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.
Why Byzantium was lost. The Turks came looking for a fight, and the Greeks roled over.
Novel definition, but I suppose we can work with it, if we understand that as your terms. Maybe I'm going to have to reconsider my feelings about 1204 and the Ustasha, though, if you keep this up.
Was the liberation of the Holy Land and the Christians of Antioch and Edessa and Jerusalem an evil "war of conquest"? How about the Reconquest of Spain? How about the reconquest of Caucasia, the Balkans, or Central Asia fromthe forces of Mohammed?
Should we all have just sought out the nearest Muslim with a sword and insulted them instead?
After Mazinkert, why didn't Byzantium just rush out unarmed into the glorious martyrdom they could have had from the Seljuk Turks?
There was a lot of love in Croatia - Not.
How many times does your church attack and sack us and we are expected to now trust you? How many of our children do your priests kill before we learn to stay away?
There is love in Christ and there is learning about evil and how to avoid it. How many times does your pope say one thing and use his actions to show another?
Apologize for the Utasha his church supported but beatify a man who headed the church in Croatia and knew what was happening. And turned at the end to helping people, when the war was almost over - hard thing to do there, rescue people at the end when things were about to drastically change.
I guess the Simon Weisenthal Center is not loving either for having those barbarians the vatican helped to escape to Argentina brought to justice.
Why should we Orthodox only bear the burden of being chased after by your pope? Why doesn't he desire to unite with another Christian or even Jewish group?
Have you checked out the Vatican Bank recently? Just what about your church should those of us who value Holiness find to be interesting?
This warning is somewhat like B Chan's vague comments about the hour being late and the wolves gathering.
All meant to frighten us into submitting, I suppose.
The problem with trying to frighten those who have been schooled on martyrdom is that it doesn't work so well.
"Filioquism confuses the persons, and destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in the Godhead. The oneness of the deity is emphasized at the expense of His threeness; God is regarded too much in terms of abstract essence and too little in terms of concrete personality" (The Orthodox Church, page 222).
In the Western Church consciousness, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son of God. It is sufficient to leaf through Western theological texts in order to be convinced as to what an insignificant place Catholic theologians allocate to the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world, in the Church and in the life of individual men.
The Filioque places the Holy Spirit in a state of subordination to the Father and the Son, and it distorted the teaching on the Church in the West (of this, we shall speak separately). Every false teaching about the Holy Spirit is a blow against the dogma about the Church. Because the place of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and in God's plan concerning man was ignored in Western theological thought, the Church gradually began to be accepted as an earthly institution, organized and administered according to the principles of worldly authority and juridical law."
From Fr. Victor Potapov, who baptised and christmated my youngest son.
Afterall, the RC in the Philipines know what they face as do the RC of Indonesia.
POPE, save your OWN!! Or suffer your very own defeat of "Constantinople"!!
It won't be pretty or painless. Ask the Serbs and the Greeks how horrible it was.... they lived the terror for 500+ years.
It was Augustine with his double procession theory who iniated the change to the filioque, and the Roman need to rule and change things that brought it about.
You can say that it means the same thing, and if you are comfortable with the consequences of praying in such a manner, good for you. But I believe there is a warning in Holy Scripture about just this kind of disregard for the Holy Spirit.
You mean the ones given to all of the Apostles equally? What was your point again?
Were the keys of the Kingdom (of David) given to Peter, or all of the Apostles?
In Isaiah 22 (especially 22:22), we see a reference to the historical office of the vice-regent of the King of the House of David. The vice-regent's office was signified by a key which he wore in a pouch slung around his neck. In the king's absence, the vice-regent held full plenary authority.
In Revelation 3:7, we see that Jesus, as the eternal King of the House of David, holds the key.
In Matthew 16:19, we see Jesus giving the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter alone. This makes sense, since the King of the House of David in the OT had only one vice-regent.
But don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself.
The 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274, Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit ...we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one.
The Council of Florence, 1438-45, Decree for the Jacobites The Father is not begotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The Roman Catechism (the official RC catechism from 1566-1994), I.8.6 With regard to the words immediately succeeding: “who proceeds from the Father and the Son,” the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church [sic] from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.
Vatican I, 1869-70, Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his [sic] own, but in communicating his [sic] own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he [sic] proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (the new, official catechism), 246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).” The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his [sic] nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration . . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he [sic] is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church (the new, official catechism), 248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin [sic] of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father,” it affirms that he [sic] comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).
The 11th Council of Toledo, 675 We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity is God, and that he [sic] is one and equal with God the Father and God the Son, of one substance as well as of one nature. However, he [sic] is not begotten nor created, but he [sic] proceeds from both and is the Spirit of both. We believe that the Holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten: lest, if we say unbegotten we should be asserting two Fathers; and if we said begotten we should appear to be preaching two Sons. He is called the Spirit, not only of the Father nor only of the Son but equally of the Father and of the Son. He proceeds not from the Father into the Son nor from the Son to sanctify creatures; but he [sic] is shown to have proceeded from both equally, because he [sic] is known as the love or the sanctity of both.
Alexei Khomiakov, The Church is One.
Is this not exactly what your own schismatics say about your church and your pope? That your rulers have made changes at their own whim and distorted the faith? I believe so.
This is the problem to which I'm referring. When Jesus tells us to take our disputes "to the church," logically, He must necessarily be speaking of a visible and united church, otherwise His command is rendered completely impracticable and therefore meaningless and null.
If I want a definitive teaching from the Orthodox Church regarding artificial birth control (grave matter), for example, to which church should I go?
"...actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" -- and further after this: "Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained" (Jn 20:22-23); or: "with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens" (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone -- Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore "by the passions of his own sins -- says Wisdom -- is each ensnared" (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
....Besides this, the thrice appealing of the Saviour to Peter and the thrice confession of Peter before the Lord had a particular beneficial purpose for the Apostle. That one, to whom was given "the keys of the kingdom" and the right "to bind and to loosen," himself thrice bound himself by fear and cowardice (Mt 26:69-75), and the Lord thrice loosens him by His appeal and in turn by his confession of strong love. And to shepherd literally the flock of Christ was acquired by all the Apostles and their successors. "Attend yourself to all the flock" -- urges the Apostle Paul to church presbyters -- "in which the Holy Spirit hath established ye as bishops, to shepherd the Church of the Lord God, acquired by His Blood" (Acts 20:28); and the Apostle Peter to the elders: "Feed among you the flock of Christ, attending to it not by need, but by will and according to God: not for unrighteous profit, but zealously: not as commanding parables, but be an image to the flock. And when is appeared the Prince of pastors, ye will receive unfading crowns of glory" (1 Pet. 5:2-4)."
Which Orthodox Church has the correct teaching regarding artificial birth control?
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.