Pope Again Reaches Out to Orthodox Church

Herald Tribune ^ | June 30, 2003

[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.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Read the quotes again they say, and the Son, not through the Son. I can produce through the Son quotes too, if you wish, and I'll argue that the meaning is identical when we look at it from the latin language and latin understanding. Please stop looking at the filioque from the Greek, because it is not a Greek theological term. You'll never understand it from that language.

The only reason the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son is because He first proceeds from the Father. Hence, fro the Father through the Son. We have no problem saying that also and we feel it expresses the same theology, even if you Easterners can't see that.

The Pope did not add the filioque to the Creed, the Council of Toledo did. The filioque was taught by all the West and much of the East.

More importantly, nobody disputed it until Photius, although it had been around as an express for over 650 years at that time. And nobody until then ever said "Proceeds from the Father alone."

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Herman you are a liar! The Latins were also active participants to the fullness of the Nicean Creeds approved addition. All the Bishops, INCLUDING the Bishop of Rome decreed that the Nicean Creed was now in its full and final form.

I challenge any Orthodox again to show from the Acts of the Councils where it says the Creed may never again be more fully explained by adding words that further clarify its meaning. The Council of Ephesus, which I quoted, says the exact opposite of what you claim.

It is forbidden to draw up a NEW CREED, meaning a NEW FAITH. Not to more fully explain the NICENE CREED. Otherwise, the actions of Chalcedon, Constantinople III, etc. were heretical because they added to the creed to more fully explain it.

And neither the original creed nor the Constantinoplitan addition and the Church father you posted mention the filioque in any way shape or form. It does not exist until the Pope inserted it and hereticed himself and his seat.

All the Church Father's I posted mentioned the filioque. Go read the quotes again.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

while fighting mongols

When and where did Nevsky fight the Mongols? In fact, Nevsky was appointed to the throne of Kyiv by Khan Guyuk and then quashed his own people who rebelled against the Mongol tribute.

[Destro]

the disproving of the filioque by the words of the Saints you claim affirm the filioque!

we will discover all these things also in the Spirit, through the Son. - St. Athanasius, 3rd Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 1 (360 AD)

they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136

The Spirit of the Word is like a love of the Father...and it naturally rests on the Son - St. Gregory Palamas, Chapters, 36, PG 150:1144D-1145A

St. Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou)," (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A). You used a bogus Latin translation. For it to be "and the Son" would be expressed in Greek "kai to Uiou".

[Latins] know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136 in which St. Maximus gives the benifit of the doubt to Latins and chastises their translation - if their Latin filioque words mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son that is fine. He hopes that is the case because if the Latins really mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son then it would be in error. In other words the Greek understanding of the Trinity is correct and the Latin understanding of the Trinity is only correct if the Latin translation is in synch with the Greek meaning.

[George W. Bush]

And I look around at who's opposing it, and I see Catholics, and more Catholics, and still more Catholics, and ... oh, yes, the occasional Protestant.

Oh, please. Get a grip on yourself.

The most Catholic states are among the most liberal. States like New York and other big corrupt union-dominated leftist-idoleogy states. And in them, the Roman element is as often subversive to pro-life issues as it is supportive of the pro-life cause. You've got plenty of cafeteria Catholics.

By contrast, here in the Midwest and many of the rural states, Catholics are a small minority. But they have vocal and conservative bishops. Like my own bishop, Bruskewitz. The last serious challenge to abortion law from a state case came from Nebraska and it is certainly not readily apparent that it was instigated by Roman elements though our state pro-life organizations do have a number of R.C.'s in them. But our Baptists and evangelicals are just as involved and active against abortion as the local R.C.'s. Om comparison to Nebraska's example, how many of the liberal bishops in the big Democrat/Catholic states have ever written to their parishioners and told them directly that it is anti-Church and anti-life to vote Democrat? Archibishop Eldon Curtiss of Omaha did exactly that. And Bruskewitz told anyone who joined a pro-abort or pro-sodomite group to consider themselves formally excommunicated. You need to understand that there is a reason why Nebraska was one of the three all-red Bush states in the last election. Our R.C.'s may still be mostly registered as Dems but they vote conservative. This is why our Dims are more conservative than most anyone else's. And they don't get a pass from liberal R.C. bishops either, like Cuomo and the other CINO politicians do from their local RC hierarchy. It makes a huge difference.

So, in terms of clout, the smaller states are the most anti-abortion. And they are the most effective in that fight. They are the most steadfast in sending representatives to Congress, especially to the Senate, to support the pro-life agenda. It is not entirely a coincidence that there are often very conservative R.C. bishops in the dioceses of those states.

By contrast, the best-known large states with substantial Roman elements in the pro-life movement are largely undermined by their own cafeteria Catholics voting for pro-abort Catholic Dimwits (like Cuomo, for example) and the votes of the R.C. pro-lifers are submerged in a general liberal voting bloc of their fellow RC's who follow the liberal social and political ideology that is preached by their bishops.

You're just wrong. Name recognition and an occasional rally in a big city don't mean much if you don't send representatives to Congress, especially the Senate, to enact your views. Period.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

at least pagan Mongols didn't destroy Orthodox Church...

It's really astonishing how Russian Orthodox sing the praises of the Mongolians and go on, ridiculously, about the wonderful religious freedom under their rule, somehow managing to ignore the fact that while Nevsky was fighting the Swedes in 1240, the Mongols sacked of Kyiv that very year and brought to an end the Kyivan Rus civilization. From 1240-1242, the Mongols then proceeded to overrun Galicia, sack Crackow, invade Poland, invade Bulgaria, Hungary, and capture Budapest. And what is Nevsky doing in 1242? Fighting western forces on lake Peipus. To reward his loyalty, the mongols made him grand prince over the ruins of Kyiv in 1246.

[George W. Bush]

[Latins] know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus

Maximus makes a very sound statement here and the Father is given His rightful pre-eminence in the Trinity.

[George W. Bush]

It's really astonishing how Russian Orthodox sing the praises of the Mongolians and go on, ridiculously, about the wonderful religious freedom under their rule, somehow managing to ignore the fact that while Nevsky was fighting the Swedes in 1240, the Mongols sacked of Kyiv that very year and blah-blah-blah...

Okay, now I understand why you submit to your pope as a spirtual dictator... It's all these political intrigues in eastern Europe 6-8 centuries ago.

Were the popes in those centuries kissing Korans like the current one does or were they doing their best to raise armies to keep the Muslim Turk out of Europe?

[George W. Bush]

Please stop looking at the filioque from the Greek, because it is not a Greek theological term.

You're saying then that Jesus and His disciples, who spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, couldn't have understood it either? Isn't that just a little suspicious, however many Church Fathers you try to pile on top of your filioque?

[Destro]

How ignorant my fellow Americans are...do they not recall that when Hülegü's Mongols entered Damascus in 1259 they forced the Muslims to kneel before the Cross?

The Mongols were brutal but they were not anti-Christian and were extremely anti-Muslim.

[Destro]

That many Mongols were Christians - some Nestorian - some Orthodox is lost among the unread of history:

I write this not to excuse the Mongols but to show you that to somehow claim the Mongols were out to wipe out Christianity is a falsehood.

That there had been quite a few Christians among the Mongol soldiers, is seen in the many iron helmets, found on the [Japanese] battlefield after the war, that had the mark of the cross engraved on them. This again indicates the existence of Christian communities in China, at least some three hundred years before the Franciscan missionaries reached the Orient.

[Destro]

see above on the Mongols. That argument also fails them.

[ArrogantBustard]

Oh, please. Get a grip on yourself. And tell your Orthodox buddies to get a grip while you're at it. There are plenty of protestants in "Blue America", and plenty of protestants in political office who support the Culture of Death. Hitlery is one of yours. Likewise Bill and Al. And "Sheets" Byrd. Just for starters. They sure didn't get elected by the CINO vote. Oh, and when pro-abortion 'rats want to give campaign speeches preach in a church, it's sure not a Catholic one. Protestant's don't have to do the "cafeteria" thing; y'all can just go denomination shopping to find one with lesbian "bishops", or that doesn't mind abortion, or breaks with 1900 years of Tradition to allow artificial contraception. Glass houses, bub. Any "Catholic" (so called) who supports or engages in abortion, contraception, cloning, fetal experimentation, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or buggery is acting in direct contradiction to his alleged Faith, and may very well have automatically (laetae sententiae) excommunicated himself. The same can NOT be said of Protestants.

And that, my fellow Americans, is the bottom line. The Protestant churches are institutionally compromised. The Catholic Church need only live up to her existing teachings.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

do they not recall that when Hülegü's Mongols entered Damascus in 1259 they forced the Muslims to kneel before the Cross?

Probably not, since this story is likely a fairy tale, but I'm sure some of them do recall that the Mongols adopted Islam not long after. Btw, Hulagu sacked Baghdad in 1258, not 1259.

The Mongols were brutal but they were not anti-Christian and were extremely anti-Muslim.

Even though they became muslim themselves. Riiiight.

Is it something in the Russian mindset that makes them prefer slavery to liberty? How else to explain jubilation at the thought of "forcing Muslims to kneel before the cross"? Is there something about oriental despotism, Tsarist caesaro-papism, mongols forcing people to kneel at the cross, and the sound of muzhiks groaning under the knout which invokes romantic nostalgia for Russians? How else to explain why they look upon Mongols, who destroyed Kyivan Rus, as liberators and defenders of the faith? One day they will say Stalin was a great defender of the faith.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I write this not to excuse the Mongols but to show you that to somehow claim the Mongols were out to wipe out Christianity is a falsehood.

Then you are wasting your time, because I haven't claimed that.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

It was an "orthodox" poster on this thread who preferred the Sultan to the Pope

It's flabbergasting to hear the duplicitous Orthodox kowtowing toward the Turks, Mongols, etc. The contraditions stare at them in the face, yet they remain unmoved. For example, on page 87 of The Orthodox Church, Timothy Ware writes

"It was not an easy transition: but it was made less hard by the Turks themselves, who treated their Christian subjects with remarkable generosity. "

while on page 90 he writes

"Patriarchs were removed and reinstated with kaleidescopic rapidity. 'Out of 159 Patriarchs who have held office between the fifteenth and the twentieth century, the Turks have on 105 occasions driven out Patriarchs from their throne; there have been 27 abdications, often involuntary, 6 Patriarchs have suffered violent deaths by hanging, poisoning, or drowning; and only 21 have died natural deaths while in office.'"

[Destro]

do they not recall that when Hülegü's Mongols entered Damascus in 1259 they forced the Muslims to kneel before the Cross?

Probably not, since this story is likely a fairy tale, but I'm sure some of them do recall that the Mongols adopted Islam not long after. Btw, Hulagu sacked Baghdad in 1258, not 1259.

How could you read Damascus....and then confuse it with Baghdad.

That you are ignorant of history is your failing but I aim to correct that.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

How could you read Damascus....and then confuse it with Baghdad.

And he sacked Damascus in 1260, not 1259.

[George W. Bush]

The Protestant churches are institutionally compromised. The Catholic Church need only live up to her existing teachings.

The liberal mainstream Prots are just social clubs that promote abortion/sodomy while invoking a few kum-ba-yahs and reading a bit of inane poetry. Pathetic. One wonders why they even bother to claim the name of Christ.

Jimmy Carter has been driven into a liberal and rapidly dying wing of the Baptists. His little power play to destroy the orthodoxy of Southern Baptists has failed miserably. Good riddance. Gore and Clinton no longer bother to pretend any real association with Southern Baptists since they've been exposed as religious frauds and Jimmy's fate has left them with nowhere to go and nothing to say on the subject.

For the most part, you're right about Protestants, especially the large liberal denominations.

But AmChurch isn't going to live up to its doctrine because the liberal American hierarchy doesn't want to. And the idea many conservative RCs hold that this liberalism in their churches will run its course and die out in the next twenty years is just a pleasant fantasy. Despite some modest gains by conservative RCs and their bishops, I don't expect they'll carry the day nationally but they might very well preserve a remnant of (relatively) traditional Catholicism and that which I call orthodox traditional doctrine which is shared by RCs, Orthodox, Baptists and many evangelicals and a smaller number of conservative Protestant churches. For instance, we see some smaller denominations of conservative Presbyterians who are a remnant of the once-great Protestant denomination. But the large majority of the Presbyterians are hopelessly lost and are losing the few orthodox Christians they have left. But there is a remnant of faithful in the smaller conservative churches who hold their historic faith. I think the same thing is happening to AmChurch. The few conservative bishops may manage to preserve a sound local hierarchy and teaching, as they do in my own state. But the real future of Roman orthodoxy lies in the Third World. It is much the same with Anglicans and some of the Protestants. Their largest and most effective organizations are not in America. America is becoming a heathen mission field for all practical purposes. That some of those heathens are in control of formerly Christian churches doesn't change anything. Still a mission field of lost souls. We Baptists, at least, readily acknowledge that America is becoming, as European countries already have, an ex-Christian nation.

BTW, I do work with local RC friends on pro-family/pro-life issues politically. Our doctrinal differences do not prevent us from sharing a common political agenda. The Roman churches provide a certain institutional framework that helps to focus the political power of activists and provides communication and political organization. Given the strength of our opponents, we'd be fools to go it alone. And, aside from doctrinal differences, I have no problem with my own RC bishop. He's rather admirable. My RC friends are rightfully proud of his stand for tradition and orthodox Christian belief.

[George W. Bush]

That many Mongols were Christians - some Nestorian - some Orthodox is lost among the unread of history:

I would say that the Mongols were more interested in conquest than religion. I think that's pretty conventional in at least the American presentation of them. They weren't really waging a crusade for Christianity or Islam or any other religion. Their involvement in religious disputes had more to do with their desire for hegemony and for maintaining their hold on their conquests.

I don't think there is any great evidence for a single overriding religious objective in any way comparable to say, the Roman crusades against the Mideast or the Turks' attacks on both the East and the West. Those were much closer to true wars of conquest to impose religious ideology. The Mongols didn't seem to have such purpose or at least they didn't express it very consistently.