Posted on 05/25/2009 7:42:13 AM PDT by GonzoII
That's why I posted the historical note. As for posting a caveat on the date, I agree fully. While the majority of the theology taught in the 1930s is good (often more solid than what is taught today), there has been too much serious progress developed in the past 50 years on healing the schism in the Church (including beginning to resolve the filoque issue with the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople) to set stuff back here on FR.
Next time, engage some brain cells, review the text to make sure it makes sense and is relevant, and only then click the "Post" button.
In 1964 our Churches removed mutual anathemas directed at the EP and the Pope and ended our schism, but not our disagreement. This disagreement is since then an "in house" issue. Until these issues are resolved we simply can't partake in communion because communion is not a means to a union but an expression of union.
Pope Benedict XVI made reunion his number one priority immediately after being installed. It is very disrespectful, disingenuous and counterproductive for individual Catholics to post inflammatory topics while our Churches engage in constructive dialogue aimed at bridging the gaps and bringing our Churches ever closer.
Orthodox clergy are always aware of what the laity perceive because in our ecclesial system the laity have a say. The hastily made reunion in Florence failed because the laity and lower clergy siding with them refused to abide by it. I hope our Catholic friends keep this in mind before they post.
Those Catholics who disagree with what the Pope is doing trying to bring our Churches closer should address it with him, not with Orthodox laity.
With the Orthodox Churches this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
I continue to focus on the mountain of commonalities rather than the molehill of differences.
In the future, these threads--if they are to continue--should be prominently dated and denoted as historical.
If I had to guess, I would think that post was intended as a satirical criticism of the tone of this article, rather than a serious description of anyone pictured there.
I don’t know that this, and similar recently posted diatribes against the Faithful, comes from the Latin right. They come from the Latin left. These posts do not proclaim the Good News of the Risen Lord. Really, where is Christ in this posting? Rather, these postings just reiterate policies and procedures. What does the author believe in? The Prince of Peace or institutional procedures?
GonzoII, thank you so much for providing this box of ammo. I think this will settle things for the next millennium at least.
I would like to say some choice words, but I have letters to send.
Hey Kosta, while you're busy sending this info to every single Catholic and Orthodox diocese in the entire world (including the Pope and Constantinople), be sure and include your own views on the Bible. I'm sure they'll all agree with you.
I’m for God and His church and against Satan (and I think whatever those two gentlemen in the picture might disagree on, they agree on that), and I got a fever and the only prescription is more Zero Wing. Sorry.
Absolutely.
Cound't agree more. And, by the way, I do hope we continue to work on what our hierachs would like to see us do in the spirit of convergence from the top down.
When, or rather if, my views on the Bible were to become an issue of reunion, then that would be expected, considering the issue at hand, don't you think? But since I think my views on the Bible won't make one iota of difference on the issue of papal supremacy, the Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception, my views on the subject are irrelevant.
But if you think your views are perfect, why don't you submit them?
***I like the words of Pope Paul VI as quoted above:
With the Orthodox Churches this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a commo***
It is important that we overcome the egos and idiots of a millennium ago and recognize who and what we are.
But if you think your views are perfect, why don't you submit them?
Come on now, for a guy who was going to write letters to every diocese in the world you're suddenly acting as if you have opinions.
Oh, and by all means tell them that you don't believe J*sus rose from the dead and that the entire chr*stian religion is a gigantic fiction put together three hundred years after the fact which derives all its validity from the good effects it has on lives!
C'mon, you're the Orthodox Torquemada, "pontificating" on what is and is not going to hinder "unity" . . . tell them!
Publishing outdated works that run counter to the present efforts of both Churches is counterproductive and not in harmony with Pope Benedict's primary goal announced soon after his enthronement.
Mother Teresa doubted, and so did St. Thomas, and he wasn't the only one (cf Mat 28:17). As for my doubts, I see them as just that. I don't teach my thoughts are the truth; they are just my thoughts. I still defer to the Church and her combined wisdom as the highest authority on what truth is.
You are not a Christian, so why are you on this thread? Maybe you don't need to answer. Your screen name says it all.
What did Stalin say about truth? If you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth.
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.