Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

Where do you get your information? Most converts in America are non of the Ethnicity of the Church they convert to. I am Irish-American, and I go to a Russian Orthodox Church. Converts to Kolokotronis church are Phillipean.

Even in Russia growth in numbers isn't coming from Ethnic Russians (who are decreasing as a population in Russia) it's coming from the ethnicities immigrating TO Russia.

I refuse to read your entire diatribe when your first premise is complete BS.

Papal supremacy as defined in Vatican 1, as exemplified by the unilateral adoption of the filioque by the bishop of Rome before the 1054 schism is not Papal supremacy as defined in Councils prior to that time.

Further I do not redefine it since if I am talking about the post schism church's standing on the bishop of rome, certainly I am talking about the post schism catholic application of papal supremacy.

The Bishop of Rome was excommunicated and started a heretical church, and innovated doctrine outside that doctrine accepted by the councils. That is the schism, and now amount of surprise or lack thereof changes that.

This really brings to view the whole problem of eccumentical relations; Catholics who would like the assume that the problem is social, or political, and forget the schism ever happened.

Patriarch Alexy II has repeatedly expressed that there can be no healing of the schism until 2 things are addressed; the non canonical uniate church proselytizing in Orthodox areas. No amount of Icon returning, and freindly gestures will change that; The Orthodox church is headed by Christ non a single man, and rejects the false doctrines of the Bishop of Rome.

I began to read your link...

"Orthodox patriarchs, bishops, priests, and theologians — all you who actively pursue a policy of rapprochement with Rome: Beware. You are trying to bring the Orthodox Church into a lion’s den of unbelievable malignancy. You cannot save the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church can and will contaminate and then destroy you."

That's as far as I got. From other people on this forum, I am happy to learn that all Orthodoxy doesn't feel this way. Perhaps despite people such as yourself and the priest of your article, we will be united. Rather than continue in your polemics, perhaps you should look to the FACT that we are more alike in beliefs than you think.

I have read other Orthodox articles, and they have a different view on Rome. We Catholics can only hope that you and your views represent the minority of Christian Orthodoxy. The Spirit is not a Spirit of dissension

Regards

The Orthodox Church, every one I've heard of, requires that Catholics denounce the false doctrines of the Bishop of Rome to convert to Orthodoxy, and I have personally witnessed it myself.

It is not a matter of being more similar than different. The Monophysites are extremely similar to the Orthodox in practice, and that doesn't change the fact they hold an absolutely heretical beleif. There can be no capitualtion of truth for the sake of unity.

Show me one Orthodox church that does not renounce the false Doctrine of the Bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Rome was excommunicated and started a heretical church, and innovated doctrine outside that doctrine accepted by the councils. That is the schism, and now amount of surprise or lack thereof changes that.

This can very easily be changed to read "the bishop of Constantinople was excommunicated and started a heretical Church..." Where does that leave us?

Out of curiosity, I ask you, by what authority does the bishop of Constantinople have over the See of Peter, the keeper of the keys? EVEN IF all apostles were equal, WHEN did the Constantinople decide it could excommunicate an equal ranking bishop??? I would say this is an usurped power, never given to Constantinople or any ordinary Bishop. Thus, the "excommunication" is not in force (not that it ever was, as ONLY the CURRENT bishop of Rome was "excommunicated" in 1054 - not subsequent Bishops of Rome)

You have yet to show me where the entire Catholic Church was excommunicated from Orthodoxy

Did Orthodoxy EVER declare that the now current Bishop of Rome is a heretic? Or that he is excommunicated? Was EVERY Bishop of Rome, thus, declared excommunicated by Orthodoxy? Again, where is this power given to the those bishops? It seems to me that you are claiming a "primacy of power" for Orthodox bishops. But yet, Rome has none.

the non canonical uniate church proselytizing in Orthodox areas

Does this mean that the Orthodox Church will be leaving the United States, since it is not "Orthodox" territory? I didn't know that the world was divided into "Orthodox" and "Catholic" sections.

Regards

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=194&SID=3
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp
http://www.antiochian.org/Orthodox_Church_Who_What_Where_Why/Why_I_Became_An_Orthodox_Christian.htm
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zB6KRFLpgpsJ:mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/7706.html+site:mospat.ru+%22bishop+of+rome%22&hl=en&client=safari

That is the schism. It isn't about politics. It isn't about contraception or divorce. It is the notion that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church, and False doctines subsequently adopted by the Bishop of Rome.

It is a spirit of dissention to pretend the schism is about something else; it is only when the notion of the papacy and false doctrine are addressed that unity can occur. It is only going back to the Pre-1054 definition of primacy of honor, and a rejection of a handful of minor innovations.

Show me one Orthodox church that does not renounce the false Doctrine of the Bishop of Rome

Show me one Coptic Church that does not renounce the false doctrine of Orthodoxy, or Catholicism BEFORE the Great Schism. Show me one Nestorian Church that does not do the same thing.

Your statement proves nothing.

Are you daying that most Orthodox in the US do not have an ancestral link to Orthodoxy from the old country? Please. I know many orthodox myself, since my sister-in-law is Greek Orthodox (from Greece), and, as someone perfectly at home among the Melkites, having spent years with them, I know lots of Orthodox through them, as they tend to run in similar circles. Out of this fairly sizable number of people, I personally can come up with a mere handful (including an Orthodox priest named McGillicuddy) who are converts from Catholicism or Protestantism. I don't deny they exist. You, yourself, are an example evidently. Evangelicals, in particular, are converting to Orthodoxy, primarily because of the reflexive aversion to Rome that I alluded to earlier. But the vast majority of the several million Orthodox - of all varieties - in the US are Orthodox by birth and ancestry.

But so what? I'm not arguing so much about recent developments. I'm not even arguing about developments in Russia, which is entirely Orthodox territory anyway. My point was that, historically, the Orthodox have, for various reasons, not been at the forefront of evangelization of non-Christian, hitherto unknown lands. I already gave my reasons for this.

The patriarchs were not independant to revise the creed agreed on at the council as they saw fit.

With regard to territory, do Irish Catholics go to italian catholic churches and try to convert them into their parishes? Do they setup churches across the street and convince catholics in the other church to stop attending there and start attending across the way? Do they send out a decree that any clergy wishing to leave the irish church may come serve at the italian church no questions asked? Do they dispute the deed claim by the irish church insisting it be given to the italian one?

ALL OF THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

That is why the Uniate church is an issue.

It is only going back to the Pre-1054 definition of primacy of honor

Primacy of HONOR??? You aren't aware of Church History before the Schism, are you. While I will say that Vatican 1 was NOT what the Church practiced in 500 AD, I think a look at Pope Leo and Gregory will give you a quick view on what was practiced BEFORE the Schism. The question is not "restoring the Pope to a position of honor". It is about "What WAS primacy"? It existed. But to what effect? That is the question before us. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that there was PRIMACY - now we must define it, brother. What power did Leo and Gregory have?

Regards

Primacy at those councils:
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Ecumenical_Council
http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HilarionPrimacy.php

It's silly to get into a "first among equals but more equal than others" conversation.

And no we needn't define it. This is the same question debated each time Metropolitan Kirill Meets With Cardinal Walter Kasper.

X:

In great haste because I am at the office and will respond to the dialog between you and Jo Kus at length this evening. I will make, however, two observations. First, you should hesitate long before applying the terms heretic or heresy to the Roman Church. Second, The Christian Activist is the worst sort of dead fish wrapper that was ever written. It is a nativist rag of the first order. If that tripe wrap told me it was Tuesday, I'd check the calendar!!!!!

No. Because we all consider ourselves one Church. As an Irish-German American, I don't go into an ethnically Italian or Polish or whatever parish with the idea of "converting" anyone. We all have the same faith. Ethnicity in Catholic churches, to the extent that it still really exists, is mostly a matter of immigrants banding together for benefit of common language and customs, not differences in belief. Until 1965, the Mass was the *same* in every way, no matter *what* church one attended. The language was Latin. The parts of the Mass and readings were the same everywhere, for everyone, every day.

Even now, where the vernacular is used, the translations are *supposed* to derive from the same Latin original (though, I'd be the first to admit, the English translation is pretty shaky sometimes). So, again, there is nothing to "convert" to or from.

We don't dispute deeds among ourselves based on ancestry. We're Catholics first, Germans, Italians, Irish, French, etc. a distant second when it comes to matters of religion. Can you say the same? Indeed, the way you pose the question makes it sound like you take as a given, from personal experience, the assumption that such things are expected to take place.

Anticipating your lack of careful reading here, I will acknowledge that there are, doubtless, a few examples of Catholics who do not embody the proper mindset. Fair enough. But these few exceptions are not representative of our Faith, as they clearly don't know it.

I didn't read the whole activist article, it was among few articles I've found that list the words said when Catholics renounce the pope during Chrismation... rest of the article probably is trash.

I standby the notion that Vatican I Primacy is a heretical idea.
(By the strict definition of the word heretical.)

Also there are numerous schismatic churches which did nothing more consequential that ceasing power and misinterpreting one piece of the doctrine, and are regarded as heretical churches.

The terms are beside my point however; my point is the modern Catholic interpretation of primacy and the uniate church are the key points of contention between the churches.

That is precisley what the problem is.

The uniate church is converting from Orthodox churches, ceasing Orthodox properties, enticing Orthodox clergy to convert by telling them they can join up no questions asked, building churches adcaent Orthodox ones deliberatly to entice folks away by seeming Orthodox but answering to Rome.

That is precisely why it is a monumental problem and not a simple issue of 'territory'; the Catholics cannot begin to speak of union if they are not ready to accept that the Orthodox are already in the apostolic church and don't need converting, and stop ceasing orthodox churches and trying to convert the orthodox parishioners, clergy, and bishops.

The uniate church is not a 'little issue of territory'.

You don't seem to have a problem when Catholics convert to Orthodoxy. You invoke the apostolic nature of the Orthodox Church as a reason for the Catholic Church to stop "enticing" Orthodox over to Rome. Yet, you do not seem to be able to see the equal set of circumstances from our POV. Why do Orthodox Churches "entice" (I'll use your word)Catholics over to Orthodoxy, when they are leaving a Church with an equally apostolic nature? Or is the issue really that you don't recognize the apostolicity of the Catholic Church?

At best, BOTH sides, in different places and circumstances, are acting like children in the matter. Turf wars are unseemly. But, to the extent that a reunification of our Churches hasn't taken place yet, I do believe that the Catholic minority in the Ukraine *is* within its rights to try to get some of its historical churches back. Besides, if your beef is about "proselytizing," you should know that, last year, I think, John Paul II came out with what essentially is an order to catholics *not* to proselytize the Orthodox in Russia and Ukraine. Personally, if anything, I think he went too far, going even to the extent of all but barring converts who *seek us out*.

How awfully silly and venal this must all look to Christ!

I'm not trying to ask the patriarch of a church to join hands.

That is the difference. You cannot simutaenously say 'we are one' and 'you are different, convert and give us your properties or we'll take them by force from the state'. The Catholic Pope keeps calling for a visit to Russia and an end to the schism for years.

John Paul has been denying proselytizing for YEARS. That has stalled relations for YEARS.

It's not a turf war when the state awards the Catholic church your Cathedral and all the orthodox are told to convert or get lost.

You have such a lack of understanding of the Former Soviet Union issues it's not even funny.

Further today in ukraine there is a third problem. There is a split in the Orthodox church with some wanting to remain in the Russian Moscow patriarchiate and some wanting a national Ukranian orthodox church.

All three argue over church properties, and the nationalist Ukraine government has been favoring the notion of a Ukranian national church at the expense of the others. You go to church one morning and the police are there telling you the Church now belongs to someone else.

It's not *my beef*, it's the dispute that's been keeping the pope from meeting with the Patriarch of Russia Alexy II for years.

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.