R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Catholic/Orthodox threads always end up that way. Nothing new.
- Status
LaughingBoy1503
Well-known member
catholicpoint.blogspot.com/2012/10/pope-claiming-as-god.html
This blog did a pretty good job of refuting several claims about popes allegedly claiming to be more than just Christs representative. I saw one of the “quotes” you provided refuted and I think I saw the other quote refuted somewhere on this blog too. Why not check it out? Think about how much Pope Francis is quoted out of context or misunderstood, or just downright the target of lies. I remember my protestant mother telling me “Did you know pope Francis is forgiving sins for people following world youth day (I think it was world youth day) on Twitter?” I knew that could not be right so I looked into it and it turns out the media confused “Indulgence” with “Forgivness of sins”.
R
Rohzek
Guest
Thanks. I appreciate the info.
While it doesn’t so much change my opinion of the current patriarch of Moscow, asking someone to substantiate and elaborate on a claim that a certain news article is false is hardly defensive. It’s a matter of natural curiosity of their point and their reasonings.
O
outremer
Guest
The Orthodox never accepted Papal Monarchy.I don’t understand how Orthodox can claim to be the one true church whenever Peter was the rock in which the church was to be founded. They agreed with this notion for a thousand years.
Still, it saddens me that there is so much disunity within Christianity.
R
Rohzek
Guest
Just a few comments on what has been posted in general. First off, I really do shun the whole of idea of cooperation between church and state. I find the whole process throughout history to truly be corrupting. I guess this might depend on your political perspective. I used to be conservative politically. But after studying enough history, I feel that people’s religious convictions and decisions should be fully voluntary. When these things begin to be decided by the state, they become forced. People become forced to cooperate and submit, or face some sort of financial or physical penalty. A good example of this are Jews, Christians, gays, etc. throughout the history of the Middle East and Europe (all depending upon the historical period). Whatever a person’s convictions may be, I feel that such things should be kept purely voluntary. Thus, I really do despise any high level church official who wishes to cooperate or submit to state power that reinforces Russian pan-Slavism and imperialism. Whatever the sins of the West might be in the post-WW2 era, it doesn’t justify Russia’s sins. At least the ancient patriarchates, which reside in persecuted areas don’t have this tendency nowadays. And at least the papacy, which has been deprived of its political patrimony since the unification of Italy in the 19th century, has gradually shunned such lust for tyrannical invasion of human dignity and liberty via force.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Sympathize with this post. I am attending Greek Orthodox vespers one evening a week. and haven’t had a chance to speak with anyone there at this time. But being a Roman Catholic, my past impression was that you have to be Greek to be part of this church, that goes against the more transcendent reality of the universal faith and living out the Gospel.
I am praying for the re unification of the Universal Church and I strongly believe that each has much to offer the other, especially when studying the effects of Vatican II, confession and our attitude towards it…that our teachers are pointing us into a perspective that is more Orthodox.
SS Peter and Paul came to Rome solely for the Church and not for imperialism. But prior, Christians in Asia Minor were almost wiped out and Emperor Constantine restored the faith there by assisting the bishops and building churches, and making Christianity legal. There is that tie of the Eastern Orthodox tied to temporal rulers.
I am a little envious seeing Russian priests blessing the military, their jets…I read our chaplains are becoming more restricted in ministering to our military who do have Judeo Christian faith.
I am praying for the re unification of the Universal Church and I strongly believe that each has much to offer the other, especially when studying the effects of Vatican II, confession and our attitude towards it…that our teachers are pointing us into a perspective that is more Orthodox.
SS Peter and Paul came to Rome solely for the Church and not for imperialism. But prior, Christians in Asia Minor were almost wiped out and Emperor Constantine restored the faith there by assisting the bishops and building churches, and making Christianity legal. There is that tie of the Eastern Orthodox tied to temporal rulers.
I am a little envious seeing Russian priests blessing the military, their jets…I read our chaplains are becoming more restricted in ministering to our military who do have Judeo Christian faith.
P
prodromos
Guest
I’m a sixth generation Aussie who is of Scottish/Swedish descent and I am very much an accepted member of my Greek parish.
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
I don’t trust this Patriarch Kirill based on previous and current actions especially with regard to Ukraine and Syria.
"Kirill says he is worried about Orthodox priests, Chernomorets says, but the Moscow patriarch says nothing about the killing of four Protestant ministers in Slavyansk, an action that appears to be the result of the ROC MP’s efforts to promote conflicts among believers in order to aid Moscow’s aggression.
To the extent that is the case – and there is evidence that it is from the conversations intercepted between the church, the FSB and the pro-Moscow fighters in Donetsk and Luhansk – the Kiev commentator says, this would be “the blackest day in the history of Russian Orthodoxy.”
Moreover, Chernomorets continues, such a view has been pushed by those close to the Moscow Patriarchate “who already do not believe in the Gospels of Christ but believe in the Russian empire as an Absolute Good and consider the entire rest of the world as absolute evil” and even by Father Vsevolod Chaplin, one of Kirill’s “closest comrades in arms.”
Chaplin, who heads the Synod’s department for ties with society, has argued that “Orthodox civilization” has “values above those of all-human and all-Christian ones” and that insists that “the individual does not have any importance and [that] the highest honor for him is to die for Orthodox civilization.”
interpretermag.com/moscow-patriarchates-backing-of-russian-aggression-undermining-russian-orthodox-church-everywhere/
"Kirill says he is worried about Orthodox priests, Chernomorets says, but the Moscow patriarch says nothing about the killing of four Protestant ministers in Slavyansk, an action that appears to be the result of the ROC MP’s efforts to promote conflicts among believers in order to aid Moscow’s aggression.
To the extent that is the case – and there is evidence that it is from the conversations intercepted between the church, the FSB and the pro-Moscow fighters in Donetsk and Luhansk – the Kiev commentator says, this would be “the blackest day in the history of Russian Orthodoxy.”
Moreover, Chernomorets continues, such a view has been pushed by those close to the Moscow Patriarchate “who already do not believe in the Gospels of Christ but believe in the Russian empire as an Absolute Good and consider the entire rest of the world as absolute evil” and even by Father Vsevolod Chaplin, one of Kirill’s “closest comrades in arms.”
Chaplin, who heads the Synod’s department for ties with society, has argued that “Orthodox civilization” has “values above those of all-human and all-Christian ones” and that insists that “the individual does not have any importance and [that] the highest honor for him is to die for Orthodox civilization.”
interpretermag.com/moscow-patriarchates-backing-of-russian-aggression-undermining-russian-orthodox-church-everywhere/
V
Vaseljen
Guest
You copy pasted the comments from the pawn of new Kiev’s anti-Russian regime. And you base opinion on Patriarch Cyril with that.
On the other i trust and admire Patriarch Cyril. He did good reviving Christianity in the Russian Church. And patriotism that Patriarch is promoting is something completely normal for the Orthodox Patriarchs. All Orthodox Patriarchs promote patriotism.
On the other i trust and admire Patriarch Cyril. He did good reviving Christianity in the Russian Church. And patriotism that Patriarch is promoting is something completely normal for the Orthodox Patriarchs. All Orthodox Patriarchs promote patriotism.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually, it happened twice even after the schism, but was disavowed shortly thereafter.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Patriarch Kirill has said some things that are disturbing to western ears at least, or should be. Perhaps one of the most breathtaking is his assertion that Putin’s nukes are the “breastplate of Orthodoxy”. One could think of it as true in a way, since most Orthodox are Russians, but identifying a church with nuclear weapons is disconcerting.
And there is nothing contradictory in a churchman promoting patriotism, but when that patriotism includes declaring that Eastern Catholicism shouldn’t be in Ukraine at all, it sounds more like imperialism than patriotism. There are more things like that.
It’s difficult for most westerners to really understand the nature of the identification of Russian orthodoxy with the Russian state and ethnic “Russianness”. But Orthodoxy is a territorial thing in most places where it’s the religion of the majority, and not only in Russia. That very territoriality is one of the very significant barriers to reunification because the Catholic Church claims the right to be anywhere on earth. Orthodoxy isn’t like that, and rejects the entire concept. As a consequence, there are things held by most Orthodox that are incomprehensible to Latins, like the Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church has no business being in the Philippines because of some early Orthodox explorer somewhere else in asia, and despite the further fact that most Filipinos are Catholic.
There’s a lot of “Never the twain shall meet” in this, and it’s pretty complex.
V
Vaseljen
Guest
If Russia is safe, thanks to it’s nuclear weapons, then Russian Orthodox Church is safe too. So long live Russian nuclear weapons i say too.
Yes, Russian Church does not accept any Apostolic Church’s jurisdiction on their land, as long as that Apostolic Jurisdiction plans to be in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. So it is a simple choice.
P
pablope
Guest
They did, on certain occasions when it suited their interests.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355
Byzantium and the Roman Primacy
by Francis Dvornik
One thing is securely established, namely, that the Byzantine Church did not intend to question the primacy of Rome in the Church. In spite of what happened, Rome continued to be regarded as the superior of Constantinople and as the first See in the Church. The conflict can be explained by the clash of two principles in the organization of the Church—accommodation to the secular situation and the apostolic origin…The reconciliation was made in the reign of Pope Hormisdas (514-23) when the Eastern Bishops signed the so-called Libellus Hormisdae which contained a clear definition of the Roman primacy in matters of faith. It is an important document recalling the promise of the Lord given to Peter (Matt. 16:18 f.) and declaring that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept immaculate” and that in it "persists the total and true strength of the Christian religion."22 Some of the Eastern prelates may have signed the Libellus with mixed feelings, for never before had they read such a clear definition of Roman primacy, but even the Patriarch John signed it
A
andrewstx
Guest
Kathleen, If you find the Greek church too ethnic, I would suggest trying an OCA church or an Antiochian church. They are much more accepting of xenoi (out siders).
V
Vaseljen
Guest
Primacy was never the issue. Even today Orthodox Church does not question the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but for the Orthodox, first he needs to be Orthodox to be accepted as such.
W
Wandile
Guest
Their fathers once did
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Russia may or may not be “safe” because of its nuclear weapons, and its “safety” probably doesn’t actually depend on them. Probably neither is the case. But that’s not the issue I raised. My point was that the identification of a particular church with a particular state, regime, and ethnicity, and particularly when churchmen think of their church as a potential co-deliverer of a nuclear holocaust, is alien and disconcerting to most westerners when they learn of it. If there was no other impediment to reunification, that way of thinking about one’s church would be one.
Plans to be in communion with the ROC really doesn’t adequately explain P. Kirill’s position that no Eastern Catholic activity should be in Ukraine. Besides rigid intolerance, that bespeaks an imperialist mindset, given that Ukraine is not part of Russia and doesn’t want to be part of Russia.
V
Vaseljen
Guest
And your fathers once didn’t have Filioque in the Creed. Things happen. xD
V
Vaseljen
Guest
Russian Orthodox Church was found in Ukraine, they don’t view themselves as something alien to the Ukraine. There was no schism in Ukraine, until current non-canonical Patriarch of Kiev Philaret didn’t start it. He was a candidate for the Patriarch of Moscow, but when he lost to Alexey II, he decided to create schism in Ukraine and start independent Church of Ukraine, it was in 1990s.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
That is the impression I have gained as well. Given that the sitting Pope is unlikely to declare himself Orthodox, be re-ordained, possibly even re-baptized and essentially repudiate the Catholic Church, I would say Orthodoxy (or at least the Russian brand) has established a barrier that it knows can never be crossed.
And that territoriality comes up as well. As I understand it, Russian brand of Orthodoxy maintains that the “Patriarch of Rome” would have no jurisdiction beyond the City of Rome and perhaps a bit of the countryside around it. He would have none in the Americas, any other part of western Europe, Africa, or Asia notwithstanding that the Catholics in those places overwhelmingly outnumber the Orthodox. Catholics in, say, America, would come under Patriarchates from elsewhere. The Russian Patriarchate, as I understand it, claims jurisdiction over North America. So, for us Catholics, the authority would be the Patriarch of Moscow. Catholic priests and bishops worldwide would be defrocked or sort of “Protestantized” en masse if they could not convince the Patriarch of Moscow that they deserved to be ordained as Orthodox.
In other words, reunion can only come if the Catholic Church dissolves itself and a new Orthodox Patriarch of Rome is named.
Again, barriers Orthodoxy knows full well that Catholics will never cross. Reunification is not desired by Orthodoxy, and barriers of that nature ensure it won’t happen.
But I think you have already affirmed that Orthodoxy has no desire to reunify with Catholicism, so all of this is just idle conversation beyond that affirmation. Even as idle conversation, however, it needs to be forthright. And you have been forthright in affirming that official Orthodoxy is not interested in reunification.
Like many Catholics, I used to believe reunification possible; just a matter or resolving a few arcane details of doctrine and ritual. Having been re-educated by Orthodox on here, I no longer believe that. Moreover, I marvel at my prior ignorance of Orthodoxy, and am embarrassed to realize how little I knew before encountering Orthodox on CAF.
- Status