This Russian icon, the Vladimir Virgin with Child, is one of our family favorites:
Posted on 04/04/2005 10:01:53 AM PDT by annalex
MOSCOW, April 4. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - It seems the only place the pope wanted but could not visit was Moscow. His patience was boundless, but he did not live long enough to see changes in the Russian Orthodox Church.
He, however, was open to the whole world, including Russians. It turned out that establishing contacts with the secular authorities of the new Russia was much easier than with the hierarchs of the Russian Church. The pontiff received Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin, the latter of whom has sent the Vatican an unusual letter of condolences. More than a matter of protocol, it was warm and sincere, evidently expressing the President's respect for John Paul II.
Polish-born Karol Wojtyla was the first pope since the Apostles to enter a synagogue. He called Jews the elder brothers of Christians and prayed at the Wailing Wall. As the head of the Catholic Church, he visited a mosque and almost every country, including Orthodox ones, but was not allowed to pray in only one place, Moscow. The pope respected the Christian canons and waited for the Russian Church to change its mind. He has been waiting until his death.
It is not for me to reach a conclusion on the reasons behind the inflexibility of the Church leaders, but their formal explanations about Catholics seizing Orthodox houses of worship are not particularly convincing. In fact, the Vatican could make similar claims in many cases, as in the 20th century and even earlier many temples changed their terrestrial owners several times, all the while serving the same celestial Father. A papal visit to Moscow could have resolved half the contradictions.
I am almost certain that the first Slavic pope was not allowed to the Russian Church's congregation for the same reason that earlier had driven the Communist Party to cover up Western voices: the fear of comparison.
The point is that the Catholic Church was lucky: a man of the greatest moral authority andcharisma occupied its throne, whose personal influence was far greater than that of the Church itself. No matter how much the sick Russian Orthodox Church might have wanted, it could not find his equal, as it had still not made a full recovery after the decades of persecution under the Soviet authorities. Orthodox hierarchs could not bear the thought of the pope in a crowded Moscow square or, even worse, in the Christ the Savior Cathedral. After all, they are only human.
It also explains the unhealthy, not so much religious, as human, response to any movement of the Catholic Church in Russia, even though this competition is not about oil or aluminum, but human souls, which in a democratic country are expected to choose freely. The words "shepherd" and "flock" are just images, because people are obviously not sheep. People that have a right to choose, i.e., to enter the church they want.
I believe that Russia has missed a historic opportunity for rapprochement with the Catholics and, consequently, with much of Western culture. The last man of power in Russia who seriously preached ecumenism and rapprochement with the Catholics was Emperor Paul I of Russia. The last pontiff who perceived Russia, its contradictions and spiritual trials so shrewdly was John Paul II. It was not coincidence that he prayed before a Russian icon as well others.
There are few chances that an equal to the late pontiff will succeed him. After all, when he was a student, some jokers put a sign "beginner saint" - and it seems justly - on his door.
An ordinary archbishop will most probably succeed this rock of a person, who was not afraid to voice words of apology for the Catholic Church's previous sins. A person educated and worthy, but without the traits Karol Wojtyla had. There are people who cannot be replaced.
Certainly, the new pontiff will not be a Slav, and the relations between Moscow and the Roman throne will enter the usual bureaucratic dimension. Delegations will visit each other, agree on something, sign something and mark time.
In other words, a person of the 21st century, the late John Paul II, will be replaced by a person of the 20th century, who will hardly bring about any breakthrough in the future.
As a result, everyone will lose: the Vatican, whose authority will decline inevitably and quickly, Catholicism on the whole, Catholics in Russia and, naturally, the Russian Orthodox Church, which has lost a huge incentive for self-improvement. This is regrettable, as even many Orthodox priests admit that complete recovery is still a distant possibility.
Once John Paul II was asked whether he ever cried, and he said, "Never outside."
Today, a significant part of humanity, regardless of religion, is crying both inside and outside. Everyone in his or her own manner. Together and on their own. Karol Wojtyla deserved this.
Ecumenical prospects dimmed?
Luckily there are many Orthodox Christians who do not think or act in this way, so there is hope for the future.
For later -- Substituting this afternoon in an elementary school.
As I understand it, the problem for the Russian Orthodox is theological, and not merely political or petty.
On the one hand, they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. On the other hand, they recognize the Patriarch of the West, the Pope, as being senior in dignity to the other patriarchs, the First Among Equals.
And this puts the Russian Patriarchate in an impossible position, under the current understanding. On the one hand, they owe a duty of respect to their senior in dignity. On the other hand, they must not share communion with the leader of a Church they do not consider to be doctrinally correct.
The only way to avoid the impossibility of the circumstances of a Patriarch paying homage to the Pope, whose religion the Patriarch's religion says has lapsed into error, is to avoid the meeting.
The Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople has met the Pope and performed a common service, but it had to be carefully scripted, with the liturgy being adapted from the Eastern Rites so as to NOT contain the "filioque" clause ("and from the Son") in the Creed, which the Orthodox find so problematic (indeed, it was the proximate cause of the Great Schism).
Moscow is in a different place in its emergence from domination than Constantinople or Greece are, and the Russian hierarchs find the prospect much more troubling from a theological basis.
And for his part the Pope has not forced the issue. He has sent relics back to Moscow, but though he could have just declared his intentions to come, and probably would not have been banned from the gig by the Russian government, he did not. John Paul's purpose was to promote reconciliation, not grandstand in Moscow and damage such relationships as there are between Rome and "the Third Rome".
Someday.
Pyotr the Romanov?
Malachi: just wondering if you're familiar wit this guy.
(for those who do not get the reference, St. Malachy predicted that Peter the Roman -- Pyotr Romanov in Russian -- would be the next Pope after the one about to be elected.)
What are your thoughts on this:
That which the author sees as Russian obstinate backwardness is an asset when it comes to confronting the secular humanist, increasingly pagan West. Somehow I don't imagine gay "marriage" ceremonies contemplated by those Russian-bear priests.
In other words, as conservatives we praised the late Pope inasmuch as he struggled to preserve the 2000 years of Christianity and roll back at least the most egregious abuses ascribed to Vatican II. I doubt that Mr. Peter of Rome (I can't shake the impression it's a pseudonym) has the same perspective.
>> That which the author sees as Russian obstinate backwardness is an asset when it comes to confronting the secular humanist, increasingly pagan West. <<
Perhaps this was translational shading by the journalists but the Russian response always seemed to be less:
"You'll kindly realize that I must respectfully decline your request to visit, as it would cause difficulties for us,"
and more:
"Get the Hell off my yard, or so help me I'll fill your ass so filled with lead you can use your latrine as a fallout shelter!"
There seemed to be a lack of charity, to put it mildly, that seemed well, un-Christian.
But you have a point in the notion that the Russian church is wary of Western liberalism. The Pope did a fantastic job at halting Rome's slouch towards Gemorrah, but was still liberal in some ways, such as interreligious dialogues and supporting the Novus Ordo.
Perhaps a Pope who stands tall against Islam aggression and gives the universal indult for the Latin Mass will, ironically, make the Russians at ease.
And the name Piotr Romanov reminds me of one possible meaning of "Peter the Roman." "Roman" came to mean "universal." Perhaps Peter the Roman will make the Vatican-led Church truly Catholic and truly Roman again by reconciling it with the Eastern churches.
The Russian penchant for adhering to tradition is an admirable quality, on its surface. They have many of the trappings of liturgical ceremony that are befitting of the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Can we say as much for our local Novus Ordo parishes?
If one were to have the Queen of England come to one's home for a visit, would one desire greatly and therefore endeavor to do everything possible and within one's reasonalbe means to have every detail befitting the visit of the Queeen? Or, would it be thought not only okay, but "desirable" and "appropriate" to figure on serving her TV dinners and offering her the service porch where the dog sleeps?
In the name of a return to the deprivation of the early Church, "a return to antiquity," the Roman Church has undertaken a pogrom of devastation and abandonment of the beautiful trappings of the Mass of time immemorial. The Russians look at this from afar and weep. But they are too proud and too, well, Russian, to weep in public.
>>Once John Paul II was asked whether he ever cried, and he said, "Never outside."
>>Today, a significant part of humanity, regardless of religion, is crying both inside and outside. Everyone in his or her own manner. Together and on their own. Karol Wojtyla deserved this.<<
JPII was not alone in his grief. Nor were the Russians the only ones to share it with him.
The whole world groans in agony over the current fact that the Russian Orthodox and Rome cannot make amends.
However, it seems to me that the direction taken at VatII is in part due to the fact that Russian ideological contribution and influence were there. Usually when the Church convenes an oecumenical council, she addresses the greatest threat to the Church at the time. At the time of its worldwide persection of Christians (66 million political murders!), Communism was not addressed at VatII. Observers from the USSR were allowed to attend the council. It would seem that all they had to do was sit there, and the council became different by their presence. We have today documents that contain the promise that Communism would not be a topic and that if the Russian observers saw that promise broken, they would walk out of VatII. What would happen next is not clear, but who knows what words of warning passed in spoken form alone behind closed doors?
It would not seem imprudent to ask if the Church was not being held captive by terrorist threats. The Cold War might have seemed like a bad dream, but it was very real. Ask anyone from 1946 Japan.
The differences that the Church has with Russia are founded on dogma. There is a curious problem with dogma. Those who hold disagreement usually refuse to make compromises. The stronger their adherence to their own belief, the less they want to entertain the discussion of it. In Catholic Tradition, we have no choice in the matter. We are not permitted to discuss compromising dogma with anyone. Not even a Pope can "dialog" regarding dogma with heretics. All he can do is teach them what the Church teaches.
It seems to me that the Russian politicians know this, and they are very afraid that the errors of Russia would be made clear by a visit from the Pope. For me to say otherwise would be a denouncement of JPII. The more Catholic a pope is, the less the Russians would want to have him visit, apparently. Therefore, to resolve this situation what we need is an act of God.
I am not convinced of that. The opinion I hear from Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating is that every time the dogma is examined by both parties, no disagreement is found. For example, there is no dogmatic disagreement with Filioque, -- both sides agree on the dogma of Trinity and the provenance of its persons, -- there is an argument over the rite, essentially. But we have many rites, and some, legitimately, don't say "filioque". The Catholics are left with the impression that the Orthodox want there to be a disagreement and when one is resolved find another.
Hardly, considering that 1/2 the West is protestant and most of the rest is post-Christian.
It has a lot to do with the 600 years of attempted forced conversions that started when the Kieven princes asked for help against the Mongols and instead got invaded by the Poles, Lithuanians, Swedes and Teutonics, all by Papel decree. The sacking of Constintinople by the Fourth Crusade, only added to this, also the butchering of Orthodox Christians in Jerusalem, along with the Jews and Islamics, during the First Crusade.
Protestantism, at the exception of high-church pre-Rowland Anglicanism, has no basis of unity with Orthodox Russia. Catholicism, on the other hand, has no basis for disunity. If that is not self-evident, I can explain.
Tell that to the average Souther Baptist who will then tell you that you Papists aren't even Christians and are praying to idolic statues of Mary.
I've defended Catholicism to protestants a lot more often then my own Orthodox faith. About the only thing they don't say is that you make your communion waifer with kid's blood.
My remark beggining "I am not convinced of that" referred to your "The differences that the Church has with Russia are founded on dogma", and not to your entire #10, which I enjoyed reading, but find myself incapable of further comment.
You misunderstood me. I see a basis of unity between Catholics and Orthodox. I see no basis of unity (except, of course, the broad sense of confessing Christ as our Lord and Savior) between either Catholics and Orthodox on one hand, and low-church Protestants on the other.
It was my understanding that, in spite of the hard history, the Orthodox consider the Pope to be formally "First Among Equals", although disunion and theological differences do not permit the exercise of common communion.
In a nutshell, you've expressed the sentiment quite well. Right now, however, because of the schism, Constantinople is first in honor among the Orthodox Patriarchates. The Pope under the present circumstances has a theoretical position of first among equals rather than a real one.
"Not even a Pope can "dialog" regarding dogma with heretics."
Rome does not consider the Orthodox to be heretics.
There is schism. It is painful. But the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, from Rome's perspective (at least until two days ago), are so slight as to be matters of ecclesialogy, not theology. The Orthodox see greater theological differences, but it varies. The Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch were able to jointly conduct a service. The leaders of Russian Orthodoxy in Moscow are not yet at that point.
True, but for unity the Popes would have to take their place as Patriarchs and bend to the 8 Ecomunical councils not Papel decree. Thus a step down to be equal with the other patriarches. Then we can have unity. Unfortunetly, I'm pessimistic about this happening.
>>My remark [beginning] "I am not convinced of that" referred to your "The differences that the Church has with Russia are founded on dogma", and not to your entire #10<<
If Keating is saying that, I have to assure you that the Orthodox he has met must be altogether different from all the Orthodox I have heard explain themselves on such things as the filioque, the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility. Regarding the filioque, for example, I have never found an Orthodox Christian who believes that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. When I question them regarding the words of Jesus in Scripture about this they cannot respond intelligently, however, and jump topic like Protestants do when they are faced with dogmatic questions they cannot answer without admitting they had been in error. I would have to conclude that Keating must desire "unity" with the Orthodox so much that he's willing to muddy up his own thinking on the processions of the Blessed Trinity; assuming, of course, that he ever understood the Church's teaching on that dogma in the first place! Perhaps it comes from his association with the "charismatics" at Steubenville. (Too much rolling around on the floor grunting like beasts?)
Right. But this is not a doctrinal disunity, it is, as a Protestant would say, a matter of church administration. It should be a source of optimism.
Pope John Paul II was the first Pope ever to visit England as Pope. He had several personal encounters with both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Queen. This was achieved despite Rome's 16th Century decree (which to my knowledge has not been rescinded) that all Anglicans are condemned to eternal punishment and the ensuing crusade launched against England (we know this as the Spanish Armada). Rome never condemed the Russian Church the way it did the English Church (Rome welcomes all Eastern Orthodox to receive Communion), nor did Rome ever giving blessing to or outright call for military action against Orthodox Russia for religious reasons. Why then are Rome's relations with the Church in England the warmest they've been in over 1000 years (Anglo-Roman relations were usually less than cordial throughout the Middle Ages) while Rome's relations with Russia about as cold as a Russian winter? Why does the Russian Orthodox Church gladly receive visits from Anglican bishops (even the heretic Frank Griswold), yet won't even entertain the thought of a call from the Bishop of Rome? Certainly Patriarch Alexi II held more in common theologically with Pope John Paull II than he did with Frank Griswold.
Well, perhaps I'm just not up-to-date, but the last time I checked, Papal infallibility was a real sore topic with the Orthodox. If you can show me an Orthodox man who has no disagreement with the infallible decrees of the first Vatican council, I would love to exchange messages with him! Please post one right here on this thread. I can hardly wait.
May have been Aiken and not Keating. Someone at Catholic Answers Live.
So that is what that grunting was in the background...
Good questions. I suspect the answer is political. The Russians are not going to become Anglicans, - they'll never get the accent right. Catholicism is much scarier.
Besides, the Russian orthodoxy has that additional twist about church-state. They can understand Henry VIII well.
One Orthodox man explained to me his version of the story when his ancestors went to Mass in the Roman rite and heard the choir chanting the Creed in Latin. They thought they knew it until they realized they were hearing one new word, he explained. They checked it out, and discovered that Rome had officially inserted the word, Filioque, into the Nicene Creed. When they took issue with this, the Roman authorities would not retreat from this practice and held to the new version tenaciously. This difference was never resolved, he said, and that's why we still have this irreconcilability today.
In light of the practical doctrinal questions of today, e.g., contraception, abortion, women's "ordination," homosexual "marriage," euthanasia, etc., the longstanding doctrinal question of the processions of the Blessed Trinity might seem like a moot point.
However, for anyone who has studied a good course in philosophy, it should not seem so moot. In fact, such things as these examples of "practical questions" can easily be understood to be caused by objectively larger principles such as some aspect of the Blessed Trinity.
It seems to me that the Roman authorities (presuming this man's story is accurate) had based their decision to add the word, Filioque, to the phrase, "...qui ex Patre procedit," because of a sound theological principle, namely, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son (to the Father, and, by extension, to their creation as well). When it comes to such principles, getting it right in the beginning inherently avoids all manner of erroneous consequences down the line, not that the identity of the consequences need to be known in advance, because error, once taken in and believed, begets more error. In the end, the Faith is ultimately destroyed. That is why it is true that to become a heretic, one only needs to reject one single point of dogma. And that is why someone who refuses to believe in something like the Filioque teaching is, by their own act of denial of truth, a heretic.
How many centuries do we need to live through before that principle becomes evident? The Church Fathers who recognized it in the beginning did not need to have any centuries to think it over, did they?
Be careful where you get your information. Catholic Answers seems to let their desire for "unity" overrule their adherence to sound thinking!
The Pope's primacy of honor is established by (1) Ecumenical Council (of the undivided Church) and by (2) Emperor Julian's decree. The Orthodox Church has no choice but to abide by them.
However, since the Latin Church is considered theologically "outside" the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church by the Orthodox (which, by definition, is heresy), the Pope cannot practically function as the first among equals.
Thus, the seat of the first among equals is considered unfilled by the Orthodox (and is independent of the person who actually sits in it in the Vatican). As long as the seat of the first among equals is vacated in the Church, as far as the Orthodox are concerned, the first among equals becomes the second by protocol (EC, imperial decree), which names the Patriarch of Constantinople as second only to Pope in honor.
Thus the EP is "acting" in Pope's stead, until the Church is reunited.
Your story is correct, as far as I know. The Orthodox don't dispute that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son, they protest tampering with the text without consulting with them. But that means unity on the issue. If we agree on the essence of the Holy Ghost we can get together and lawfully adopt the change in the Creed.
There is nothing backward about the Russian Orthodox Church. Obviously Pyor Romanov (if this is his real name!) had no clue why the Church is separated and what reasons prevented Russia from receiving the Pope. He certainly ignored the whole Uniate issue and justifiable theological basis for ROC's steadfastness.
The fact that some other Orthodox countries were visited by the Pope is more an expression of those countries' political weakness and their churches' lack of resolve (and character) to negotiate with Rome from the position of parity, but rather from the position of weakness and submission.
Let's not forget that Russia is the backbone and the pillar of Orthodoxy and that the rest of the Orthodox in the world are but a small and disunited peripheral factors that Rome could gobble up one by one.
You've given a much clearer and more detailed explanation than I did, my brother. Thanks!
The Orthodox do dispute that the HG procedes from the Son. The issue of filioque has to do with the clarity of the First Cause and Source, which is always the Father. These are eternal, and absolute relationships, not a chronological order.
This Russian icon, the Vladimir Virgin with Child, is one of our family favorites:
Nice thoughts, thank you fortune cookie.
Here's some crystal ball gazing.
The next Pope will be a conservative moralist and theologian. There will be no drift from any of the moral or disciplinary stances of the church: abortion, divorce, birth control, euthanasia, married priests.
Further, my bet is that the next Pope will be either a Mexican or a Brazilian, and more devoted to a conservative LITURGY than even JP II was.
I expect he will be a more strict disciplinarian, and especially if he is Mexican, he is not going to be a bit shy about asserting the authority of the monarchic papacy over North American bishops who depart from the doctrines of the Church. Of course, if he is a Spanish-speaking Pope (as opposed to a Portuguese-speaker) he will have dramatic support from the 50% (and growing) of American Catholics who are Latinos, and that support will be enhanced, rather than diminished, if he is very direct about imposing discipline on American bishops.
Another thing I would not be surprised to see is a decree of a general permission, from Rome, for parishes to use the Latin Mass, removing the possibility of bishops blocking that. If the Latin Mass were not able to be blocked locally, because Rome removed the ability of bishops to prevent it, there would be a lot more Latin masses, and THAT would invigorate and embolden the conservative elements of the Church, even as it embittered some of the more liberal elements. (The new Pope, whoever he is, will NOT impose the Latin Mass universally.)
A general return to, and expansion of, the Latin Mass will draw the Roman West closer to the Greek and Russian East because the the prayed liturgy IS the faith. Also, a wide return to the Latin Mass will correct the priest shortage.
The fact is that orthodox, arch-traditional Catholic seminaries are not having trouble attracting candidates. It is the general, moderate to liberal seminaries (who have dominated non-Latino America) who are experiencing the priest shortage.
The new Pope will not be able to be the grand diplomat that John Paul II was. Could anyone be? But I expect he will be much more of a trench warrior in the battle for the heart and soul of Western culture itself. The spiritual war for the Culture of Life in the West is hotter than it has ever been, and the new Pope will, I expect, dig in and fight it. Having a Latin American at the helm will guaranty that no ground is given, even to wavering elements within the Church.
And in the long run, that will make for a Church that moves, by what it does, much closer to Orthodoxy in a step.
I hope your predictions come true.
Pyotr Romanov did not use the word "backwardness". I did in some paraphrase, which may or may not be accurate. It is not clear if the author longs for some superficial westernization, which would be a bad thing for Russia, or for true spiritual unity. You should give him a benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
The notion that the Vatican goes around gobbling up smaller churches is unfortunate and seems to me a part of the same petty intransigence that prevented the Pope's visit to Moscow. I've lived in some areas of Slavdom with strong Catholic presence, and travel trough others, and I can assure you that I saw no trace of the Swiss Guard occupation troops anywhere.
On the Filioque issue, do the Orthodox dispute that Christ breathed the Holy Ghost into the Apostles? If they don't then we have a textological problem and not a theological one.
"The Orthodox don't dispute that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son, they protest tampering with the text without consulting with them."
Since when? The recent agreed statement of the North American Consultation of Orthodox and Roman bishops on the matter has urged us to "refrain" from refering to each other's formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as heretical, but since various Romans on these threads feel no compunction about adopting the Frankish position of the barbarian Charlemagne (a position rejected by the then Pope, by the way)that the original counciliar formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit is heretical, let me state as clearly as I can that the Roman formulation of filioque, a formulation which the Consultation urged be dropped in all new translations of the Creed and in catechetical settings, is a massive heresy! It proclaims a strange double procession of the Holy Spirit which destroys the unity of the Trinity both within and without the Godhead. This isn't some arcane theological point which has no meaning in the modern world. The procession as established by the One Church and soundly grounded in Scripture (John 15:26). It would be too simple to ascribe this error to the simple and sadly undeveloped state of Roman pneumatology at this late date. Rome has now, and has had for some centuries in fact, the benefit of the far more developed pneumatology of the Eastern Fathers, even if the schismatics of the 11th century didn't. The only excuse for maintaining the filioque at all is the trap the innovations of Vatican I got the Roman Church into. Even the Romans recognize that.
For anyone interested in the Agreed Statement, here's a link: http://www.goarch.org/print/en/news/releases/articles/release8676.asp
I hope you're right, but I like +Arinze's phronema better. There's just something very Eastern thinking about almost all those African prelates.
The Catholic church does not consider dropping the filioque as heretical, -- it is dropped in some Catholic rites. Maybe someone on this thread views it as heretical or unimportant, but then it is his mistake, not mine and not the Church's.
Christ gave the Holy Ghost to the Apostles. That is all that we need to know to justify including the Filioque. In no way does it put the Holy Trinity out of alignment, because we also agree with omitting it. You seek disagreement where there is none, beyond textological procedure.
Thank you, and beautifully said.
So what made you wait until the 6th century to add it then?
"Christ gave the Holy Ghost to the Apostles. That is all that we need to know to justify including the Filioque. In no way does it put the Holy Trinity out of alignment, because we also agree with omitting it"
How in heaven's name does the fact that Christ said he would send the Apostles the Holy Spirit "who proceeds from the Father" justify the filioque? I suppose one could say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "through" the Son, but even that has problems since it clearly places limits on the "actions" of the Holy Spirit quite divorced from any "sending by" or "proceeding from" the Son, in, for example, the process of theosis.
If the Church of Rome accepts the original formulation of the Creed as you say, why persist in manifest error? Ordinarily, as most anyone Roman or Orthodox on these threads will tell you, I'm ready to see where we can nuance some of Romes dogmatic innovations, (purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, even the Vatican I traps) but the nature of the Trinity is just too basic to paper over in the interests of a reunion which, at least right now given the status of orthodox Roman Catholicism, might bring us more trouble than we care to accept.
The Slavs. Always tardy.
Are you saying that the Orthodox have always thought that "Filioque" does not suffice, and that something more descriptive is needed than what this one word can provide?
Because Christ breathing the Ghost into the Apostles and saying "Receive the Holy Ghost" described procession from the Son?
You cannot say that anything originating in the Father is not proceeding from the Son, because the Son "was there in the beginning".
Was John Paul II ever married?
I am serious.
I recall very well, at the time of his rise to the papacy, discussions in the media of the fact that he had been married very young, but his wife had died before the war, and that he went on into to priesthood after that.
Now when I search the web, I find absolutely NOTHING referring to this, at all, anywhere. I can't believe that I simply manufactured that belief completely out of wholecloth at the age of 16. So, do YOU remember, or have any source, that can set this straight?
Now we are going to get another Da Vinci page-turner.
Kosciuszko Code?
Seriously, I never heard of it.
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.