who started your church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoaoMachado
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, but I don’t think of it that way Fr. Ambrose.
I look at yourselves as the few among the many that
have gone astray and will come back to us for we
are the ones waiting for you. You were almost there
at the end of the millenium (2000) when 14 of your 15
patriarchs called for an end to the schism and a return
to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
But Alexey II of Russia said NO (out of PRIDE), and
hence, a division remains in the Orthodox Church,
and of which a division that never happened
**in the Catholic Church for 2000 years. **

It’s so sad to know why can’t the Orthodox Churches
be united first among themselves and why a unity
among themselves has to realize first before
they come back to the open doors of the Roman
Catholic Church waiting for them to come back.
Fr Ambrose:
Lumen,
It’s not pride and it’s not disobedience. We are obliged to preserve the faith handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. We cannot take this ancient and holy faith and warp it for the same of a compromised unity. Changing the faith would mean compromising our salvation and that of all the future generations. The Church (that is, the Orthodox Church) sees a number of serious errors in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church -just read the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs and you will see what they are. We just cannot take the Body of Christ and unite it to error.

Think of us as the original wheat stock from old. We are the primitive wheat which you will need again one day when all the experimentation and permutations have made all the other wheat infertile. But we will always be here, primitive and unchanged. We are your past. We are your future. We wait for you…
Click to expand...
 
40.png
JoaoMachado:
Thanks catholic2, but it is not my site, I just stumbled upon it.

this is my site catholictuner.comhttp://www.catholictuner.com

Joao
Click to expand...
👍
 
Lumen Gentium:
You were almost there
at the end of the millenium (2000) when 14 of your 15
patriarchs called for an end to the schism and a return
to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
Lumen, I keep good track of what goes on on my turf, but I have never heard of this. You mentioned it once before. Could you please give us some more details.
But Alexey II of Russia said NO (out of PRIDE)
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t have any ideas of the event in 2000 which you mention but I would not accuse any Patriarch of pride because they did not want to change the holy Orthodox faith.

If I recall, 2000 was not exactly the best year - the Patriarch of Jerusalem declined to pray with the Pope in Jerusalem, and the head of the Church of Sinai also declined when the Pope visited Saint Catherine’s monastery, and the head of the Church of Greece also declined at the time of the Pope’s visit to Athens. So it wouldn’t have been just the Patriarch of Russia.

Papal Pilgrimage to Mt Sinai
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=12354
It’s so sad to know why can’t the Orthodox Churches
be united first among
Click to expand...
I am not aware of disunity among the Orthodox. We have some problems (Macedonia is one, some problems because of the two calendars) but nothing major. What do you have mind?
 
Fr. Ambrose,

I will rather point you to a site ( I guess it’s from an Orthodox Author): stirene.org/Resources/library/orthodoxy_history.htm

and from this site (an online Encyclopedia):
encarta.msn.com/text_761572657___15/Orthodox_Church.html

Both are saying about the 14 of the 15 Orthodox leaders calling for an end to the schism, and therefore a unity with the Catholic Church.

I see the gesture of Alexey II as full of pride even as he continued to snub John Paul II’s invitation to dialogue.

This site also tells of a dispute over authority between the Russian Partriarch and the Partriarch of Constantinople.
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=5214

Thank God, our Cardinals are right now in unity and in obedience to the office of the Holy Father, St. Peter’s successor.

PAX
Fr Ambrose:
Lumen, I keep good track of what goes on on my turf, but I have never heard of this. You mentioned it once before. Could you please give us some more details.

Well, I don’t have any ideas of the event in 2000 which you mention but I would not accuse any Patriarch of pride because they did not want to change the holy Orthodox faith.

If I recall, 2000 was not exactly the best year - the Patriarch of Jerusalem declined to pray with the Pope in Jerusalem, and the head of the Church of Sinai also declined when the Pope visited Saint Catherine’s monastery, and the head of the Church of Greece also declined at the time of the Pope’s visit to Athens. So it wouldn’t have been just the Patriarch of Russia.

Papal Pilgrimage to Mt Sinai
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=12354

I am not aware of disunity among the Orthodox. We have some problems (Macedonia is one, some problems because of the two calendars) but nothing major. What do you have mind?
Click to expand...
 
Lumen Gentium:
Fr. Ambrose,

I will rather point you to a site ( I guess it’s from an Orthodox Author): stirene.org/Resources/library/orthodoxy_history.htm
Click to expand...
OK, I guess this is the reference

In another symbolic gesture, the mutual anathemas of 1054 were lifted by both sides in 1965. The two churches established a joint commission for dialogue between them. Representatives have met on a number of occasions from 1966 on to discuss differences in doctrine and practice. The claim to authority and infallibility made by the pope is generally seen as the primary obstacle to full reconciliation. **At the the end of the year 2000, 14 of the 15 Orthodox leaders called for an end to the schism. Only Patriarch Alexey II of Russia withheld his signature from the resolution, **

I have no idea what this document (?) is from 14 Orthodox primates. Do any of the other Orthodox here know about it?
Only Patriarch Alexey II of Russia withheld his signature from the resolution indicating a divide remained within the Orthodox Church. In an effort to heal such divisions, leaders of the 15 independent branches of Eastern Orthodoxy assembled in Jerusalem early in 2000 for the first Orthodox synod in 60 years.
Click to expand...
This is not logical. If only one Patriarch withheld his signature how that be indicative of *divisions * (in the plural)? There is a worry in Constantinople that Russia may replace it in influence within Orthodoxy. Given the immense number of faithful of the Russian Church this will probably occur over time.

Can anyone help to shed light on this 2000 document calling for an end to the schism? A document signed by 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches is very important. Surely we would have heard of it??!! Where can it be read??

:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
40.png
prodromos:
Interesting that they make no mention of the Orthodox church.

John
Click to expand...
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are part the same Church, started at the same time. There is a Schism within His Church, like bickering within ones family and it is a sin that we do not heal but continue (on both sides) to propagate this rift.
Let us look with new eyes and begin to heal the wounds which have separated us.

May the love of God, the peace of Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Sorry, that won’t wash, nor will Hardon’s misinterpretation.

For a period of at least 500 years the bishops of the Catholic Church in the East AND the Catholic Church in southern Italy allowed divorce. In all the churches of the papal Church in the East the Supreme Pontiff allowed ceremonies of second marriage.

You cannot honestly tell us that the Popes allowed their clergy to do this for 500 years and yet never spoke a word against it if they disapproved. To try and pass off a 500 year fact of church life in the Catholic Church as “civil and ecclesiastical disobedience” simply provokes laughter.

The bottom line is that for century after century the Popes allowed divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
WOW! That is quite an accusation for a priest to make! Do you have any documentation that baks up this information? I would be very interested in reading this. Keep in mind this proof should come from the Roman Papacy of that time.

God Bless,
h
 
Fr Ambrose:
Sorry, that won’t wash, nor will Hardon’s misinterpretation.

For a period of at least 500 years the bishops of the Catholic Church in the East AND the Catholic Church in southern Italy allowed divorce. In all the churches of the papal Church in the East the Supreme Pontiff allowed ceremonies of second marriage.

You cannot honestly tell us that the Popes allowed their clergy to do this for 500 years and yet never spoke a word against it if they disapproved. To try and pass off a 500 year fact of church life in the Catholic Church as “civil and ecclesiastical disobedience” simply provokes laughter.

The bottom line is that for century after century the Popes allowed divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Where is your proof???
 
Well Fr. Ambrose,

Because you said you keep a good track with what’s
happening on your side, I thought you would be able
to defend the Orthodox Church with regards to that
reference which is coming from an, obviously,
Orthodox author.

Fr. Ambrose, what the reference is saying is that
the withholding of Alexey’s signature is just one
of the many divisions (the author’s presumption)
that exist in the Orthodox Church. Read carefully
the paragraph I am pasting below and the words in bold letters
and the second sentence that states
“such divisions” and you will see that the second sentence
is not directly connected to the first sentence that
says of Alexey’s withdrawal from the resolution. The assembly
was not clearly defined as the result of Alexey’s withdrawal.

While the first sentence tells of “a divide” (singular), the second tells of **such divisions **(plural). So how can that paragraph sound
“illogical?”

“Only Patriarch Alexey II of Russia withheld his signature from the resolution indicating a divide remained within the Orthodox Church. In an effort to heal such divisions, leaders of the 15 independent branches of Eastern Orthodoxy assembled in Jerusalem early in 2000 for the first Orthodox synod in 60 years.”

What other divisions of the Orthodox Church are,
I believe you ought to know better. Perhaps you can
begin to list them one by one?

PAX
Fr Ambrose:
OK, I guess this is the reference

In another symbolic gesture, the mutual anathemas of 1054 were lifted by both sides in 1965. The two churches established a joint commission for dialogue between them. Representatives have met on a number of occasions from 1966 on to discuss differences in doctrine and practice. The claim to authority and infallibility made by the pope is generally seen as the primary obstacle to full reconciliation. **At the the end of the year 2000, 14 of the 15 Orthodox leaders called for an end to the schism. Only Patriarch Alexey II of Russia withheld his signature from the resolution, **

I have no idea what this document (?) is from 14 Orthodox primates. Do any of the other Orthodox here know about it?

This is not logical. If only one Patriarch withheld his signature how that be indicative of *divisions *(in the plural)? There is a worry in Constantinople that Russia may replace it in influence within Orthodoxy. Given the immense number of faithful of the Russian Church this will probably occur over time.

Can anyone help to shed light on this 2000 document calling for an end to the schism? A document signed by 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches is very important. Surely we would have heard of it??!! Where can it be read??

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Ignatius:
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are part the same Church, started at the same time. There is a Schism within His Church, like bickering within ones family and it is a sin that we do not heal but continue (on both sides) to propagate this rift.
Let us look with new eyes and begin to heal the wounds which have separated us.

May the love of God, the peace of Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.
Click to expand...
That’s the best post I’ve read on this thread. Sorry, I’m new here. But it seems to me like some people here spend too much time trying to push other peoples’ buttons. OF COURSE a Catholic will think that the Roman Catholic Church has stuck closer to apostolic teaching, and OF COURSE an Orthodox will think the same for his/her own church. We know that. Maybe, having realized that, we should move onto resolving differences between us.

My two cents. 🙂
 
40.png
Emery:
The official name of our Church is stil the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” – or just the “Catholic Church” for short (it is referred to as such, for instance, in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848). Historically, in the East, the Church has been called “Catholic” to distinguish it from schismatic groups, and the faithful the “Orthodox”. However, as you guys have successfully co-opted the name “Catholic” – 😉 – we often call the Church “Orthodox” or “Orthodox Catholic” in order to distinguish ourselves.
Click to expand...
  1. We’ve been known as the Catholic church since the first century.
  2. Go into any city and ask where the Catholic Church is. They won’t point you to the Orthodox Church.
 
Lumen Gentium:
Sorry, but I don’t think of it that way Fr. Ambrose.
I look at yourselves as the few among the many that
have gone astray and will come back to us for we
are the ones waiting for you. You were almost there
at the end of the millenium (2000) when 14 of your 15
patriarchs called for an end to the schism and a return
to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
But Alexey II of Russia said NO (out of PRIDE), and
hence, a division remains in the Orthodox Church,
and of which a division that never happened
**in the Catholic Church for 2000 years. **
Click to expand...
Alexey II was a KGB agent, and so were his bishops. JPII is credited for bringing the collapse of communism in the East. When communism collapsed, JPII asked Alexey to return Catholic Churches in Russia, that were taken and given to the Orthodox under communism. The Churches weren’t returned to the Catholic Church. I wonder how many people lost their faith and their lives under Alexey and his bishops?
 
Fr Ambrose:
I would not accuse any Patriarch of pride because they did not want to change the holy Orthodox faith.
Click to expand...
Ugh, Alexey II, patriarch of Russia was a KGB agent. And you know this. We’ve talked about it before. Is he in line with holy Orthodoxy?

That’s why you are ROCOR i.e. Russion Orthodox Church outside of Russia. The reason is, the Russian Orthodox Church compromised with communism and thus the ROCOR came about.

Are you now saying you’re in communion even over the compromises by THE PATRIARCH???
fr ambrose:
I am not aware of disunity among the Orthodox. We have some problems (Macedonia is one, some problems because of the two calendars) but nothing major. What do you have mind?
Click to expand...
religioscope.com/info/notes/2002_008_ROCOR.htm

also

answers.com/topic/russian-orthodox-church-outside-russia
 
Oh yes. During the Soviet Union era and communism in the east, where was Alexey and his followers? In cowardice, they were all hiding behind the iron curtains, while John Paul II courageously spoke against communism, and courageously fought for freedom and human dignity. When communism fell, Alexey and his followers started to build their church on the groundwork of John Paul II, assumed Russia as the third Rome, challenged supremacy from the Partriarch of Constantinople, and continued to snub John Paul II’s invitation to dialogue and ecumenism.

I remember the story of Cain and Abel. I look at JP2 as the humble and courageous Abel; Alexey as the proud and coward Cain.

PAX
steve b:
Alexey II was a KGB agent, and so were his bishops. JPII is credited for bringing the collapse of communism in the East. When communism collapsed, JPII asked Alexey to return Catholic Churches in Russia, that were taken and given to the Orthodox under communism. The Churches weren’t returned to the Catholic Church. I wonder how many people lost their faith and their lives under Alexey and his bishops?
 
steve b:
  1. We’ve been known as the Catholic church since the first century.
Click to expand...
So have we. What’s your point?
steve b:
  1. Go into any city and ask where the Catholic Church is. They won’t point you to the Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...
The issue isn’t what others call us; it’s what we call ourselves. After all, before the schism, the faithful were known as the Orthodox, but today if you asked Joe Random Catholic if he was Orthodox, he’d either say “No, I’m Catholic.” or interpret the question as asking whether he’s an orthodox Catholic (with a small-o).

You said that “[p]eople who divide from the one Catholic Church change their name, which you did, and that’s honest.” But we haven’t changed our name; that’s honest too. Others may refer to us as the Orthodox Church, and we may do so too unofficially – but officially, we still call ourselves the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. This seems relatively uncontroversial; let’s not be overly argumentative, please?
 
40.png
prodromos:
Interesting that they make no mention of the Orthodox church.

John
Click to expand...
who started your church?

Jesus Christ, the Apostles & LXX.

StMarkEofE
 
40.png
Emery:
before the schism, the faithful were known as the Orthodox,
we haven’t changed our name.
Click to expand...
Fr Ambrose posted this timeline from an Orthodox historian.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=590582&postcount=15

Obviously I think what he did with the line is flawed. He puts the Eastern Orthodox who he says start in 1054, as the continuum of the Catholic Church, and the “Roman” Catholic Church beginning in 1054, veering off the continuum. It’s just plain silly. The point of posting this is
  1. to show that an Orthodox historian recognizes 1054 as being a name change, and the start of Eastern Orthodoxy.
  2. And you don’t find “Orthodox” as a proper name being used by this historian before that date.
 
now that you said it. yes it is strange to put that in the timeline when they still profess to be the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.

because the Church is no longer One?
 
Let me state the point, in behalf of Steve, for the third time:

If you call yourselves Catholics, then what’s Fr. Ambrose and Prodromos’ fuss about the Orthodox Church not being mentioned
in the site whostartedyourchurch.com/ ?
I’m sure this question is clear now.

But the truthful fact remains that when you ask people today who the Catholics are, chances are very high that they will point you to the Catholics of the Roman Catholic Church.

I would rather give importance to a truthful fact than issues. I think what others know about us, or call us for that matter, is far more important than what we call ourselves because it shows to the extent of how we have made ourselves known as followers of Chirst; as members of the universal church. It shows to the extent of how well we have spread the Gospels, in obedience to Christ’s command, in all four corners of the world. It’s not in the name that’s important; it’s in the carrying out of the significance of the name - Catholic.

PAX
40.png
Emery:
So have we. What’s your point?

The issue isn’t what others call us; it’s what we call ourselves. After all, before the schism, the faithful were known as the Orthodox, but today if you asked Joe Random Catholic if he was Orthodox, he’d either say “No, I’m Catholic.” or interpret the question as asking whether he’s an orthodox Catholic (with a small-o).

You said that “[p]eople who divide from the one Catholic Church change their name, which you did, and that’s honest.” But we haven’t changed our name; that’s honest too. Others may refer to us as the Orthodox Church, and we may do so too unofficially – but officially, we still call ourselves the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. This seems relatively uncontroversial; let’s not be overly argumentative, please?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top