Posted on 12/22/2006 11:58:59 AM PST by Teófilo
PING
As I believe Nihil Obstat commented elsewhere, "Orthodox sedevacantists".
There will always be a feeling of wariness among many Orthodox toward the Roman Catholic Church. On many theological points I can sympathize, but too many Orthodox whinily tend to to bring up historical happenings eg; the Sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders, as if it happened last Thursday---get over it.
Looking for a place to attend Christmas Mass, I went down to the Greek Orthodox Church and chatted with the Priest.
I was favorably impressed with everything, except that he does get information from MSNBC and thinks Bush lied about WMD to get us into Iraq.
On the plus side, he didn't get hostile when I ventured my opinion that Bush was set up by a cabal of Clintonoids within the CIA, and actually thought he was telling the truth.
Set up regarding what?
The size and status of Saddam's WMD programs.
"On the plus side, he didn't get hostile when I ventured my opinion that Bush was set up by a cabal of Clintonoids within the CIA, and actually thought he was telling the truth."
The man should be congratulated for not laughing in your face.
If you are ignorant of the fact that there was a cabal of Clintonoids in the CIA working to undermine Bush, then I should be congratulated for not making an insulting comment about it.
Yep. Cuckoo birds.
-Theo
Okay, that is it. I am not a Orthodoxie nor Catholicist, but they mess with Mt. Athos and I am likely to take up the Crusader Cross and go medieval on somebody! (Where did I put that broadsword?)
--The fathers of Esphigmenou struggle against the heresy of ecumenism which states that there is no one church which possesses the Truth.
--The Patriarch refuses to allay those concerns and refuses to engage in constructive dialogue with the monks. He has, however, demanded an apology in writing for questioning him.
Okay, what the heck is Patriarch Bart teaching here? Methinks the monks got a point. Doctrine is not something that one can back down on just so 'we can get along'. You do that and what you get is Rick Warren or Joel Ostein (search for them here if you haven't a clue.)
--It also seems to me that in terms of their beliefs, attitudes, and interpretations of past and present canonical law, these monks are little different from our own schismatic "traditionalists" who stand in judgment of the Church and of the Successor of St. Peter, they being the only ones in the right and everyone else, wrong, by their own fiat.
Nope. That is all wrong. Their are NO schismatics in the RCC. I read it here myself from good Catholics when they mention that the Prots have 450000 denominations and cannot agree on doctrine. That simply CANNOT happen with the RCC. (Just ribbing you guys! :o))
Merry Christmas to all those on that side of the Tiber.
(Does this mean I am the Etruscan King and you guys are Horatio? Defend honorable Rome! and all that...)
:-D
-Theo
"these monks are little different from our own schismatic "traditionalists" who stand in judgment of the Church and of the Successor of St. Peter, they being the only ones in the right and everyone else, wrong, by their own fiat. "
I am so sick of that wrong-headed, wrong-hearted crap.
Maybe if we tell it as a fairy tale...
Once upon a time, there was a church that believed A, B, and C for 2000 years. Then, one day, a bunch of people said, "No, no, A, B, and C aren't right. You all have to start believing X, Y, and Z, which have always been associated with the deadly enemies of your church."
Some in the church were sheeple, and went along. A very few said, "No, you have no authority to substitute X, Y, and Z for A, B, and C."
The theological Stalinists then waxed wroth, and, arguing as leftists always do, tried to ignore the 2000 years of Church history and paint A, B, and C as nothing more than the opinions of the non-sheeple.
Where these "traditionalists" stood in judgment of the theological Stalinists for substituting their own whims for Church doctrine, the Stalinists calumniated them for "standing in judgment of the Church," a naked lie of the sort in which leftists habitually deal.
Where the non-sheeple compared the dictates of the theological Stalinists with the established doctrine of the Church and found the Stalinists in error, the Stalinists prattled of "their own fiat," to make it seem like it was only the dissenters arrayed against them and not all of Church teaching, doctrine, Tradition, revelation, and Scripture.
In other words, they reacted to dissent from theological Stalinism with the same dishonest ploys secular Stalinists use in the political sphere.
Satan has a particular, unmistakable stench. The liberal church in America reeks of it.
Nope. All this is from a good flu. Just in time for Christmas...*sigh*
Christmas blessings to you, should I forget to throw some your way laters!
It must be true...
"If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the 'truth'."
Saddam used WMD against his own people...unless all those corpses died of imaginary nerve gas.
The CIA told Bush that beyond a doubt Saddam had an ongoing WMD program. We have found warheads loaded with nerve gas. To accuse Bush of lying when he was at worst too trusting of the CIA is just not reasonable.
All this was discussed right here on FR. Have people already forgotten?
You know what's funny about this? The common defense of Bush's lying is in essence that he was an ineffectual, incompetent, fool, who surrounded himself with the same. The record is rather that Bush had no interest in any intelligence that moved him away from his desire to invade Iraq.
"We have found warheads loaded with nerve gas."
"We" found a bunch of degraded missiles left over from the eighties that Saddam didn't even know he had.
"All this was discussed right here on FR."
That is only meaningless.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," - Paul Wolfowitz.
The only question is - "Who is 'we' Kemosabe?"
When one single analyst told the administration that aluminum tubes could only be used for uranium enrichment, the Dept of Energy (the folks who know from uranium enrichment) were saying just the opposite, that the tubes were not at all suitable for such use.
Bush went public only with the former claim of course, presenting it as a certainty - there are only two plausible explainations for this decision - either Bush, and his VP, and his National Security advisor were hopelessly inconpetent boobs, or they had no regard for the truth.
It is impossible for me to decide which of those two possible explanation condemn this administration the most thoroughly - perhaps you, Dsc, ever hopeful that ideology serves truth more reliably than mere facts, can be the decider here...
It's the truth. Get over it. Move on.
-Theo
You know, I've got that too, a mild case of the sniffles, along with sore throat, muscle pain, lethargy, the works.
You are not alone.
Merry Christmas to you too!
-Theo
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.