P
Peter_Mogila
Guest
Khalid said:
Peter
Care to document this?
Peter
- Status
P
Peter_Mogila
Guest
Khalid,
On second thought, don’t bother. Not that I think your statement is true.
I’d be more interested in your take on John Paul’s Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html
His approach to the East gained a lot of respect from Orthodox leaders and laity. What’s your take on this letter?
Peter
On second thought, don’t bother. Not that I think your statement is true.
I’d be more interested in your take on John Paul’s Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html
His approach to the East gained a lot of respect from Orthodox leaders and laity. What’s your take on this letter?
Peter
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The use of the term “schismatics” for the Orthodox is frowned upon here at CAF. I believe this was already pointed out to you.
In case it has not been supplied yet here is a link to the relevant rule,
On the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic
D
Dave_in_Dallas
Guest
Khalid,
I noticed in your signature that your Latin is better than your English… so much so that it’s easier for you to understand the EF than the OF. That being the case perhaps you should let off the polemics.
I never said Catholic was bad… I did say this Protestant influenced look at the church fathers wasn’t worth the $ for eastern-minded (Catholic & Orthodox alike).
For that matter I stopped using them when I came back to the Roman Catholic church. The book appears to be more a proof-text (ala Protestant biblical apologetics) than a resource for spiritual growth.
Further your bashing of the orthodox greatly offends.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Obviously, his take will be that the pope is foolish for defending “schismatic, heterodox Palamist hesychists” like us.
He seems to have a special resentment for Eastern Christians in general; next thing you know, he’s going to start using the dreadful U-word to refer to our Eastern Catholic brothers, and he’ll start accusing our them of being crypto-schismatic-heterodox-Palamist-hesychists who are only pretending to be in communion with the Pope.
F
Fidi
Guest
"We shall call on the well-known Greek Church writer, Doctor Alexander Kalomiros, for help, and shall turn to his remarkable work, “The River of Fire”.
At the beginning of his article, Kalomiros, poses such questions: “…what was the instrument of the devil’s slandering of God? What means did he use in order to convince humanity, in order to pervert human thought?” The author answers: “He used 'theology.” He first introduced a slight alteration in theology which, once it was accepted, he managed to increase more and more to the degree that Christianity became completely unrecognizable. This is what we call “Western theology.” ]
Taken from the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of Washington DC web site.
One might think Khalid is off base until you see this stuff, or just visit Orthodoxinfo.net or OrthodoxChristianity.org and read some of the posts. Its a pretty regular phenomenon. Anti-western sentiment from a lot of posters. Ive heard this directly from Orthodox priests as well. Uniate this. Papist that. Western heresy etc… etc…
The love of Christ is not so apparent unfortunately, neither is a lack of bigotry to be had with the ethnocentrism that is typical of many Orthodox churches. How can you possibly think of yourself as ‘universal’ or catholic with such a narrow view or the faith?
"So we have the East on the one side which, speaking and writing Greek, remained essentially the New Israel with Israelitic thought and sacred tradition, and the West on the other side which having forgotten the Greek language and having been cut of from the Eastern state, inherited pagan Greek thought and its mentality, and formed with it an adulterated Christian teaching. "
Im sure he is printing this in the US or somewhere in the west, because if he did it from Constantinople… oops I mean Istanbul, well he probably wouldn’t be allowed to write about Christianity, at least without attacking it and saying it is inferior to mohammedanism that is.
At the beginning of his article, Kalomiros, poses such questions: “…what was the instrument of the devil’s slandering of God? What means did he use in order to convince humanity, in order to pervert human thought?” The author answers: “He used 'theology.” He first introduced a slight alteration in theology which, once it was accepted, he managed to increase more and more to the degree that Christianity became completely unrecognizable. This is what we call “Western theology.” ]
Taken from the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of Washington DC web site.
One might think Khalid is off base until you see this stuff, or just visit Orthodoxinfo.net or OrthodoxChristianity.org and read some of the posts. Its a pretty regular phenomenon. Anti-western sentiment from a lot of posters. Ive heard this directly from Orthodox priests as well. Uniate this. Papist that. Western heresy etc… etc…
The love of Christ is not so apparent unfortunately, neither is a lack of bigotry to be had with the ethnocentrism that is typical of many Orthodox churches. How can you possibly think of yourself as ‘universal’ or catholic with such a narrow view or the faith?
"So we have the East on the one side which, speaking and writing Greek, remained essentially the New Israel with Israelitic thought and sacred tradition, and the West on the other side which having forgotten the Greek language and having been cut of from the Eastern state, inherited pagan Greek thought and its mentality, and formed with it an adulterated Christian teaching. "
Im sure he is printing this in the US or somewhere in the west, because if he did it from Constantinople… oops I mean Istanbul, well he probably wouldn’t be allowed to write about Christianity, at least without attacking it and saying it is inferior to mohammedanism that is.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
You are off base if you think that Roman Catholics do not engage in polemics. In fact, your mockery of the Ecumenical Patriarch’s difficult situation in Turkey is evidence of that. May God forgive you for making a mockery of the tragedy of the Muslim conquest of Constantinople.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
So then am I to understand you as say that because Orthodox break the rules of this forum on their own websites and act uncharitibly it is okay for auser to do both here?
In essences you seem to be saying “twowrongsmake a right”.
D
Dave_in_Dallas
Guest
I do believe there is a whole group of polemicists here on CAF even who deride EC, EO, and even the OF of the mass. 
F
Fidi
Guest
The difference here is that we recognize the polemics as well… polemics. We dont let guys rant and rave without calling em on it. The NO can be said reverently. That saying it is quite banal in comparison to the EF Mass. Not to mention in one are prayers that St. Peter himself wrote and handed down tradition from the very begining of Christian history. The NO however, is a fabricated, commitee derived, modernistic travesty. However, all this being said the NO is perfectly legit. If anyone says otherwise, we would call him on it. However on sites like OrthodoxChristianity.net or even an official church website from a Russian Orthdox Church we see the stuff I posted and its perfectly kosher. If I posted something something like what Cavaradossi posts only from the Catholic POV then I would be subject to much hazing and insult. Cavaradossi has a much better time here than any Catholic would over there, at least from taking heat from other posters, however one is much more quickly expelled from this site than from OC.net. The stuff we would call polemic is mainstream on their side of the fence.
Stuff that comes from the mouths of SSPX members can be over the top. I agree with them on 95% of things, but somethings are just rediculous (in particular their view of the Orthodox in regards to the necessity of being under the Pope and removing Latinizations from the Byzantine Churches. Just ignorant.). Thats why they are in irregular status with the church. Stuff that comes from the mouths of ‘polemics’ on the Orthodox side is that the west are heretics etc… etc… damn our western ideas like trial by jury and western modes of music and art. Damn Vivaldi and Tallis and Michaelangelo and Shakespeare!
And this is all perfectly acceptable. It does remind me of the mohamedians and their hatred for all things western and their reluctance to speak out against extremist acts. This is because they are sympathetic to them. Perhaps this has rubbed off on the Orthodox. That is sad to be influenced by them to say the least.
Oh and BTW, Im pretty sure there are quotes of how certain bishops or patriarchs said that they would rather be under the rule of mohamedians than Latins. I think it is horrible about the mohamedians and Constantinople, but like some in the Catholic church and the NO, you got what you asked for. You wanted that. Not me. Ive dealt with muslims on the end of a 240B LMG. I wouldnt want that for anyone especially my seperated bretheren.
Kyrie Elaison
Stuff that comes from the mouths of SSPX members can be over the top. I agree with them on 95% of things, but somethings are just rediculous (in particular their view of the Orthodox in regards to the necessity of being under the Pope and removing Latinizations from the Byzantine Churches. Just ignorant.). Thats why they are in irregular status with the church. Stuff that comes from the mouths of ‘polemics’ on the Orthodox side is that the west are heretics etc… etc… damn our western ideas like trial by jury and western modes of music and art. Damn Vivaldi and Tallis and Michaelangelo and Shakespeare!
And this is all perfectly acceptable. It does remind me of the mohamedians and their hatred for all things western and their reluctance to speak out against extremist acts. This is because they are sympathetic to them. Perhaps this has rubbed off on the Orthodox. That is sad to be influenced by them to say the least.
Oh and BTW, Im pretty sure there are quotes of how certain bishops or patriarchs said that they would rather be under the rule of mohamedians than Latins. I think it is horrible about the mohamedians and Constantinople, but like some in the Catholic church and the NO, you got what you asked for. You wanted that. Not me. Ive dealt with muslims on the end of a 240B LMG. I wouldnt want that for anyone especially my seperated bretheren.
Kyrie Elaison
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And here is an example of that.I do believe there is a whole group of polemicists here on CAF even who deride EC, EO, and even the OF of the mass.
Prayers written by Saint Peter in the EF… very humorous example at that.
The problem is not so much the polemics, its when these polemicists advance half-truths or out right lies. One could say that are engaging in hyperbole but the problem is that most of them believe the it.
F
Fidi
Guest
Are you telling me that St. Peter had no (name removed by moderator)ut in the Roman Liturgy? Tradition (little ‘t’) says other wise and so does common sense. There is a reason the Liturgies look different between Rome and Constantinople. Its because of the local customs and cultures they were born out of and continued to evolve from. I have no doubts that St. Peter had (name removed by moderator)ut of some sort in the Liturgy. He and Paul are the founders of the see. How could they not? This means that it would have been in either the ceremony or the recited prayers. So although the EF changed here and there through the years in an organic manner, its core remained the same, hence, it is very possible that some prayers written in the EF Mass were written or influenced directly by St. Peter himself. To say that it was a brand new creation in the 6th century or in medieval times would be incorrect. Although it was probably not originally in Latin but rather Greek, it changed most likely no later than the end of the 3rd century to Latin. The point was the prayers could be traced back to apostolic times, vs the committee formed prayers of the NO.
I have much much much greater reason to believe that St. Peter had a hand at writing the parts of the EF Liturgy because of it being at the core of an evolving tradition, than I ever would have reason to believe that St. Andrew ever set foot in Constantinople.
Speak to me directly please if you have an issue. I was going to be an *** but would not do that to a religious. Hopefully I better explained myself.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Again, a wonderful example.
Just a little bit of history, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass came about through the Council of Trent which was in the 16th century. I am sorry if you think that the Mass as celebrated in the 1st century is the same.
This is the first I have heard that the Latin Church has prayers in the Mass from St Peter.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Actually, the church of Rome precedes both of them. I am not saying that they had a bishop in residence (although they might have), but there was definitely a community.
But naturally St Paul and St Peter must have had an enormous influence once they arrived.
As far as liturgies go, Father Louis Bouyer had some interesting things to say about the origins of liturgies from city to city, and it seems that local synagog practices (highly variable in the first century) had a lot to do with that.
If I remember correctly the oldest known standardized liturgy would be the liturgy of Saint James, but that has evolved considerably.
In any case, the history of the liturgy of the Latin church is much more complex than can be explained in one post, it would be an interesting study. (I am especially interested to know more about the Gallic influence in the Roman liturgy.)
I doubt there is any one piece of prayer that can be attributed to or traceable to St. Peter nor St. Paul. The liturgy was an organic development of the early community, there was no GIRM.
F
Fidi
Guest
For one, stop misrepresenting what Im saying. Actually read what I wrote in the post. I never said it was the same. I even mentioned it being in Greek at first. Reading is GOOD. The original mass wasnt invented in the 16th century. It was merely standardized. Up till this point it had been evolving organically from the beginning. You make like it was made up like the NO. It was not.
Secondly drop the attitude.You call yourself a monk and you act like this? Its shameful and sad.
A
Aramis
Guest
Pray for them, don’t emulate them!:byzsoc:I do believe there is a whole group of polemicists here on CAF even who deride EC, EO, and even the OF of the mass.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I apologize that you detect some sort attitude that is not present but you must be prepared to be challenged when you make an unsubstantiated claim.
I do not “call myself a monk”. I am one. If I didn’t know better I could read that as saying that you think I am lying about that, but I do know better than that.
I never disagreed with you about organic development or language. I clearly stated what I disagreed with, that of prayers created by Sts Peter and Paul surviving in the EF of today.
You did say;
Having said all that I do doubt that the Mass as codified by the Council of Trent was an organic development from the first century. There is a lot of history from the early Church that we do not know so making this claim is impossible. It could be, but it also might not be. I lean to the not side.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
To Khalid,
But the Turks themselves referred to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch as the “Patriarch fo the Romans.” For them, the Orthodox were part of the Roman Empire and the West.
Your unChristian accusation of “Mahometanism” against Orthodox Christianity is both wild and based on untruth. To accuse it of “Lutheranism” shows you know very little about Martin Luther and the several branches of Lutheranism that has developed from him.
You are hurling subjective and wild accusations against the Orthodox which are grounded in nothing but your own issues with your former Church and which can be countered by references limited to Catholic authors alone who are in dialogue with the Orthodox East.
Alex
But the Turks themselves referred to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch as the “Patriarch fo the Romans.” For them, the Orthodox were part of the Roman Empire and the West.
Your unChristian accusation of “Mahometanism” against Orthodox Christianity is both wild and based on untruth. To accuse it of “Lutheranism” shows you know very little about Martin Luther and the several branches of Lutheranism that has developed from him.
You are hurling subjective and wild accusations against the Orthodox which are grounded in nothing but your own issues with your former Church and which can be countered by references limited to Catholic authors alone who are in dialogue with the Orthodox East.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Roman Catholics truly do engage in polemics and their polemics against the Orthodox are even more subtle when they send missionaries into Russia to work to “convert” people within an “ecumenical context.”
Mocking the tragedy of Constantinople is a sin, to be sure.
Alex
- Status