Bartholomew I / Pope Benedict
Posted on 12/01/2009 6:34:51 AM PST by NYer
.- Pope Benedict XVI reached out to Bartholomew I and the Eastern Church Monday in his annual letter to the Patriarch celebrating the Feast of St. Andrew. The message encouraged continued ecumenical talks towards unification of the churches of the East and West and "openness to the Holy Spirit" to guide them in the process.
The letter was delivered to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Istanbul, Bartholomew I, by way of a Papal delegation led by the President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity Cardinal Walter Kasper. The delegation concelebrated Mass with the Patriarch and gave him the letter in a ceremony afterwards.
The message included words of shared celebration for the Feast of St. Andrew, patron of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
Citing St. Andrew's martyrdom, the Pope wrote "The memory of the holy martyrs compels all Christians to bear witness to their faith before the world. There is an urgency in this call especially in our own day, in which Christianity is faced with increasingly complex challenges. The witness of Christians will surely be all the more credible if all believers in Christ are 'of one heart and soul.'
"Our Churches have committed themselves sincerely over the last decades to pursuing the path towards the re-establishment of full communion, and although we have not yet reached our goal, many steps have been taken that have enabled us to deepen the bonds between us."
Said the Pontiff of this relationship, it "should not be hindered by those who remain bound to the remembrance of historical differences, which impedes their openness to the Holy Spirit who guides the Church and is able to transform all human failings into opportunities for good."
The Pope referenced the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, which met for the 11th time in a plenary session in Cyprus in October, as progress towards unity. "The meeting was marked by a spirit of solemn purpose and a warm sentiment of closeness."
Pope Benedict XVI chose to reiterate the words that he had used while in Phanar, Turkey in 2006, to express his the Roman Catholic Church's wish for an “ecclesiology of communion” in recognizing the establishment of the Petrine lineage of the Church of Rome. He wrote, "It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognized by one and all."
"Yet even as we make this journey towards full communion," he continued, "we should already offer common witness by working together in the service of humanity, especially in defending the dignity of the human person, in affirming fundamental ethical values, in promoting justice and peace, and in responding to the suffering that continues to afflict our world, particularly hunger, poverty, illiteracy, and the inequitable distribution of resources."
I hear they do that when they've been neutered.
Have you been neutered?
Catholics, Evangelicals (Lutherans), and Jews pay the poll tax.
Plenty. Ever heard of the Ostwanderung? How about Towns (you know, as in them being founded)? How about the priesthood and religious orders?
Feudalism is not socialism, since land and companies are not owned collectively.
Pretty presumptuous of you, isn't it? Declaring yourself FR's pet?
“What makes you think that Catholics don’t believe in natural rights?”
Well there was a Reformation, ya know, and it didn’t just revolve around theology but got into rights and politics and war. So naturally natural rights evolved from that.
I have no doubt that Romanist natural rights have evolved at the same time and political exigencies have contributed to that.
No doubt there is still a chasm between Protestant and Romanist thoughts on natural rights. My screenname being perhaps the largest chasm.
But if you’ll direct me to the relevant section in the Catechism I would be appreciative.
Nope
How about Towns (you know, as in them being founded)?
Please explicate.
How about the priesthood and religious orders?
So you could move out of serfdom by kissing the Popes...ring? I think that actually makes my point.
Feudalism is not socialism, since land and companies are not owned collectively.
Yet owned by elitists. Difference in terms only.
You don't think Catholics have a conscience either? Maybe you just ought to start at the beginning of the Catechism and read straight through.
I see discussion on natural law but I don’t see anything on natural rights, per se.
I don’t see anything about the right to life, liberty, religion, free association and the such.
I believe all men have a conscience but I’m not seeing anything in the Catechism that addresses the sanctity of it.
The Ostwanderung was the movement of people from the overcrowded portions of northwestern Europe (Saxony, Holland, Flanders, Franconia, Lorraine, etc.) to the relatively unpopulated east in what is now Poland, the Baltics, White Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Translyvania, Hungary, and Slovakia. Surprise - peasants could move in the middle ages.
The founding of towns the middle ages was the time when people began to move out of the countryside and into towns. Prior to that time there were almost no towns of any significance outside of Italy and the East Roman Empire. Once in towns, they began to participate in commerce, banking, and manufacturing - you now, capitalistic acts among consenting adults.
The priesthood and religious orders were the educated elites of the day, they founded the universitiy system, ran the schools, and even began the first rudimentary international banking system. They also spread knowledge of improved agricultural and manufacturing techniques, preserved and built upon ancient knowledge, and devleoped new architectural and engineering practices which would revolutionize building. They also created the first hospitals and began the modernization of medicine.
In feudal society, title did not exist in the same way it does today. Peasants were attached to their land and could not be deprived of it - in other words, a family had an allodial right to their land, and could never be deprived of it for any reason. Lords were under the duty to protect their peasants (i.e. act as ministers of justice and policing), provide for religious insitutions in their villages and manors (i.e. build churches and schools). This seems very foreign to us because we are used to electing our government officials, not having them simply be born, but really is hardly that different. Other than the fact that we can be deprived of “our” land and property for non-payment of debt and failure to pay property taxes. In ancient times, land effectively belonged to those who lived on it and worked it. Today, real property effectively belongs to the government and banks, and they derive the profit of its rent and use by us.
The medieval peasant/serf typically had 160 days off per year of Sundays and Holy Days and Vigils. He owed just 20% of his income in taxes. The modern American today has perhaps 130 days off of Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays and Vacation, and owes 35% of his income in taxes.
Who is freer?
We are by a long shot. If you want to scratch out an existence on a small plot of land trying to survive on potatoes and the chickens and pigs living in your little hut with a Lord lording over you, go for it.
Oh, and it's great they only had to pay 20% taxes but when your income really isn't sufficient to pay for your existence that 20% is a much harder burden than 35% tax burden living in prosperity. As Bob Dylan once sang, "when you got nothing you got nothing to lose."
All of your historical revisionism leave out some other important variables that you fail to mention such as how long those serfs worked each day in comparison to the average work day today not to mention the actual type of labor involved and it's effects on the body.
Dude, you better check what they're burning for incense in your Romanist temple because this is one of the most laughable revisionist histories I've heard.
As a starting point, remember that you are addressing someone whose hatred of the Catholic Church is so strong as to refuse even the use of the word. Do you imagine such a person--a self-identified bigot--reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Technology =/= freedom.
You are confusing technological advances which are only possible to us thanks to the work of the Church in the Middle Ages, with freedom.
Just because peasants performed manual labor does not mean they were not free.
BWHAHAHAHA!
STOP IT.
And that makes two "most cowardly post" entries from you, and in a single day to boot! It doesn't take a genius to figure who the "someone" is that AnAmericanMother was addressing, but it takes a genius to actually ping him!
Instead of trying to tell us what our faith teaches about socialism and what the Holy Father's "true" intentions are, why not post something positive. Show us the light. Tell us what your loony sect has to say about this.
Post a link with some authoritative teaching on this issue which stands on its own merits and addresses the topic which you've picked out of the Holy Father's letter.
........*crickets chirping*........
Nothing?
Sucks to be nothing but a naysayer, doesn't it?
Again, your efforts to drag me down into your gutter will not succeed.
He’s already here.
SHEESH! I couldn’t get a word in in the middle of your post.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.