POPE'S DREAM OF UNITING CHRISTIANITY GOES UNFULFILLED (Ukraine - Russia)

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty | April 8, 2005 | Jeffrey Donovan

[Lukasz]

I will never achnowledge the Pope as the head of the Christian Church. The head of the Church is Jesus. I am saved because of belief in Christ, not because of belief in the Pope. The Pope is just a man, elected by men.

Pope is head of Church just on EARTCH, he is just Jesus’s servant. Nobody ever said that he is equal with Jesus or God! I was noticed that some Protestants on FR, thinks that they know better than Catholics what Catholics thinks and belief.

[Honorary Serb]

Something you guys will never understand: we Orthodox do not wish to be under the Papal Yoke.

As an Evangelical Orthodox Lutheran, I hope that we can someday have a reunited, undivided Orthodox Catholic Church, for all orthodox Christians of the Great Tradition. In that Church, the Bishop of Rome would be first among equals (as he was in the original undivided Church), NOT a monarch or dictator. And America, as a mature Christian country, should have its own patriarch. (Even without such as degree of unity, Orthodox America should have its own patriarch.)

In that case, we would not be directly under the Pope, and being under the Pope as the first among equals would be a blessing!

[Straight Vermonter]

The headline at the end of Reagan's term might also have been "Reagans Dream of Defeating Communism Goes Unfulfilled". These things take time.

[jb6]

And if you believe there were no communist agents in the Catholic church in Poland, I've got a lot of beach front land to sell you in Nevada.

[MarMema]

ROFL.

[Constantine XIII]

I'm sure Cobra Commander agrees with you.

Of course, ever since he turned into a snake, he's been a bit kooky. :P

[Lukasz]

And who attacked Poland few days after Nazis? Muslims? Maybe Orthodox countries didn’t cooperated with nazis at all? Such auction hasn’t any sense and lead to nowhere.

[Destro]

The USSR was not Orthodox nor was Orthodox tolerated. Meanwhile the Pope once praised Hitler and Catholic priests helped Nazis escape to South America - and in South America another generation of Catholic clergy advocated "Liberation Theology". Even under Soviet captivity and undermining of the Orthodox faith no Russian celrgy advocated spreading Communist revolution.

[Miles the Slasher]

"Luke 22: 24 A dispute also arose among them (the 12 Apostles), as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. "

Actually, the Lord did (Luke 22:24-32). In the verse in question, the Lord doesn't question the premise of the dispute. Rather, he first outlines the nature and duties of he who is "protos", i.e. "first" (see Matthew 10:3). In the sentence immediately following, Jesus then says he prayed for Peter that HIS faith would not fail, so that that he (Peter) would confirm the brethren, i.e. that he was to be the servant of all others (i.e. hence, Peter is "first"). That is why the popes use the title "servant of servants".

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Jesus Christ, son of the living God, have mercy on all of us, sinners.

Amen.

[GarySpFc]

From the tone of all those "defenders" of Orthodox church, one can sense how Christian they are. What a contrast with JP II, his efforts, love and mission to right past wrongs and trying to bring back lost flocks, largely created by some rebels who wanted to be their own "jesuses".

One only has to look at the Inquistion and the millions murdered by the Roman Catholic Church to see who actually departed from the Way. Today they attempt to blame those murders on the rulers in power at the time, but they controlled those goverments.
At every turn the RCC fought and murdered those who would bring the Bible to the public. Their take on Peter being the first Pope is nonsense. Anyone familiar with the Greek language can clearly see in Matthew 16 Christ was NOT referring to Peter (Petros), but rather to the true rock (petra), which is the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

[GarySpFc]

Actually, the Lord did (Luke 22:24-32). In the verse in question, the Lord doesn't question the premise of the dispute. Rather, he first outlines the nature and duties of he who is "protos", i.e. "first" (see Matthew 10:3). In the sentence immediately following, Jesus then says he prayed for Peter that HIS faith would not fail, so that that he (Peter) would confirm the brethren, i.e. that he was to be the servant of all others (i.e. hence, Peter is "first"). That is why the popes use the title "servant of servants".

If you want to use Matthew 10:3 for primancy of Peter, then you are going to have to accept the conjunction "and," which follows his name, and add Andrew as co-Pope.

[Tao Yin]

I love the arguement that the Catholic Church is the authority on interpreting the Bible because the Catholic Church's interpretation says so. Circular logic.

It's curious that Mark 8 doesn't even talk about Peter being given the right to rule the earthly Church. The story is condensed into the important parts. Jesus is the Christ and don't tell anyone.

Mark 8
29 And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ."
30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

Same with Luke 9:20-21, no mention of Peter's authority.

Then Acts 10
25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."

And later in Acts 10:34-43, when Peter proclaims the Good News, there is nothing about Peter being the first Pope.

In 2 Peter 1:1, Peter uses the phrase, "To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"

Regarding the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope... I just don't see it. One of the greatest truths of the Bible should not be obscured using innuendo and inference

I am saved by grace, though faith, for works. That's what the Bible says. It is quite clear on these points.

So in summary, I will not unite under the Catholic Church.

[Solon]

The USSR was not Orthodox nor was Orthodox tolerated

But the Russian Orthodox Church was not abolished & outlawed as was the Ukrainian Orthodox & Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

In fact, is it not true that the Russian Orthodox Church was the only one to fuction legally in the USSR?

And was this attempt to obliterate rival Eastern Churches done so with the supportive role of the partriarch of Moscow(Aleksei)?

Is it also not true that the Russian Orthodox Church was the recipent of confiscated Catholic churches and to this day not all churches & properties have been returned to their rightful owners?

Interesting standard of toleration you have.

[Destro]

The Catholic Church was "legal" - Islam was "legal, etc. Stalin came down hard on those Orthodox churches you mentioned because the were centered around a Nationalist and sepratist movement. He did not do it in favor of Orthodoxy. Even those churches you mentioned were later re-instated though they were less tolerated. In terms of body bags/martyrs the Orthodox Ukranians/Russians of the Moscow patriarchy outnumbered all faiths, etc. So you gain no special place for your churches by mentioning that Societ hit them - they hit all and then let up and then hit again, etc.

[Solon]

The Catholic Church was "legal"

Can you be any more ignorant? The Ukrainian Catholic Church was the largest illegal church in the world up until 1989.

I did not write about Stalin. And you still do not address the supportive role of the partriarch of Moscow(Aleksei) in the persecution of other Eastern Churches.

It is a fact that the Russian Orthodox Church was the recipient of confiscated churches & properties, so it begs the question.............

Why do the Ukrainian Orthodox & Catholic Churches, to this day, have to butt heads with the Russian Orthodox Church to have their properties respectfully return to them? It would have been the honorable thing to do but it seems denominational vanity gets precedence over morality.

[Miles the Slasher]

"I love the arguement that the Catholic Church is the authority on interpreting the Bible because the Catholic Church's interpretation says so. Circular logic."

I suppose such an argument would be circular, if the Catholic Church in fact made that argument. However, it doesn't. The Church, as a living body, derives's its authority directly from Christ. The Church preceded the New Testament books, its members wrote the scripture under inspiration. I believe the scriptures are scripture on the Church's authority. No cirularity there.

However, if you believe in sola scriptura, do you have a noncircular proof of it, that doesn't first presume the scriptures authority?

A private reply would be fine, not looking for a theological debate on FR.

[A. Pole]

And who attacked Poland few days after Nazis? Muslims? Maybe Orthodox

It was Soviets/Bosheviks who attacked Poland. Orthodox Christians were rotting in Gulag and Orthodox churches were closed if not destroyed. Only after Nazi attack on Soviet Union Stalin allowed some churches to be open. YOU DID NOT KNOW IT?

I just looked up on Goggle and I found the page showing the attitude of Russian Christians to the Bolshevism:

Blood of the Martyrs is the Seed of the Church

You wrote in a previous post:

"Church in Poland always supported independence and was hostile towards communists and nazis."

If you compare the resistence of the official leadership in Polish and Russian Church it was quite similar - it lasted about eight years and then started to crumble.

The difference is that in 1953 when Polish bishops started to submit to communists and their main leader cardinal Wyszynski was imprisoned (same way as patriarch Tichon) STALIN DIED AND LIBERALIZATION STARTED. This is what saved Polish Church.

[A. Pole]

But the Russian Orthodox Church was not abolished & outlawed as was the Ukrainian Orthodox & Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

It was abolished & outlawed. Only when Hitler attacked Soviet Union and Russians were not willing to fight for atheist regime, Stalin allowed Orthodox churches to reopen.

[anonymoussierra]

life is life "religion" is "religion" G-D is G-D G-D do know good persons evil persons I do "respect"persons "religion"good G-D do respect persons now this is for you all

http://www.oca.org
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7053.asp
http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
http://www.cin.org/eastern.html
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7102.asp

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Ecumenical_Councils.htm
http://www.piar.hu/councils
http://www.answers.com/topic/east-west-schism