site, was quick to object to a new poster’s content: “You’re just trying to get banned so that you can feel like a martyr.” So evidently AL has some a strong notion of forum rules and the consequences of violating them. Perhaps AL wants to be a martyr here, or is just surprisingly careless here. On the off chance that it is the latter, I thought I would offer advice to get on with reading the rules, rather than repeatedly breaking them.

I am not particularly familiar with you concept of "scoring points. Would your rash characterization of my post fall in that category?

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

At the same time AL, on another site, was quick to object to a new poster’s content: “You’re just trying to get banned so that you can feel like a martyr.” So evidently AL has some a strong notion of forum rules and the consequences of violating them. Perhaps AL wants to be a martyr here, or is just surprisingly careless here. On the off chance that it is the latter, I thought I would offer advice to get on with reading the rules, rather than repeatedly breaking them.

You have the advantage of me using a consistent screen name and avatar so that you can follow me from forum to forum. May I ask who you are “over there?”

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

I would normally handle this privately, but the topic is being publicly discussed by many posters so I want to answer publicly.

The term papist is specifically listed on CAF’s banned topics list:
Derogatory terms characterizing a class of people by religion (Papists, Prods, Fundies), political affiliation, or national/ethnic origin
We also have specific policies on the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic as well as a general prohibition against posting with a lack of charity, questioning the sincerity of others’ faith, and blatantly disrespectful characterizations of any faith. You can read most of these right here in the Eastern Catholicism forum and enforcement will be strict in the future because of this public notice.

Problems with inappropriate content should be reported via the “Report Post” feature. Just click the http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/report.gif image in the problematic post and fill out the form. Please have mercy on me and do not publicly respond to inappropriate content because it creates more work for me.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant

 

[Mickey]

At the same time AL, on another site, was quick to object to a new poster’s content: “You’re just trying to get banned so that you can feel like a martyr.”

Hmmm? A stalker!