|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 4, 2019 17:17:18 GMT -5
I agree...the fact that the Byzantines and Ukrainian Churches are now ecumenical maniacs for all things orthoduck is a great scandal to me. In our regular bulletins we get frothy stories of how wonderful it is since the Ukranian crisis that antirussian orthoducks are on the ascendency in Ukraine...for no other reason then they are against Russia. The Ukrainians suffer from Putin derangement syndrome....so much so that they chuck out the Dogma...EENS. Do they forget it was the orthoducks that betrayed the uniates and Roman Catholics to the Jewish Bolshevics under stalin and were in bed with all the Iron Curtain dictators right up to the fall of the USSR...There can be no reproachmon with the ducks until they recognise the Papacy as the Head of the Universal Christian Church Actually, I prefer the upstate PA terminology of "Orthodog" instead of "Orthoduck." In all seriousness though, I will lay down something heretical that will cause many to shout "Crucify him! Crucify him!" . . . One part of my family is Ukrainian Greek Catholic, another part of my family is of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church. (Insert Indiana Jones gif of Belloq's head exploding after opening the Ark of the Covenant here . . .) I agree that it is not good for us to be in a state of severe Schadenfreude regarding the Russians, although the Russians are not without blame either. They are just as bad as us when it comes to politicizing the Church as a weapon to use against each other, and are just as corrupt as other Church hierarchs. I have a doctored icon of Jesus Cleansing the Temple that a friend gave to me with pics of the Moscow patriarchs superimposed on the money changers - it is quite funny actually, and ironic, since I can see Jesus doing that to all of our hierarchs, Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, Roman, etc., for all the tomfoolery they have engaged in over the years (if you want a copy, send me a private message . . .) Ultimately, mistakes were made on both sides of the fence; now is not the time to nitpick each other's pimples, but to move on and seek repentance and healing. I certainly agree with you Father, that personal or historical grievances must be forgiven and forgotten for the sake of the common good and for the ending of the various schisms. I have never been convinced however, of the Orthodox rhetoric that there have been mistakes on both sides, as I think their allegations against Catholics have been wild exaggerations. The fault of the schism, as I see it is squarely on their part. I would refer to the great historian Fr. Adrian Fortesque who wrote at length of the malicious actions of Photius and Michael Cerularius, which were at the root of the schism. (linked HERE ) While some criticism could be made against some specific Catholics, not Popes, I think each criticism should be looked at as to whether it was true, and just how serious of a matter it was, if it was true. We owe that to the good name of the Catholics who are being mixed up with the generalization and accusation against our deceased brother Catholics. The Popes have repeatedly tried to end the schism, offering countless and generous concessions, including allowing the schismatics to have their own quasi-independent hierarchies, not subject to Roman bishops and answerable only to the Pope, allowing the use of the ancient liturgies and even protecting the eastern Catholics from overzealous Roman Catholics who would Latinize them, the retaining of married clergy, and the list could go on. While I have no problem apologizing if I am wrong, I will not apologize if I am not wrong, even just to keep the peace, To do so is to offend the truth, and it is patronizing the other alleged injured party. In my opinion, this is what Paul VI did when he, in his joint statement with Patriarch Athenagoras said: What were the reproaches without foundation and the reprehensible gestures of the Catholics? The allegation is vague, and therefore it lacks foundation, and in my opinion tarnishes the good names of those who had to deal with the arrogant Michael Cerularius. In fairness to Paul VI, I did do some digging in this question, but came up empty. Either way, he as the accuser had the obligation to substantiate his accusation by naming the Catholics who were guilty of this charge and proving what he accused them of. He did not. From my take, at least how it stands now, I believe Paul VI stated a false accusation against these unnamed Catholics who reacted to Cerularius, in order to foster a false peace with Athenagoras. Right from the beginning of this ecumenical crusade in 1965, the foundation was not built upon the truth, neither historical truth or doctrinal truth, and because these accusations were not supported, they were a violation of the 8th Commandment. Since that time, this “truth” that Catholics were also guilty of the schism and had acted badly, has been thoughtlessly repeated as a truism, not a truth, I am not accusing you, Father, of this, as this truism has been around a long time, since it’s birth in the 60’s, and many have taken its truth on face value. But, in the interest of truth, this lie needs to be debunked and if there is to be any effort to bring the schismatics back, it needs to be built on the truth. They, if they are honest, must admit the fault of Photius and later Cerularius for aggravating and fomenting this schism, and realize that they and their ancestors were robbed of their inheritance of being part of Christ’s Church by these schismatics who selflessly broke away, leading to a 1,000 year schism with no end in sight.
|
|
|
Post by themadgreekcatholic on Feb 5, 2019 18:37:28 GMT -5
Actually, I prefer the upstate PA terminology of "Orthodog" instead of "Orthoduck." In all seriousness though, I will lay down something heretical that will cause many to shout "Crucify him! Crucify him!" . . . One part of my family is Ukrainian Greek Catholic, another part of my family is of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church. (Insert Indiana Jones gif of Belloq's head exploding after opening the Ark of the Covenant here . . .) I agree that it is not good for us to be in a state of severe Schadenfreude regarding the Russians, although the Russians are not without blame either. They are just as bad as us when it comes to politicizing the Church as a weapon to use against each other, and are just as corrupt as other Church hierarchs. I have a doctored icon of Jesus Cleansing the Temple that a friend gave to me with pics of the Moscow patriarchs superimposed on the money changers - it is quite funny actually, and ironic, since I can see Jesus doing that to all of our hierarchs, Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, Roman, etc., for all the tomfoolery they have engaged in over the years (if you want a copy, send me a private message . . .) Ultimately, mistakes were made on both sides of the fence; now is not the time to nitpick each other's pimples, but to move on and seek repentance and healing. I certainly agree with you Father, that personal or historical grievances must be forgiven and forgotten for the sake of the common good and for the ending of the various schisms. I have never been convinced however, of the Orthodox rhetoric that there have been mistakes on both sides, as I think their allegations against Catholics have been wild exaggerations. The fault of the schism, as I see it is squarely on their part. I would refer to the great historian Fr. Adrian Fortesque who wrote at length of the malicious actions of Photius and Michael Cerularius, which were at the root of the schism. (linked HERE ) While some criticism could be made against some specific Catholics, not Popes, I think each criticism should be looked at as to whether it was true, and just how serious of a matter it was, if it was true. We owe that to the good name of the Catholics who are being mixed up with the generalization and accusation against our deceased brother Catholics. The Popes have repeatedly tried to end the schism, offering countless and generous concessions, including allowing the schismatics to have their own quasi-independent hierarchies, not subject to Roman bishops and answerable only to the Pope, allowing the use of the ancient liturgies and even protecting the eastern Catholics from overzealous Roman Catholics who would Latinize them, the retaining of married clergy, and the list could go on. While I have no problem apologizing if I am wrong, I will not apologize if I am not wrong, even just to keep the peace, To do so is to offend the truth, and it is patronizing the other alleged injured party. In my opinion, this is what Paul VI did when he, in his joint statement with Patriarch Athenagoras said: What were the reproaches without foundation and the reprehensible gestures of the Catholics? The allegation is vague, and therefore it lacks foundation, and in my opinion tarnishes the good names of those who had to deal with the arrogant Michael Cerularius. In fairness to Paul VI, I did do some digging in this question, but came up empty. Either way, he as the accuser had the obligation to substantiate his accusation by naming the Catholics who were guilty of this charge and proving what he accused them of. He did not. From my take, at least how it stands now, I believe Paul VI stated a false accusation against these unnamed Catholics who reacted to Cerularius, in order to foster a false peace with Athenagoras. Right from the beginning of this ecumenical crusade in 1965, the foundation was not built upon the truth, neither historical truth or doctrinal truth, and because these accusations were not supported, they were a violation of the 8th Commandment. Since that time, this “truth” that Catholics were also guilty of the schism and had acted badly, has been thoughtlessly repeated as a truism, not a truth, I am not accusing you, Father, of this, as this truism has been around a long time, since it’s birth in the 60’s, and many have taken its truth on face value. But, in the interest of truth, this lie needs to be debunked and if there is to be any effort to bring the schismatics back, it needs to be built on the truth. They, if they are honest, must admit the fault of Photius and later Cerularius for aggravating and fomenting this schism, and realize that they and their ancestors were robbed of their inheritance of being part of Christ’s Church by these schismatics who selflessly broke away, leading to a 1,000 year schism with no end in sight. CIX! Unfortunately I apologize that I cannot immediately respond instantaneously as duties unfortunately keep me VERY busy over on this end. This is a sad fact of my reality as that I would love to go much further in depth regarding these truths behind Orthodox/Catholic, but in the end, while Truth is 100% absolute, there is also the sad fact that history is not quite so cut in black in white. Hence I view it from the lens of an admiralty lawyer. Admiralty law never places 100% of blame either on the defendant or on the plaintiff, but assigns blame on a percentage basis - if a case is strong in favor of the plaintiff then, blame is placed on the plaintiff at 15% and 85% on the defendant; if weak, then 40% on the plaintiff and 60% on the defendant - you get the idea. It would seem that the biggest issue at stake here are personal wounds or slights that have continually been propagated since 1054. Both sides claim the Truth and both sides do not back down. I respect that. But I am not relenting on my claims either - this is not an endorsement of the Orthodox side, but rather that both sides had valid grievances and both sides grievously sinned against each other in what amounts to be one massive big **** contest (forgive the language, but ultimately, this is what it is appearing to be, at least in my estimation, more and more with each passing year). I don't expect anyone to apologize here as this is a legitimate theological debate, nor do I take your claims as ad-hominem. However, I will take a look at your source regarding Fr. Adrian Fortesque, but there are many other sources that cover this issue as well. Some that I find most helpful are: Dr. Adam deVille's ORTHODOXY AND THE ROMAN PAPACY (Adam is a Ukrainian Greek Catholic theologian and, I believe, subdeacon, teaching at the University of St. Francis in Ft. Wayne, IN), Henry Chadwick's EAST AND WEST: THE MAKING OF A RIFT IN THE CHURCH, and if one dares to look at works from the other side - which one should do so when weighing evidence, is Father John Meyendorff's THE BYZANTINE LEGACY IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. I do assert that there is evidence that the Catholic side is guilty in this whole sad debate - when side feels they need to poke the other, then there is a problem. Some of the guilt lies in that there is evidence that there were Greek Churches under Roman control who were forced to implement Latin practices (most notably being forced to use unleavened bread as opposed to leavened bread that is the norm for Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Churches), as well as the obvious claims and counterclaims to papal primacy in trying to force the East to adopt the Filioque - this last bit led to some very nasty mud-slinging from both sides of the Tiber and Bosphorous. For example, I honestly wish I had a copy of the drawing (I find it both uproariously hilarious and simultaneously deeply insulting) that hangs on the third floor wall opposite of the elevator in St. Josaphat Seminary. It is an old Italian drawing of the Hieromartyr Josaphat Kuntsevych, Bishop of Polotsk, who died for Christian Unity and promoted the Union of Brest-Litovsk. In this drawing is a Western rendition of Josaphat vested as an Eastern Greek-Catholic bishop flanked by cherubs - one cherub has a fairly interesting facial expression while pointing directly at the Filioque in a drawing of a manuscript of the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed. Remember that while Truth is absolute, theology is not always absolute and is quite messy, especially when one likes to lob bombs such as this. Don't worry, the Orthodox do similar things - they call St. Josaphat the "soul-stealer" for being inspired by the devil to rob souls from orthodoxy (I really wish I had a link to this synaxarion reading; when I first saw it, I literally wasted a good single malt scotch by blasting it through my nostrils after a good sip.) I suspect part of the issue here is that the Orthodox do nasty things in the name of righting past wrongs, and because of this nastiness (and let's not forget Slavic/Greek stubbornness - in the Christian East, blood runs MUCH thicker than water), there has been an obvious fouling of tastes in Western mouths. But let us not forget that there was plenty of bad tasting swill from the Western side too (I will give a modern example here; there is a joke in some circles, both Roman and Orthodox that Archbishop +John Ireland is the true founding saint of the OCA, not Father +Alexis Toth.) Another thing I find quite interesting is that it seems to me you are asserting that "specific Catholics" have to be identified and not popes when it comes to claims that Western actions helped forment the schism of 1054? Is this true, and if so, are you willing to accept if historical records indicate a specific bishop, cardinal or pope's actions exacerbated the situation (as in the joke about Archbishop +John Ireland that I recounted above?) Okay, off to the octagon for some training . . . CHB!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 6, 2019 5:19:03 GMT -5
I think for claritys sake a distinction needs to be made about Churchman vs Church...and the Dogmatic and pure institution of the Catholic Church with Peter as its head. Historical controversys be damned...The Spotless Bride of Christ...is exactly what it means. Spotless. Separating ones self from Her is unjustifiable. There is no 60 40 split....schism is a deliberate choice. One can not be only a little bit pregnant. Was luther justified too?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 6, 2019 5:49:25 GMT -5
I think for claritys sake a distinction needs to be made about Churchman vs Church...and the Dogmatic and pure institution of the Catholic Church with Peter as its head. Historical controversys be damned...The Spotless Bride of Christ...is exactly what it means. Spotless. Separating ones self from Her is unjustifiable. There is no 60 40 split....schism is a deliberate choice. One can not be only a little bit pregnant. Was luther justified too? Spot on! The arrogant Cerularius and his unscrupulous predecessor Photius knew that their own Eastern Fathers, Doctors and Saints held that communion with the See of Rome was necessary to be united in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The more honest of the "Eastern Orthodox" theologians know this too, and some will admit it. We don't have to quote a single Pope or Latin Doctor to prove the Catholic case: the fomenters of schism stand condemned by the likes of Saints John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 6, 2019 13:48:24 GMT -5
I think for claritys sake a distinction needs to be made about Churchman vs Church...and the Dogmatic and pure institution of the Catholic Church with Peter as its head. Historical controversys be damned...The Spotless Bride of Christ...is exactly what it means. Spotless. Separating ones self from Her is unjustifiable. There is no 60 40 split....schism is a deliberate choice. One can not be only a little bit pregnant. Was luther justified too? You are correct Voxx. The fact of the schism remains even if the Pope and others did act badly towards Michael Cerularius. Catholics cannot withdraw from the Pope and go into schism, even if the Pope or other Catholic’s conduct towards them deserves reproach. But, I counter the allegation of bad conduct by Catholics towards Michael Cerularius, as the historical record puts the the cause of the schism on him, not the Catholics. When Paul VI publicly accused the Catholics of that period, the Cerularius schism, of “offensive words, reproaches without foundation, and reprehensible gestures,” he tarnished the good names of the Catholics of that time period with these charges. He said in his joint statement that such conduct was found on both sides, thereby implicating Catholics in the conduct that was clearly only found on the schismatic’s side. These men deserve to have their name cleared. The Catholics did their duty by defending the authority of the Pope and the unity of the Church, and Michael Cerularius deserved the censure of excommunication he received for his grave disobedience to the Pope and schism from the Church. For over 50 years, this lie against these men has stood unchallenged, so it will be me, a nobody, who will, on this tiny forum, take up this matter to defend the reputations of these men.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 6, 2019 18:06:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 6, 2019 18:07:51 GMT -5
This goes to the concilliar lunacy of apologies by "popes" for the "Churchs past sins"
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 8, 2019 13:43:29 GMT -5
Mad Greek Catholic wrote:No, problem. I fully understand, as I live a very busy life myself. Some days I have a lot of time for these types of discussions, other days, not even a few minutes. Mad Greek Catholic wrote:It seems to me in this case, the Cerularius schism, that fortunately, the historical record is clear. If the section from Fortesque is too time consuming for you at present, the 1913 CE also did a good job of explaining who Michael Cerularius was. LINKMad Greek Catholic wrote:Fair enough, I am willing to look at post Cerularius era alleged grievances as to whether they were true, and secondly to examine whether they were exaggerated. I will say from the get-go though, that the schism was already hardened into a sect by then, so these people, at least all who were knowingly adhering to the sect, had the obligation to separate themselves from this body and return to the Church. Catholic efforts to bring about their conversion cannot be counted as a legitimate grievance, as that is the very mission of the Church, to teach the truth and to covert the world. Mad Greek Catholic wrote:This part of the debate is strictly to set the historical record straight on the precise cause of the schism, and to defend the reputations of those Catholics whose reputations were impugned by the allegations made by Paul VI. My hope is also to raise awareness that all hope of converting the schismatics must be built on truth. We, as Catholics owe this to them, even if the truth is painful. Mad Greek Catholic wrote:Thank you for the the sources. The first two, by deVille and Chadwick are out of my price range, so unfortunately at this juncture, I can’t order them. I will order the book by Meyendorff. As I said above, I am willing to look at post-Cerularius era evidence that Catholics did things to aggravate the schism. In my opinion, the act of adding the Filioque to the Creed should not have been viewed as an aggressive act towards schism. It is the duty of all Catholics to trust the Pope on matters of doctrine. The Church is not stuck in time, and doctrine does develop (not change) over time. Every eastern rite Catholic must believe the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, so what’s the big deal about professing it? As an aside, I have been going to the the DL on and off for decades, and it was the regular practice to say the Filioque the Creed in the past, but now it is omitted, and the only reason that I see for this, is not some kind of love for the original Creed, but, in my opinion, to hide this teaching from the Orthodox, so as to foster this false idea unity, not based on doctrinal truth, by downplaying the need for the Orthodox to believe all doctrinal formulations taught by the Church. I am all for reaching out to the Orthodox on an individual level to convert persons or families or en masse to bring entire Orthodox bodies into the Church, but it must be built on truth, not downplaying the truth to foster a false unity. I believe that every possible disciplinary concession should be made to bring schismatic groups back to the Church, including allowing the returned schismatics to have quasi-independence with their own hierarchies, along with maintaining their beautiful ancient liturgies and rites, as has been historically done. The Union of Brest was one of many such templates of how this can work. The problem with the modern post V2 idea of bringing back the schismatics to the Church,is that it is not a Catholic idea. It is rooted in the concept that doctrinal truth is not necessary for unity, and secondly that there are degrees of unity in the Church. While I agree that the Orthodox and Old Catholics are closer to Catholicism as far as belief than the Protestant sects, the fact is that they are all non-Catholic sects. The only way a sect can cease being a sect is to rejoin the Church, and that means the complete acceptance of all of its teachings and the complete submission to the authority of the Pope in all matters, doctrinal and disciplinary. There is no other way. Mad Greek Catholic wrote:On the matter of the Filioque, it is not absolutely essential for it to be professed in the eastern rites ss this was explicitly allowed by the Church, so this is one area that the Church could bend if it could foster the return of the Orthodox. But, whether it is openly professed or not, it must be clearly stated that it must be believed. In my opinion, however, such resistance to openly professing the Filioque is grounded in a lack of trust of the the Pope’s teaching authority, and an incorrect ecclesiology that is grounded in an idea that the Church’s doctrine does not develop, or that the Creed cannot be changed by papal authority. These underlying principles of the resistance to add the Filioque to the Nicene Creed shows a weakness to completely trust the Pope’s judgment on doctrinal and disciplinary matters. Mad Greek Catholic wrote:In my case, my only personal dealings with the Orthodox has been on a friendly level, with them being good neighbors, or co-workers who I consider as friends. I have no personal animosity towards them, and if anything, they have my sympathy, as they were robbed of their inheritance, the pearl of great price, by the actions, a millennium ago, of Michael Cerularius. Mad Greek Catholic wrote:No, I am saying that individuals must be named, along with the proof that they are guilty of what is asserted, otherwise the charges are baseless. If there are two neighboring towns, and people from one town publicly assert misdeeds by people from the other town they owe it in justice to be specific and not just assert unsubstantiated allegations by unnamed persons, thereby tainting all of the persons in the other town. Mad Greek Catholic wrote: Of course. Let the facts lead where they will.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 8, 2019 15:48:35 GMT -5
quote Pacelli "As an aside, I have been going to the the DL on and off for decades, and it was the regular practice to say the Filioque the Creed in the past, but now it is omitted, and the only reason that I see for this, is not some kind of love for the original Creed, but, in my opinion, to hide this teaching from the Orthodox, so as to foster this false idea unity not based on doctrinal truth, but downplaying the need for the Orthodox to believe all doctrinal formulations taught by the Church" BINGO
|
|