Posted on 09/17/2009 6:54:27 AM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, my Orthodox brother - he would probably call me "friend" - Panagiotis Demetriadis left the following comment on the post Catholic-Orthodox Reunion Reported "Within a Few Months" and I thought it deserved to stand alone. You may interact with it here or in the original post.
It is, as an good student of contemporary ecumenical history would know, one of the basic errors of the followers of the Pope to contend that what divides their confession from the Orthodox Church can be solved in a few months time. Rather, the auto-syneidisis of the laos tou Theou that Catholicism's experience and beliefs are not the Church's and not the Saints' is that which keeps those ecumenist hierarchs at the Phanar and elsewhere from signing yet another false union.
And what does their conscience say? That the problems of the Pope and his followers are not limited to the filioque and primacy/infallibility (still held and confessed), but also include the idea that the Grace of God is created (blasphemy from an Orthodox point of view), that we are *guilty* of the sin of Adam and Eve "original sin"), that the Mother of God was "immaculately" conceived (i.e. free of the ancestral sin and its effects), that - and here is one that is never discussed in those stuffy dialogue rooms, but is indicative of the state of contemporary catholicism more than most things - the charismatic movement is blessed and inspired by God (the Pope having blessed it and blessing it every year in Rome), that the messages being attributed to "our Lady" in places like Medjegore (sp?) or Damascus or hundreds of other "visions" occuring over the past few decades are not spiritual delusion but of God, that the phenomenon of the "stigmata" from Francis of Assisi down to Padre Pio are consistent with Christian spiritual experience and the witness of the Fathers, etc. etc. Any serious study of contemporary spiritual trends in catholicism as compared to the 2000 year old experience of the Orthodox ascetics and Saints would reveal a huge chasm between the two - certainly not bridgeable without deep repentance.
The conscience of the Orthodox Faithful - as expressed by the Church's Saints in every age, including our own (by such lights as Elder Sophrony of Essex, Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Justin Popovich, Saint Nicholai Velimirovich, and others) - is that which does not and will not permit another false union. Until the obstacles stated above are removed and true repentance is experienced, neither individuals nor "churches" will be united.
When will those interested in union with the Orthodox every learn that the voice of the Church is heard first and foremost in Her Saints - not the present Patriarch of Constantinople or representative to the European Union?
Do you want to know what the Orthodox believe and teach and think? Read the lives of the Saints of every age, but especially of this past century. When you do that, you'll clearly see that the sentiments of the above-mentioned "archbishop of Moscow" are at best dreamy, at worst, deceptive.
God bless you all.
P.D.Friends and Brothers,
Who would be the first one to tackle that one. I am planning my own response. What do y'all think?
PING!
I like your friend and his thinking, T!
The dogmas of every denomination are riddled with errors. Even the Saints weren’t perfect. Study scripture. All else is political nonsense attempting to create fiefs and kingdoms on this earth.
Orthodox ping; just about the best, most concise statement of why there will be no reunion of Rome with the other Patriarchates of The Church soon that, I think, I have ever read.
Uh, huh. So you don’t have an agenda?
-Theo
Comparing the degeneracy of an age plagued by spiritual nonsense to 2000 years of the spiritual cream of the crop...yeah, that sounds about fair.
How about just for giggles we also compare St. Francis and St. Ignatius of Loyola to the worst periods of iconoclasm and caesaropapism in Constantinople.
Seriously here, I'm as much a critic of the nonsense as anyone, but let's not oversell the point. The Western Church is a mess right now. We get it.
Focusing on sin and suffering is a dead end street for those on a spiritual path. A point comes when mystical theology of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila kick in and then what... can a soul find real meaning and purpose to their worship experience? What do the hand jesters and rosery beads accomplish? Discipline?
Jesus Christ is the living God WITHIN. He wishes to inspire, not punish and is sick of being viewed as a victim!
Why especially of this past century? I find that an interesting statement, considering the incredible treasury of saints prior to this past century.
Here we go again,....Let the “My Jesus is better than your Jesus” battle begin.
I wonder, K, I really wonder if there is an even better, even more concise one that goes like this:
We don't want one.
Have I got this right?
We're supposed to look "at the lives of the Saints".......but not Catholic saints who've borne the stigmata like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Padre Pio. Just Orthodox saints.
I guess Fatima and Lourdes are out the window, too.
Well I'm sorry if stigmatists and seers have been in short supply for the Orthodox but that's no reason to flush Catholic mysticism.
Just because the Blessed Mother entrusted the conversion of Russia to a Catholic Portuguese shepherdess, there's no reason to get bent out of shape.
Yeah, love that alphabet the Portuguese Shepherdess developed for them. That was awesome.
Oh, wait...
St. Cyril, white courtesy phone...SAINT CY-RIL, WHITE COURTESY PHONE.
Once again the National Church of Greece hurls its theological missiles at the Vatican.
This papist is so crushed.......(sigh).
What is the downside for the Orthodox? I don’t see any."
See it all here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2340120/posts?page=9
Don't tell me that's an obstacle to unity, too?
I think we're all agreed that Sts. Cyril and Methodius are giants in the world of Eastern spirituality and evangelism. Catholics actually celebrate their feast day. I think it's Feb. 14 if memory serves.
” I wonder, K, I really wonder if there is an even better, even more concise one that goes like this:
We don’t want one.”
Well, you’re right. We don’t want one. But its not on account of simple cussedness. T’s friend explains why.
No, but giving proper credit where it is due might be.
It’s not a matter of want or don’t want though. Schism is such a monstrous horror that only the most extreme circumstances—probably only flagrant and unrepentant heresy—can possibly permit it.
Now if the Orthodox are 100% convinced that the Latins are heretical and they have bent over backwards every possible way to understand the Latin position only to end in absolute defeat, then fine.
But then I keep reading about Latin “heresies” that I don’t hold and I’ve never heard Latins hold, and I wonder where all this is coming from. There’s a surface rejection of original sin, but no one seems to remember Aquinas called it sin “only by analogy” and not a personal fault. And there seems to be precious little recognition by anyone but a few theologians on what we *ourselves* mean by the filioque—rather than what it *seems* to mean to Greek-speaking Orthodox.
So when I see our own theology thus parodied, I am left with the unhappy conclusion that some on the Orthodox side are not taking this process as seriously as it warrants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.