Posted on 06/30/2003 2:53:51 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY Pope John Paul II again reached out to the Orthodox Church on Sunday, saying his efforts at reconciliation weren't just "ecclesiastic courtesy" but a sign of his profound desire to unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
John Paul made the comments during his regular appearance to pilgrims and tourists in St. Peter's Square. Later Sunday, he welcomed a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople at a traditional Mass marking the feast day of St. Peter and St. Paul.
"The exchange of delegations between Rome and Constantinople, for the respective patron feasts, goes beyond just an act of ecclesiastic courtesy," the pontiff said. "It reflects the profound and rooted intention to re-establish the full communion between East and West."
John Paul has made improving relations with the Orthodox Church a hallmark of his nearly 25-year papacy, visiting several mostly Orthodox countries and expressing regret for the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church against Orthodox Christians.
Despite his efforts at healing the 1,000-year-old schism, he hasn't yet visited Russia because of objections from the Russian Orthodox Church.
During the Mass on Sunday, 42 new archbishops received the pallium, a band of white wool decorated with black crosses that symbolizes their bond with the Vatican. Two of the archbishops received the pallium in their home parishes; the rest took part in the Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
As a Catholic, I'd describe Purgatory and the need for it like this:
3. But if he was a believer, and did not corrupt the faith, and having sinned, did indeed repent, but did not reach the performance of good deeds to prove his repentance by actions, then he is led where God assigns him, that he may be punished temporarily, as long as Divine Righteousness considers proper. (Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church)
You deny this doctrine of your own Church?
Where did Christ give the Keys to allt he Apostles equally? And where does any Church Father say anything to back up this startling assertion?
If the answer is yes, why are converts in the Greek Orthodox Church being rebaptized? I'll give you a hint: "The Orthodox Church does not accept baptism by sprinkling or pouring of water" (Catechism of the Greek Orthodox Faith).
Evidence regarding rebaptism here, quoting protests of the Balmand statement, "especially to protests against that statement's call for an end to the practice of rebaptism of converts"
And further down:
"It is this provision of Constantinople in 1484, together with Canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, which the Council of Moscow in 1667 invokes in its decree forbidding the rebaptism of Catholics, a decree that has remained authoritative in the East Slavic Orthodox churches to the present day."
And:
"Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the reception of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism. Nevertheless, these rulings left rebaptism as an option subject to 'pastoral discretion.'"
And:
"In his own day, he argued, the Orthodox were protected by the might of the Turkish Sultan, and so were again free to follow the perennial 'exactness' of the Church. Latins were therefore now to be rebaptized."
I'm "the most clueless person [you] have encountered in awhile" because I speak to you the truth? I post fantasy and ignorance when it is the truth of your own history publicly admitted by your own Church? Are you saying I've made up the history of the Orthodox Church myself?
Show me where.
I'm not avoiding it at all. I don't know what there is to discuss about it. The Byzantines made him thus. Are you objecting to history, that the Emperor's Exarch moved to Ravenna and left the Pope in charge secularly in Rome, runnign the courts and regulating the economy? Object all you like, but it was the Byzantine Emperor's who did this.
In John 20, as we shall see.
First, what are the "keys to the kingdom"? They are defined for us in Matthew 16:19
"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Clearly, the keys to the kingdom are the ability to bind or loose in heaven.
So when we read in John 20:19-23
Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled,for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
We see that this has been received by all of the Apostles. They all have the ability bind or loose in heaven. They all have the keys to the kingdom.
And where does any Church Father say anything to back up this startling assertion?
What do you think first among equals meant?
Complete the quote: "and embrace Islam." That's what so many Orthodox did. That's why there are so many "Turks" who look like Greeks.
Again, show me a Church Father who said the Pope is "First among equals".
The Keys are a symbol of ruling authority. Thus, being granted the Key to the City. The power to bind and loose is not a power to rule, but to forgive sins, as you correctly state. The Keys relate to the Founding of the Church upon Peter.
Yes, it is difficult to understand when your own authorities say that you are divided.
We live in the poisoned atmosphere of anathemas and excommunications, court cases and litigations, dubious consecrations of dubious bishops, hatred, calumny, lies! But do we think about the irreparable moral damage all this inflicts to our people? How can they respect the Hierarchy and its decisions? What meaning can the very concept of canonicity have for them? Are we not encouraging them to consider all norms, all regulations, all rules as purely relative? One wonders sometimes whether our bishops realize the scandal of this situation, whether they ever think about the cynicism all this provokes and feeds in the hearts of Orthodox people. Three Russian jurisdictions, two Serbian, two Romanian, two Albanian, two Bulgarian. A split among the Syrians . . . The animosity between the Russians and the Carpatho-Russians... The Ukrainian problem! And all this at a time when Orthodoxy in America is coming of age, when truly wonderful possibilities exist for its growth, expansion, creative progress. We teach our children to be "proud" of Orthodoxy, we constantly congratulate ourselves about all kinds of historic events and achievements, our church publications distill an almost unbearable triumphalism and optimism, yet, if we were true to the spirit of our faith we ought to repent in "sackcloth and ashes," we ought to cry day and night about the sad, the tragical state of our Church. If "canonicity" is anything but a pharisaic and legalistic self-righteousness, if it has anything to do with the spirit of Christ and the tradition of His Body, the Church, we must openly proclaim that the situation in which we all live is utterly uncanonical regardless of all the justifications and sanctions that every one finds for his "position." For nothing can justify the bare fact: Our Church is divided. To be sure, there have always been divisions and conflicts among Christians. But for the first time in history division belongs to the very structure of the Church, for the first time canonicity seems strangely disconnected from its fundamental "content" and purpose—to assure, express, defend and fulfill the Church as Divinely given Unity, for the first time, in other terms, one seems to find normal a multiplicity of "jurisdictions". Truly we must wake up and be horrified by this situation. (Problems of Orthodoxy in America, by Fr. Alexander Schmemann)
Clearly, our two churches can never be united when we cannot even agree on that!
Better to pursue our own paths.
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.