How much compromise with the Orthodox?

[HenryV]

Not one iota of compromise with schism and heresy.

 

[HenryV]

None, truth cannot be compromised with.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

None, truth cannot be compromised with.

Yes, we cannot be compromised with.

 

[Unitas]

This interview (Sandro Magister in Rome) is unequaled in giving insight into the true thoughts of the Moscow patriarch on the Church of Rome and John Paul II himself and the worry about Polish things.

From: Alexei II´s New Veto of a Papal Visit to Moscow

The latest in the dispute between the Russian Orthodox Patriarch and “the Polish party that commands in Rome.” A book-interview with many shocking revelations.

Full article at
chiesa.espressonline.it/d…?id=6929&eng=y

From what the patriarch says, the principal motives of the dispute are two.

The first is the missionary offensive unleashed by the Catholic Church on Russian territory. Alexei II sustains that this invasion of his territory is totally illegitimate and even a little contemptible: to recover in the East the faithful lost in the West. Russia has historically been Orthodox for thousand of years; and therefore the Roman papacy has no right to make it a land of conquest.

In this proselytizing offensive, Alexei II sees an attempt by the Church of Rome to redo today what it unsuccessfully sought to do during the Time of Troubles of the 17th century: the forced Catholicization of Russia.

**At that time, it was the Catholic kings of Poland that launched the attack, which succeeded even in conquering Moscow. And today it´s the same. It´s the “Polish party” that commands the Church of Rome to unleash the offensive once again.
**
The second leading accusation is the support given by Rome to the expansion of the Greek Catholic Church in the Ukraine.

The Greek Catholics are similar in everything to the Orthodox, in both liturgy and discipline (they also have married clergy), but they are different in that their head is the pope in Rome. Forced underground by Stalin, they came out of hiding after the fall of the communist regime and took possession of almost all of the churches in western Ukraine, wresting them, one by one and sometimes even violently, from the Orthodox clergy.

In the Greek Catholics, Alexei II sees a variation of the Church of Rome´s damaging offensive against the Orthodox Church - an offensive, moreover, that is carried out with “lies” and “deception.”

Another unpublished revelation that Alexei II provides regards his missed meeting with John Paul II in Vienna in 1997.

Alexei II had made it a condition that they would agree on three tasks: dialogue, the renunciation of proselytism, and the rejection of the competitive Greek Catholic model. But John Paul II - according to the patriarch - refused to commit himself to both the second and third point. The meeting fell through.

Consequently, the possibility of a visit to Moscow by John Paul II also vanished. Alexei II praises Vladimir Putin for having understood perfectly (unlike his predecessors Gorbachev and Yeltsin) that the pope can go to Russia only if the patriarch, not the Russian president, invites him.

In any case, if there is ever to be a meeting in the future, Alexei II will accept it “on condition that it produces documents signed by both parties.” Without journalists, without photographers, without brotherly embraces on television. Because “the purpose of men of God is not to make a spectacle. I´m not a celebrity.”

Talk about punishing the son for the sins of the father!

 

[Pious_Mat]

In my opinion, it really all comes down to the papacy.

Not really.

You see, the only way Catholics could convince the Orthodox to believe in Papal infallibity is to have complete doctrinal agreement (other than that one doctrine) first. When all other conflicts have been solved, the natural progression is for them to accept Papal infallibility, since this would be a man who inerrantly teaches what they believe in. Wouldn’t you want somebody like that on your side?

I think that the BIG question is the Immaculate Conception. This is an infalliably defined dogma of the Church. The Pope can’t just take it back, because it’s the truth. Although Orthodoxy hasn’t said that the Immaculate Conception is impossible and they will never accept it, there is virtually zero Augustinian philosophy in Orthodoxy (they didn’t even really know about him until the 17th Century) which has produced a completely different paradigm on sin. Augustine, the most deeply “Latin” of the Church Fathers, gave us the basis for Latin thought on sin, and until he starts creeping into philosophical discussions between both parties.

 

[JuanCarlos]

thats a good point Matt. Except sadly, as I have said, even many Eastern Catholics do not accept Papal Infallibility… making them formal heretics without reprimand… it alarms me that heretical Eastern Bishops and heretical Western theologians (Fr McBrien, Hans Kung) can get away with heresy with not even a reprimand, and yet faithful followers of all the Church’s traditions aren’t even considered Catholics (SSPX).

 

[Joab_Anias]

thats a good point Matt. Except sadly, as I have said, even many Eastern Catholics do not accept Papal Infallibility… making them formal heretics without reprimand… it alarms me that heretical Eastern Bishops and heretical Western theologians (Fr McBrien, Hans Kung) can get away with heresy with not even a reprimand, and yet faithful followers of all the Church’s traditions aren’t even considered Catholics (SSPX).

Though I don’t know these theologians you mention could it be because they seek reform yet do not practice disobedience?

HERESY

…Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe.
If he acts in good faith, …the heresy is only material and implies neither guild nor sin against faith.

This means Vatican II must be believed as well as Vatican I.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Funny you should mention Stalin.

When Poland became independent, it decided what to do with the Orthodox Cathedral of Warsaw:In the end, despite a few protests, it was demolished in 1924–1926, along with all but two Orthodox churches in Warsaw. Adding to the political and nation-wide character to the destruction of the largest Orthodox Cathedral in interwar Poland, the Warsaw magistrate issued public bonds to “give a chance to every Pole to take part in the action.” The bonds were backed by the value of the materials recovered during demolition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevsky_Cathedral%2C_Warsaw
people are still living who recall this, or were told by eyewitnesses who have since reposed. I was told by Orthodox of the time in Poland.

Instead, what the Poles got was a monument to Stalin’s glory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science%2C_Warsaw

Parishners of mine in the 90s came back with videos of visits back to visit relatives in the old country. On them were videos of DL on lawns, because the Orthodox had been expelled from their churches and they had been handed over to the uniates.

This is not ancient history.

As the Eastern Catholics churches in “Mother Russia” had been stolen and handed over to the Orthodox who still hold them to this very day. Of course the Poles would’ve been suspicious of anything Russian; as even at the time the Russian diaspora were weary of anything Russian (i.e. the ROCA). Can’t really say it’s right but I can’t really blame them for not wanting the Russian church in Poland when it was being ran by the Communists.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As the Eastern Catholics churches in “Mother Russia” had been stolen and handed over to the Orthodox who still hold them to this very day. Of course the Poles would’ve been suspicious of anything Russian; as even at the time the Russian diaspora were weary of anything Russian (i.e. the ROCA). Can’t really say it’s right but I can’t really blame them for not wanting the Russian church in Poland when it was being ran by the Communists.

Communists? The Church of Poland was indepedent in 1924.

As for “stealing,” since no uniates existed before 1600, this would of course apply only to churches since then. Further, in Holy Mother Russia, the numbers have always been miniscule of those who submitted to Rome.

And as for those after 1600 and oustide of Russia, I’m not so sure what “stealing” was going on: many I know from Poland and Czechoslovakia, etc, before WWI told me that when their fathers, grandfathers, etc, were coming to America, they were told to go to the Orthodox, not uniate, Church: the priest who founded the Church where I was received was told by his (uniate) bishop in Austro-Hungary “here we have to be uniate, there you don’t” and was told to present his credentials to the ORTHODOX bishop.

Btw it was his son who told me abou this Alexander Nevsky Cathedral: in Poland, visiting relatives (his wife was Polish) he said many poles told him it served them right. They had a beautiful Church and now they had THAT eyesore (at the fall of Communism talk was of tearing it down). His wife also told me of the Latins making the priests in her town dance like bears in full vestments, for the army and policemen’s amusement. Living memories.

As for those churches built and attended by uniates, it’s their church.

As ROCA being weary of anything Russian, maybe Fr. Ambrose can tell us something about that. I’ve never seen it among the ROCA.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

My idea of Ecumenicism is groups of Orthodox Christians in Orthodox Churches leaving to unite with Rome (like Eastern Catholic Churches)

Than after they’re all Eastern Catholic they can gradually be absorbed into the Western Church after they’ve realized it doesnt really matter what they are? If only Archbishop John Ireland were here to discuss this matter…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Than after they’re all Eastern Catholic they can gradually be absorbed into the Western Church after they’ve realized it doesnt really matter what they are? If only Archbishop John Ireland were here to discuss this matter…

St. Alexis Toth is of course looking on from a different perspective.