Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sidbrown said:
T
For another example, take the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. An Orthodox priest was leading a procession and asked the Catholic Franciscan priest if he could close the side door to the Church which was a distraction for the Orthodox. The Franciscan priest refused and they argued loadly and then punched each other and a bloody melee ensued sending several clergy to the hospital. In another case, several Orthodox priests cleaned out and landscaped a very small area by the side of the Church which was in a terrible mess. Now come the Catholic priests who say that you did not get our agreement to do that, so take everything down and put the place in the mess that it was before. This was reported in the Catholic newspaper: Our Sunday Visitor. Now if the two sides RC and EO can’t agree on whether a door should be open or closed, or whether a mess should be cleaned up, then what are we supposed to think about it?
Click to expand...
Hi Sid,
Searched the ‘Our Sunday Visiter’ for this particular article also other search engines, cannot find a news article or reference of any kind for this ‘story.’ nice try though!

Here’s the URL maybe ypu’ll have better luck
osv.com/

God bless,
John
 
John_oxios said:
Hi Sid,
Searched the ‘Our Sunday Visiter’ for this particular article also other search engines, cannot find a news article or reference of any kind for this ‘story.’ nice try though!

Here’s the URL maybe ypu’ll have better luck
osv.com/

God bless,
John
Click to expand...
I don’t know about that story in particular, but some violence between different groups at the Church of the holy Sepulcher is not all that uncommon. It happens frequently enough. I am not sure what Sid was trying to prove by that assertion though.
 
Formosus said:
I don’t know about that story in particular, but some violence between different groups at the Church of the holy Sepulcher is not all that uncommon. It happens frequently enough. I am not sure what Sid was trying to prove by that assertion though.
Click to expand...
Yes, the OO (Armenians) and the EO had a nasty dogfight too, I think in 2008 - something about somebody not supposed to be someplace at some time. I share your conundrum about Sid’s point.

Blessings
 
Formosus said:
I don’t know about that story in particular, but some violence between different groups at the Church of the holy Sepulcher is not all that uncommon. It happens frequently enough. I am not sure what Sid was trying to prove by that assertion though.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but being among protestants, jehovah witnesses, muslims I’ve heard plenty of unsubstantiated falsehoods simply by saying" I’ve heard a story about…"
and then mention an erroneous reference. I caught him earlier on this… and it was proven false.

Our priests/ Mary’s priest are getting enough negative press… no need to add to it with innuendo, gossip, white lies. Let’s keep it truthful and factual, with references that can be found. Karl Keating has written books on falsehoods people teach and say about the Roman Catholic Church.

I think Sid’s opinion is that we can’t get together on the small things… or focuses on mutual hate?

I was looking up some agreement on Statues and Icons prior to the schism… ran into this:

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

HOMILIES ADDRESSED TO THE PEOPLE OF ANTIOCH, CONCERNING THE STATUES, I-V

…
“But it is sweet to slander.” Nay, it is sweet not to speak evil. For
he that hath spoken evil is henceforth contentious; he is suspicious and he
fears, repents, and gnaws his own tongue. Being timorous and trembling,
lest at any time, what he said should be carried to others, and bring great
peril, and useless and needless enmity, on the sayer. But he who keeps the
matter to himself, will spend his days in safety, with much pleasantness.
“Thou hast heard a word,” we read, “let it die with thee; and be bold; it
will(5) not burst thee.”(6) What is the meaning of this? “let it die with
thee?” Extinguish it; bury it; neither permit it to go forth, nor even to
move at all; but, as the best course, be careful not to tolerate others in
the practice of evil speaking.

been reading this Homily a half hour straight! Hasn’t even mentioned statues yet!

God bless,
John
 
John_oxios said:
Hi Sid,
Searched the ‘Our Sunday Visiter’ for this particular article also other search engines, cannot find a news article or reference of any kind for this ‘story.’ nice try though!

Here’s the URL maybe ypu’ll have better luck
osv.com/

God bless,
John
Click to expand...
Thanks for the OSV website link.
I did the search, but it only gives me articles within the past year. As I recall, there was something about this several years ago, in the printed edition of OSV.
Anyway, my point was simply that for a reconciliation between RC and EO to take place, both sides have to want it to happen. I could be wrong, but it is not clear to me that this is the case at this point in time.
 
sidbrown said:
Maybe you are right and an agreement on unity of EO and RC can be reached. But I don;t see it. First of all, many Orthodox just don;t like the RCC, especially the Serbs who were hurt by the Ustase in WWII. And I don;t see them accepting papal infallibility and the supreme universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Not only that, but many of them will tell you that the Catholic Sacraments, including Baptism, are null and void, and statues violate the Commandment against graven images. And I don;t see Roman Catholics budging on the issue of papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception. And the RCC will not do away with their statues. So there is an impasse.
?
Click to expand...
Hi Sid,
The RCC will not have to do away with their statues, since and again the destruction of Statues and icons was due to Muslim influence not between the East and and RC Church’s.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm
Click to expand...
he origin of the movement against the worship (for the use of this word see VENERATION OF IMAGES) of images has been much discussed. It has been represented as an effect of Moslem influence. To Moslems, any kind of picture, statue, or representation of the human form is an abominable idol. It is true that, in a sense, the Khalifa at Damascus began the whole disturbance, and that the Iconoclast emperors were warmly applauded and encouraged in their campaign by their rivals at Damascus. On the other hand it is not likely that the chief cause of the emperor’s zeal against pictures was the example of his bitter enemy, the head of the rival religion. A more probable origin will be found in the opposition to pictures that had existed for some time among Christians. There seems to have been a dislike of holy pictures, a suspicion that their use was, or might become, idolatrous among certain Christians for many centuries before the Iconoclast persecution began (see VENERATION OF IMAGES)…
Click to expand...
Council of Nicaea II, 787 . [The issue was settled by this council]

Catechism of the RCC
#1161 All the signs in the liturgical celebrations are related to Christ: as are sacred images of the holy Mother of God and of the saints as well. They truly signify Christ, who is glorified in them. They make manifest the “cloud of witnesses” 29 who continue to participate in the salvation of the world and to whom we are united, above all in sacramental celebrations. Through their icons, it is man “in the image of God,” finally transfigured "into his likeness,"30 who is revealed to our faith. So too are the angels, who also are recapitulated in Christ:

Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and** life-giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets**. 31

#1162
"The beauty of the images moves me to contemplation, as a meadow delights the eyes and subtly infuses the soul with the glory of God."32 Similarly, the contemplation of sacred icons, united with meditation on the Word of God and the singing of liturgical hymns, enters into the harmony of the signs of celebration so that the mystery celebrated is imprinted in the heart’s memory and is then expressed in the new life of the faithful

29 Heb 12:1

30 Cf. Rom 8:29; 1 Jn 3:2.

31 Council of Nicaea II: DS 600.

32 St. John Damascene, De imag. 1,27:PG 94,1268A,B.
 
dvdjs said:
Rejection of the filioque is not the same thing as not reciting the filioque. The two phenomena may be highly correlated, but they are not perfectly correlated; they are not the same thing. Likewise, error may or may be heretical; but error and heresy are not the same thing.
Here’s some help. We all know that Catholic Church most assuredly does not consider Eastern Catholcs who do not recite the filioque as heretics. If you find a sentence in some authoritative source that seems to you to have that meaning, you are misunderstanding the meaning of that sentence.
Click to expand...
i DVDJS,
I have to go over my church history, however, From why I remember both the east and agreed 325, but later the language translation suffered>

Filioque controversy
Main article: Filioque
In the late sixth century, the Latin-speaking churches of Western Europe added the words “and the Son” (Filioque) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what Easterners have argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.[17]
The Vatican has recently argued that, while these words would indeed be heretical if associated with the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι of the text adopted by the Council of Constantinople,[11] they are not heretical when associated with the Latin verb procedere, which corresponds instead to the Greek verb προϊέναι, with which some of the Greek Fathers also associated the same words.[11]

Biblically the Spirit does proceed from Jesus Christ:

Jhn 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

And Biblically the Father sends the Holy Spirit in jesus’ name:

jhn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Jesus also sends the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father:

Jhn 15:26 "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;

And in Acts:
Act 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.

My Book says Three persons in the same Nature, ‘the Godhead’ is a title,

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD;

Col 2:9 **For in him ** the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,

Jesus’ pre- incarnate presence
Isa 63:9-10, "In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
But they rebelled and grieved his holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.

David Guzik (A Protestant)commentary
d. And the Angel of His Presence saved them: This refers to the presence and work of Jesus among ancient Israel, especially among those delivered from Egypt.

i. “The angel of His presence is the Messiah . . . Calvin sees in this angel merely a serving angel. But of this Angel it is said that He by His love and pity saved Israel; this can hardly be said of a created angel. It is the Christ who is meant here.” (Bultema)

ii. “Angel of his presence: literally ‘of his face’. We recognize people by face; ‘f**ace’ is the Lord’s very one presence **(Psalm 139:7), among them in the person of his angel - that unique ‘Angel of the Lord’ (as in Genesis 16:7ff; 21:17; 22:11; 22:15; Exodus 3:2; 14:19; 23:20-23; Malachi 3:1) who speaks as the Lord and is yet distinct from him.” (Motyer)

e. But t**hey rebelled and grieved His **Holy Spirit: Despite this outpouring of love and mercy from God, His people responded with cold, rebellious, unresponsive hearts. God had to deal with this in His people, so He fought against them.

Its pretty tough to argue whether or not The Holy Spirit also proceeds from Jesus, biblically He does.

But what I can remember is that the Church says that the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of the Love from (Of) Both the Father and the Son.

Jesus being the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit being the Breath of God, can we separate our words from our breath?

God bless,
John
 
John_oxios said:
i DVDJS,
I have to go over my church history, however, From why I remember both the east and agreed 325, but later the language translation suffered>

CCC scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c3a8.htm#689

I. THE JOINT MISSION OF THE SON AND THE SPIRIT

689 The One whom the Father has sent into our hearts, the Spirit of his Son, is truly God.10 Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them, in both the inner life of the Trinity and his gift of love for the world. In adoring the Holy Trinity, life-giving, consubstantial, and indivisible, the Church’s faith also professes the distinction of persons. When the Father sends his Word, he always sends his Breath. In their joint mission, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct but inseparable. To be sure, it is Christ who is seen, the visible image of the invisible God, but it is the Spirit who reveals him.

690 Jesus is Christ, “anointed,” because the Spirit is his anointing, and everything that occurs from the Incarnation on derives from this fullness. When Christ is finally glorified, he can in turn send the Spirit from his place with the Father to those who believe in him: he communicates to them his glory, that is, the Holy Spirit who glorifies him. From that time on, this joint mission will be manifested in the children adopted by the Father in the Body of his Son: the mission of the Spirit of adoption is to unite them to Christ and make them live in him:

The notion of anointing suggests . . . **that there is no distance between the Son and the Spirit. ** Indeed, just as between the surface of the body and the anointing with oil neither reason nor sensation recognizes any intermediary, so the contact of the Son with the Spirit is immediate, so that anyone who would make contact with the Son by faith must first encounter the oil by contact. In fact there is no part that is not covered by the Holy Spirit. That is why the confession of the Son’s Lordship is made in the Holy Spirit by those who receive him, the Spirit coming from all sides to those who approach the Son in faith.

691 “**Holy Spirit” is the proper name of the one whom we adore and glorify with the Father and the Son. ** The Church has received this name from the Lord and professes it in the Baptism of her new children.​

The term “Spirit” translates the Hebrew word ruah, which, in its primary sense, means breath, air, wind. Jesus indeed uses the sensory image of the wind to suggest to Nicodemus the transcendent newness of him who is personally God’s breath, the divine Spirit. On the other hand, “Spirit” and “Holy” are divine attributes common to the three divine persons. By joining the two terms, Scripture, liturgy, and theological language designate the inexpressible person of the Holy Spirit, without any possible equivocation with other uses of the terms “spirit” and “holy.”

How big of a theological difference is it? Can man define God? God is Transcendental.

as far as the Creed, we developed against the arian heresy, and it split the Church anyway!!!

The original Nicene Creed of 325

ask.com/wiki/Creed_of_Nicaea?qsrc=3044#The_original_Nicene_Creed_of_325
Click to expand...
 
sidbrown said:
Can a member of the UOCKP, receive the Sacraments with no problem from the UOC in Canada? Would these two Churches be considered to be in communion or not?
Also, there have been a whole lot of rumors and stories going around concerning the head of the UOCKP
i read though that the relations between the .Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the UOCKP were pretty good, to the extent that there was discussion of building a Church together?
Click to expand...
Sid, no disrespect intended, but I am very troubled by a pattern I am seeing in your posts. The story you presented on the immersion baptism turned out to not have happened in a Catholic Church and was not conducted by a Catholic priest, the story of the “fight” cannot be found, here you report rumors and stories, and a bit about building a common Church, but you provide absolutely nothing in the way of links.

It’s considered good form to provide links so that everyone can read what you claim to have read. Otherwise all you have are unfounded assertions and that just isn’t fair to the rest of us who want access to the knowledge you say you possess.

Would you please provide links to these “rumors and stories” so that everyone participating in the thread can read about them? I also request a link to what you read concerning the discussion of building a Church together.

BTW, I used the link provided in post #415 and it gave me results farther back than one year (back to 2006 in one case) so I am very confused as to why you only received results from the past year.

Thank you very much and may God be with you!! 🙂
 
sidbrown said:
guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/28/israel.religion
naijanet.com/news/source/2004/sep/28/1007.html
Click to expand...
Thanks Sid, the first URL Doesn’t state the Franciscans were fist fighting, Monks were hit, (and that and not arrested for fighting).
and the second URL, says it didn’t happen at the sepulcher, but in front to a Catholic Chapel, with a door open… which the E.O Priests took as a sign of disrepect? An RC Church door open, is a sign of disrespect?

The last half of the article:

Church officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that at one point, the procession passed a Roman Catholic chapel, and priests from both sides started arguing over whether the door to the chapel should be open or closed.

Greek Orthodox priests, dressed in black robes and donning elaborate headdresses, **marched out of the church **as bells rang loudly. Carrying gold staves and roses, they marched through the church courtyard and down a narrow stone alley as Greek Orthodox Christians clapped and cheered.

In 2003, Israeli police threatened to limit the number of worshippers allowed to attend an Easter ceremony if the denominations did not agree on who would lead the ceremony. Police brokered a last-minute deal and the ceremony passed peacefully.

But a year earlier, **the Greek patriarch and Armenian clergyman designated to enter the tomb exchanged blows **after a dispute over who would be first to exit the chamber.

Seems the E.O.Priests entered the Catholic Church and were the aggressors as well with the armenians… But we’ll blame the Catholic Clergy anyway!!

P.s. had these for weeks but it was not for me to post!

Your original story was part truth, nothing else.
yes there is a Catholic Church, yes there are Franciscan Monks… in the Holy land, the rest? I dunno!
Which is usually about the same amount of truth in most Anti RCC stories. a lil bit of truth… and a bigger story.

I go after these, why? Because lots of peole believe what tyhye read or hear, specially if you give it credance by stating 'a newspaper reported…" I’ve heard to many over the last twenty yrs. mostly unfounded stories mixed in with a small truth.

In fact its the poor stories told about the catholic Church that drove me back… If what you preach is truth? Then why lie about another faith? I never hear a Catholic preaching anti Protestantism, ever. We Preach Christ… and leave the story telling to the others.

God bless,
John
 
John_oxios said:
… the first URL Doesn’t state the Franciscans were fist fighting, …it didn’t happen at the sepulcher, but in front to a Catholic Chapel, with a door open…I’ve heard to many over the last twenty yrs. mostly unfounded stories mixed in with a small truth.
Click to expand...
"Fistfights broke out yesterday between Christians gathered on the site of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ. "
guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/28/israel.religion
“Jerusalem, Israel: Greek Orthodox and Franciscan priests got into a fist fight over church door
Greek Orthodox and Franciscan priests got into a fist fight Monday at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Christianity’s holiest shrine, after arguing over whether a door in the basilica should be closed during a procession.”
naijanet.com/news/source/2004/sep/28/1007.html
 
sidbrown said:
"Fistfights broke out yesterday between Christians gathered on the site of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ. "
guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/28/israel.religion
“Jerusalem, Israel: Greek Orthodox and Franciscan priests got into a fist fight over church door
Greek Orthodox and Franciscan priests got into a fist fight Monday at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Christianity’s holiest shrine, after arguing over whether a door in the basilica should be closed during a procession.”
naijanet.com/news/source/2004/sep/28/1007.html
Click to expand...
Let’s get it all out, not just the headline which is made to attract attention, let’s move passed the hype to the story.

Church officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that at one point,** the procession passed a Roman Catholic chapel, and priests from both sides started arguing over whether the door to the chapel should be open or closed.**

I’m sorry it is the E.O Priests who have taken issue over a RC Chapel, door? and enter it, and have a similar incident with the armenians,

“But a year earlier, the Greek patriarch and Armenian clergyman designated to enter the tomb exchanged blows after a dispute over who would be first to exit the chamber.”

What’s to fight about? an open door, who exits first? very Christian behavior of the Eastern Orthodox. But again, when you told the story it was against the R.C. Priests who were not the aggressors.

Then again newspapers lave to print what sells… there not held accountable to the whole truth…just what sells.

God bless,
John
 
sidbrown said:
"Fistfights broke out yesterday between Christians gathered on the site of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ. "
guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/28/israel.religion
“Jerusalem, Israel: Greek Orthodox and Franciscan priests got into a fist fight over church door
Greek Orthodox and Franciscan priests got into a fist fight Monday at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Christianity’s holiest shrine, after arguing over whether a door in the basilica should be closed during a procession.”
naijanet.com/news/source/2004/sep/28/1007.html
Click to expand...
Have you seen where they had to go, to get to the franciscan Chapel?

forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8819&stc=1&d=1284597376

God bless,
John
 
John_oxios said:
Then again newspapers lave to print what sells… there not held accountable to the whole truth…just what sells.
Click to expand...
And unfortunately, there are too many people who want to revel when the Catholic Church is made to look bad by the press, and seek to support the false propaganda.
 
John_oxios said:
Let’s get it all out, not just the headline which is made to attract attention, let’s move passed the hype to the story.

Church officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that at one point,** the procession passed a Roman Catholic chapel, and priests from both sides started arguing over whether the door to the chapel should be open or closed.**

I’m sorry it is the E.O Priests who have taken issue over a RC Chapel, door? and enter it, and have a similar incident with the armenians,

“But a year earlier, the Greek patriarch and Armenian clergyman designated to enter the tomb exchanged blows after a dispute over who would be first to exit the chamber.”

What’s to fight about? an open door, who exits first? very Christian behavior of the Eastern Orthodox. But again, when you told the story it was against the R.C. Priests who were not the aggressors.

Then again newspapers lave to print what sells… there not held accountable to the whole truth…just what sells.

God bless,
John
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make involved the difficulty in achieving a reconciliation between RC and EO. If there is a fist fight or brawl over such a trivial matter as to whether or not a door to a chapel should be opened or closed, it leaves some people with the impression that achieving reconciliation between EO and RC may not be all that easy to attain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top