Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Harpazo]

That must be SSPX (they schismed from us), so it’s no surprise that they would say this.

Many Orthodox monasteries require the same. It’s just good conduct. However, they won’t say you shouldn’t go to a church that doesn’t do these things and suits aren’t require.d for men. Women veiling themselves is usually mandatory while on the grounds of a monastery Holy Cross Hermitage in Wayne, WV don’t demand too much from their visitors. Just that they dress and act as if they are in a holy place of prayer, an idea and practice largely lost in the Western world.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

OK, 20 years after the fall of the Communist regime in Romania, the Romanian EOC still refuses to return to the Eastern Catholics what the Communists confiscated from the ECC and gave to the EOC in Romania. In Russia, the Catholic and Protestant Churches and denominations are refused building permits, their house churches are being harassed and searched, their printed materials confiscated. The Russian EOC does not stand up for religious freedom in Russia, and it criticizes the Pope for visiting Ukrainian Catholics, but the Patriarch of Moscow just paid a visit to Ukraine. Also, the Russian Orthodox Church freely builds churches, organizes and practices its religion in Italy, Austria, France, and other Catholic countries, but the MP criticized Pope John Paul II when he reorganized the Catholic Church in Russia, and established four new archdioceses in Kazan and other Russian cities, in order to better serve the Catholics in Russia.

So, then, what’s unreasonable? Is it unreasonable to suppress other religions, or is it unreasonable for me to list the facts?

When you have a fact (that is actually relevant to something), be sure to let me know. As it is you’ve posted so much rubbish you’re going to need to have evidence to back up any assertion.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

When you have a fact (that is actually relevant to something), be sure to let me know. As it is you’ve posted so much rubbish you’re going to need to have evidence to back up any assertion.

Please control your style, Brother. This forum is supposed to be a safe place, a Catholic place, and it’s freely accessible to anyone, including children and teenagers with internet access. We are not supposed to expose others, who might be reading this thread, to rude and uncharitable speech.

 

[josie_L]

Many Orthodox monasteries require the same. It’s just good conduct. However, they won’t say you shouldn’t go to a church that doesn’t do these things and suits aren’t require.d for men. Women veiling themselves is usually mandatory while on the grounds of a monastery Holy Cross Hermitage in Wayne, WV don’t demand too much from their visitors. Just that they dress and act as if they are in a holy place of prayer, an idea and practice largely lost in the Western world.

In Christ,
Andrew

I respect that Harpazo, in fact, I would like to see more conservatively dressed people at Church (I just would not belabor the point too much).

God bless.

Josie

 

[Hesychios]

… if ROCOR was extremist and not really Orthodox, now we must admit that the unified MP-ROCOR, with 90 to 150 million Russian Orthodox faithful, is also extremist and not really Orthodox…

Sometimes I read your comments and I just can’t believe you mean what you say.

This is like saying “some people” think the SSPX is extremist and un-Catholic, so that “now that the SSPX (now FSSP) is in communion with the Holy See we must admit that the unified FSSP-RCC must also be extremist and un-Catholic”.

Don’t you see anything wrong with that !?!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Sometimes I read your comments and I just can’t believe you mean what you say.

This is like saying “some people” think the SSPX is extremist and un-Catholic, so that “now that the SSPX (now FSSP) is in communion with the Holy See we must admit that the unified FSSP-RCC must also be extremist and un-Catholic”.

Don’t you see anything wrong with that !?!

Well, you are constructing a false analogy.

SSPX was censored by the RCC, its bishops excommunicated, they were called on their errors, and their acceptance back into the RCC was conditioned on their correcting their errors. The Catholic Church made it clear that rejection of Vatican II’s resolutions was not acceptable, and SSPX and the excommunicated bishops had to correct their errors before they were accepted back into the Catholic Church.

Nothing like this ever happened from the MP’s side, as I already explained. They never anathematized ROCOR, never named any errors of ROCOR, and never asked ROCOR to stop telling their faithful not to attend New Calendar Churches because those Churches are heretics. The MP never had any criticism against ROCOR - it was in fact the other way around. ROCOR regarded the MP as an apostate Church, and demanded that the MP repents of its apostasy, of its collaboration with Soviet Communism, before communion could be reestablished. This is why your analogy is false.

And I never heard a Russian Orthodox person, a Russian Orthodox priest, the Moscow Patriarch, or its Holy Synod criticize ROCOR. Not a single time. Those who criticize ROCOR on this forum are non-Russian EO laypeople, and they are not able to show any official Church document condemning ROCOR, be it a Church document issued by the EP, by the MP, by the Antiochian Patriarch, or any other EO Patriarch. This is another reason why your analogy is false. These people who criticize ROCOR are simply laypeople with their private opinions. When Catholics say that the SSPX bishops used to be under anathema, they are not presenting their private opinions. They are talking about the official position of the Catholic Church, which is the only thing that matters when it comes to condemnations and anathemas.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I might add, the New Calendar Churches will never have a credible case against ROCOR, against the reunified MP-ROCOR, or against other EO Churches who still regard the New Calendar as a heresy, and tell their faithful not to attend, and not to receive Communion at New Calendar Churches, except for serious cases of inability to attend an Old Calendar Church of their own. There were the New Calendar Churches who made a big deal out of the Calendar, and issued a long string of condemnations against the New Calendar, before they reversed their stance and adopted it. So, now, the Old Calendar Churches can at least claim that they remained faithful to the original and multiple condemnations issued by all EO Churches while they presented a united front against the New Calendar.

In hindsight, it would have been smarter for the EO Churches not to condemn the New Calendar at all. They could have simply said, hey, no big deal, there’s nothing wrong with that New Calendar, but we are not interested in adopting it at this time. But no, they went on and on and on, and kept condemning it for 300 years, before they (some of them, but not all) reversed their opinion and adopted it. I wonder, will we end up exactly like this with the filioque, Purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception, all these Catholic teachings that the Orthodox vehemently reject and condemn today? They adopted the New Calendar after condemning it for 300 years, will they decide, for example, that the filioque in the Latin text is no big deal after all, after having condemned the filioque for 1000 years?

 

[JohnVIII]

I have seen this controversy from the inside. ROCOR calling others “not really Orthodox”, and ROCOR priests telling their faithful not to present themselves for communion in EO Churches that adopted the New Calendar and other ecumenist heresies

ROCOR used to say that the Moscow Patriarchate was not a church. The Catacomb Church in Russian used to commemorate ROCOR bishops to avoid the “false priests” of the Moscow Patriarchate. Now that they have joined the MP what will they do when the MP joins Rome?

 

[JohnVIII]

In hindsight, it would have been smarter for the EO Churches not to condemn the New Calendar at all. They could have simply said, hey, no big deal, there’s nothing wrong with that New Calendar, but we are not interested in adopting it at this time. But no, they went on and on and on, and kept condemning it for 300 years, before they (some of them, but not all) reversed their opinion and adopted it.

The New Calendar Orthodox still hold the Old Calendar Pascha (Easter). This is sometimes a problem for observing the Apostles Fast. Sometimes this fast ends before it begins!

I wonder, will we end up exactly like this with the filioque, Purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception, all these Catholic teachings that the Orthodox vehemently reject and condemn today? They adopted the New Calendar after condemning it for 300 years, will they decide, for example, that the filioque in the Latin text is no big deal after all, after having condemned the filioque for 1000 years?

This is exactly how it will end up. The Russian Church will be first too.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

ROCOR used to say that the Moscow Patriarchate was not a church. The Catacomb Church in Russian used to commemorate ROCOR bishops to avoid the “false priests” of the Moscow Patriarchate. Now that they have joined the MP what will they do when the MP joins Rome?

I learned that any male Catholic can be elected Pope. I wonder, what if the Moscow Patriarch decided to become Catholic, and was elected Pope? I would be totally cool with it, if we had a Russian Pope, even if he just recently accepted Catholicism. What do you think my friend, would the Russians accept Union, like this?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The New Calendar Orthodox still hold the Old Calendar Pascha (Easter). This is sometimes a problem for observing the Apostles Fast. Sometimes this fast ends before it begins!

Yeah, I understand the Russians. By not messing with the Calendar, they were able to keep the Apostles’ Fast, nicely and according to the old Tradition as they used to have. But the New Calendar Churches really messed it up, exactly as you say. By adopting the New Calendar everywhere else, but keeping the Old Calendar for Pascha, it just doesn’t work out well with the Apostles Fast. I don’t know why couldn’t they keep the Old Calendar everywhere, or if they decided to change, adopt the New Calendar everywhere including for Pascha?

 

[JohnVIII]

I learned that any male Catholic can be elected Pope. I wonder, what if the Moscow Patriarch decided to become Catholic, and was elected Pope? I would be totally cool with it, if we had a Russian Pope, even if he just recently accepted Catholicism. What do you think my friend, would the Russians accept Union, like this?

I would be cool with it too!

All the talk now that you might hear about how the Russian Church would never make union with Rome is all talk and no action. In the 20 years prior to union with the MP, I didn’t even know of one person in the ROCOR that thought well of a MP-ROCOR union. Everyone said it would NEVER happen. Then it did happen and, as if by magic, I couldn’t find hardly anyone saying that it was anything other than a great thing! Likewise, that’s how it will be with a Rome-Moscow union. Any talk now that says a Rome-Russian union could never happen is just meaningless talk. As soon as we see dialog going on between Rome and Moscow, it will be real fast and easy for the Russian hierarchy to conclude union with Rome is what we need to do. It will happen so fast it’ll make the popes head spin! Just wait and see.

I don’t think a Russian will be made pope any time soon, nor do I think such a thing will be needed to get 97% of the Russians to go along with it. But if it did I would rejoice!!!

 

[Harpazo]

ROCOR used to say that the Moscow Patriarchate was not a church. The Catacomb Church in Russian used to commemorate ROCOR bishops to avoid the “false priests” of the Moscow Patriarchate. Now that they have joined the MP what will they do when the MP joins Rome?

Moscow is not “joining Rome” any more than the Roman Catholics are “joining Islam.” Why do you keep making these wild and bizarre statements?

You do know that the Church of Russia had a plan in place if there was some type of infiltration from the Communists, right? They acted in accordance with the plan when the ROCOR was created. There were several plans to reestablish communion in place as well and they almost acted upon it several times before the actual reunion, but decided otherwise.

I honestly don’t know why I hear so many Roman Catholics on this website raking the ROCOR over the coals. Joseph L. Varga claims that other Orthodox belittle the ROCOR on this board. I have yet to find that to be the case. All of these fantastical claims and polemical devices are not only obnoxious and without any merit, but they are getting so tiresome.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josie_L]

I might add, the New Calendar Churches will never have a credible case against ROCOR, against the reunified MP-ROCOR, or against other EO Churches who still regard the New Calendar as a heresy, and tell their faithful not to attend, and not to receive Communion at New Calendar Churches, except for serious cases of inability to attend an Old Calendar Church of their own. There were the New Calendar Churches who made a big deal out of the Calendar, and issued a long string of condemnations against the New Calendar, before they reversed their stance and adopted it. So, now, the Old Calendar Churches can at least claim that they remained faithful to the original and multiple condemnations issued by all EO Churches while they presented a united front against the New Calendar.

In hindsight, it would have been smarter for the EO Churches not to condemn the New Calendar at all. They could have simply said, hey, no big deal, there’s nothing wrong with that New Calendar, but we are not interested in adopting it at this time. But no, they went on and on and on, and kept condemning it for 300 years, before they (some of them, but not all) reversed their opinion and adopted it. I wonder, will we end up exactly like this with the filioque, Purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception, all these Catholic teachings that the Orthodox vehemently reject and condemn today? They adopted the New Calendar after condemning it for 300 years, will they decide, for example, that the filioque in the Latin text is no big deal after all, after having condemned the filioque for 1000 years?

Technically, the Orthodox did not reject the filioque for 1000 years, i.e., during the Council of Florence, it was accepted by all 4 (Eastern) patriarchs as dogma:

Ecumenical Council of Florence: on 6/8/1439, all five sees of the “Pentarchy” freely agreed to the truth of the dogma of Filioque: Pope Eugene IV of Rome, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople (†6/10/1439), Patriarch Philotheus of Alexandria (†1459; represented by the future Patriarch Gregory III Mammas of Constantinople), Patriarch Dorotheus II of Antioch (†1454; represented by Isidore of Kiev), and Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem (†1450?; represented by Bishop Dionysius of Sardis) [Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J.]

thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/

 

[Harpazo]

Technically, the Orthodox did not reject the filioque for 1000 years, i.e., during the Council of Florence, it was accepted by all 4 (Eastern) patriarchs as dogma:

Ecumenical Council of Florence: on 6/8/1439, all five sees of the “Pentarchy” freely agreed to the truth of the dogma of Filioque: Pope Eugene IV of Rome, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople (†6/10/1439), Patriarch Philotheus of Alexandria (†1459; represented by the future Patriarch Gregory III Mammas of Constantinople), Patriarch Dorotheus II of Antioch (†1454; represented by Isidore of Kiev), and Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem (†1450?; represented by Bishop Dionysius of Sardis) [Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J.]

thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/

If we want to get technical, this is incorrect. The filioque was condemned properly at Constantinople IV. Of course Rome later on changed its tune and said that Council was the robber council.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

If we want to get technical, this is incorrect. The filioque was condemned properly at Constantinople IV. Of course Rome later on changed its tune and said that Council was the robber council.

In Christ,
Andrew

Technically, the Orthodox did not reject the filioque for 1000 years, i.e., during the Council of Florence, it was accepted by all 4 (Eastern) patriarchs as dogma:

Ecumenical Council of Florence: on 6/8/1439, all five sees of the “Pentarchy” freely agreed to the truth of the dogma of Filioque: Pope Eugene IV of Rome, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople (†6/10/1439), Patriarch Philotheus of Alexandria (†1459; represented by the future Patriarch Gregory III Mammas of Constantinople), Patriarch Dorotheus II of Antioch (†1454; represented by Isidore of Kiev), and Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem (†1450?; represented by Bishop Dionysius of Sardis) [Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J.]

thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/

Do I understand it correctly that the Eastern Patriarchs condemned the Filioque at Constantinople IV, then they accepted it at Florence, but then they condemned it again, later on?

This is almost like my sister used to be, when she was young. First she rejected this boyfriend, then she agreed to go out with him, and then she rejected him again… I really felt sorry for him, he was a good guy. But my sister was rather immature at that time.

 

[JohnVIII]

You do know that the Church of Russia had a plan in place if there was some type of infiltration from the Communists, right? They acted in accordance with the plan when the ROCOR was created. There were several plans to reestablish communion in place as well and they almost acted upon it several times before the actual reunion, but decided otherwise.

The ROCOR had to get rid of Metropolitan Vitaly first before they could make a move toward union with the MP. And if Metropolitan Vitaly was still here he would tell you that if there was union it would not be re-union, it would be just union, because ROCOR is an older church than the MP! He would explain that the MP today is not the same MP that there was before the revolution. All Metropolitans of ROCOR before him were of the same mindset. Then after Metropolitan Vitaly was uncanonically forced into retirement ROCOR changed and union with the MP followed.

Was this union with the MP “crazy”?.. Yes, they had a plan for re-union. Likewise, a plan will be made (if it hasn’t been already) for union with Rome. This time there wont be a Tzar to keep it from happening either. :whacky: :whacky:

 

[Harpazo]

The ROCOR had to get rid of Metropolitan Vitaly first before they could make a move toward union with the MP. And if Metropolitan Vitaly was still here he would tell you that if there was union it would not be re-union, it would be just union, because ROCOR is an older church than the MP! He would explain that the MP today is not the same MP that there was before the revolution. All Metropolitans of ROCOR before him were of the same mindset. Then after Metropolitan Vitaly was uncanonically forced into retirement ROCOR changed and union with the MP followed.

Was this union with the MP “crazy”?.. Yes, they had a plan for re-union. Likewise, a plan will be made (if it hasn’t been already) for union with Rome. This time there wont be a Tzar to keep it from happening either. :whacky: :whacky:

I’m having a hard time following your logic here. What makes you think they have a plan in place for submission to the Vatican? I don’t think you understand: Before there was even a split in the Church of Russia, there was a plan in place to part the Church outside of Russia and to reunite it.

Perhaps your opinion would make sense if Russia had a plan for submission to Rome before the schism? These things about the ROCOR of little import, though, to the big picture, which is the faithful working out their salvation in fear and trembling cooperating with God’s grace on us unworthy Orthodox sinners.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

I suspect an evil Jesuit plot, masterminded by the same men who created Islam.

 

[josie_L]

If we want to get technical, this is incorrect. The filioque was condemned properly at Constantinople IV. Of course Rome later on changed its tune and said that Council was the robber council.

In Christ,
Andrew

That council is not recognized by neither side (East or West) as ecumenical (and no pope ever recognized it as such, i.e., it is an historical fabrication to believe so).

God bless.