Posted on 12/09/2008 5:52:09 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
“What are your thoughts on Colonel Drozdov, a.k.a. Patriarch Alexey II, snitching on his flock to the KGB, by the way?”
You know, it is disrespectful to criticize a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church based on rumors. Even more so, considering he has “fallen asleep”... His Holiness, Alexy II preserved and did much to restore the Church in Russia.
Estonia isn’t Russia.
Excuse me, if I find it hard to believe that you prayed for Alexy II, being that you call him a KGB “snitch”.....
He was never found guity in a court of law. Until then he is considered innocent even if under suspicion.
Nudity inside a church is not a matter of doubt, Alex. It has no place among the icons. That's what we believe.
As Catholic, I pray for sinners.
The African lady is innocent beyond doubt. Is anything in her demeanor indicating a lewd attitude?
The simple rule of thumb is, the younger the priest, the more conservative he is, both liturgically and politically.
Bland, protestantized cafeteria Catohlicism of the 80s is a dying trend.
I agree. It has been tested and found wanting. Younger people especially are looking for something to stake their principles upon, something real and is able to draw a line in the sand without caving in to relativism. Conservative Catholicism provides that, as I see in my RCIA classes.
Regards
You may recall the scripture that says “ Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged”......
Alex, I never said she was guilty. In fact I said only the opposite. But her immodesty is a cause of impure thoughts which have no place at a religious gathering. Our sin produced shame. Trying to deny it is denying our sin and the Bible.
You know John Paul's thoughts? Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged, Orthodox Texans say.
THIS Orthodox Texan says that. I don’t speak for anyone else.
I learned that the prohibition does not apply to judging the patriarchs of the West: their missionaries are called "men of reprobate minds" (8); the papal letter is likened to a "plague", by which his holiness "desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy" (9). Further His Holiness' intention is judged to be "not [to offer] words of peace, as he affirms (p. 7,1.8), and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement" (10).
Alright; maybe the Patriarchs of the East knew something about Pius IX and his designs for self-aggrandizement that I don't.
But I read on and found this passage:
unless the Church of Christ was founded upon the immovable rock of St. Peter’s Confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which was the answer of the Apostles in common, when the question was put to them, Whom say ye that I am? (Matt. xvi. 15,) as the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, interpret the passage to us), the Church was built upon a slippery foundation, even on Cephas himself, not to say on the Pope, who, after monopolizing the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, has made such an administration of them as is plain from history. But our divine Fathers, with one accord, teach that the sense of the thrice-repeated command, Feed my sheep, implied no prerogative in St. Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors. It was a simple restoration to his Apostleship, from which he had fallen by his thrice-repeated denial. St. Peter himself appears to have understood the intention of the thrice-repeated question of our Lord: Lovest thou Me, and more, and than these?. (John xxi. 16;) for, calling to mind the words, Thou all shall be offended because of Thee, yet will 1 never be offended (Matt. xxvi. 33), he was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me? But his successors, from self-interest, understand the expression as indicative of St. Peter's more ready mind.
This is something I can fact-check.
Do the fathers interpret Matthew 16:15 as an answer the Apostles give in common? This is what St. John Chrysostom has to say:
What then says the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers. And whereas when He asked the opinion of the people, all replied to the question; when He asked their own, Peter springs forward, and anticipates them, and says, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16What then says Christ? Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you. Matthew 16:17
Yet surely unless he had rightly confessed Him, as begotten of the very Father Himself, this were no work of revelation; had he accounted our Lord to be one of the many, his saying was not worthy of a blessing. Since before this also they said, Truly He is Son of God, Matthew 14:33 those, I mean, who were in the vessel after the tempest, which they saw, and were not blessed, although of course they spoke truly. For they confessed not such a Sonship as Peter, but accounted Him to be truly Son as one of the many, and though peculiarly so beyond the many, yet not of the same substance.
And Nathanael too said, Rabbi, You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel; John 1:49 and so far from being blessed, he is even reproved by Him, as having said what was far short of the truth. He replied at least, Because I said unto you, I saw you under the fig-tree, do you believe? you shall see greater things than these. John 1:50
Why then is this man blessed? Because he acknowledged Him very Son.
True, St. Peter is called "the mouth of the apostles", which may imply a common answer. But what are St. John's other thoughts on St. Peter? He is called also the "leader of the apostolic choir" who "anticipated" the rest. Next, St. John the Chrysostom poses the question: given that Nathaniel also confessed something similar, and earned but a rebuke from Jesus, what made the confession of Peter "worthy of a blessing"? The answer is, that St. Peter "begotten of the very Father Himself". Very well. But -- I am coming to the point of the controversy now -- whose faith does St. John the Chrysostom offer as a contrast to the faith of St. Peter beside Nathaniel? Why, all the rest of the apostles' "who were in the vessel after the tempest, which they saw, and were not blessed, although of course they spoke truly. For they confessed not such a Sonship as Peter, but accounted Him to be truly Son as one of the many, and though peculiarly so beyond the many, yet not of the same substance." The confession of the Apostles is likened to the inferior confession of Nathaniel.
So, is it really accurate for the Eastern Patriarchs to say that St. Peter is, according to "Fathers, both Eastern and Western", a mere spokesman for the "apostolic choir"?
Is, perhaps, the monopolization (whatever that means) of the Keys something the Fathers universally objected to? Not according to St. Cyril:
According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immovably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we, not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition
How about the Charge to Peter in John 21, is that "a simple restoration to his Apostleship"? Truning to St. John the Chrysostom again, we read:
He says unto him, Feed My sheep.And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren;
Chief authority among the brethren. Later in the same homily, St, John writes "He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair (in Jerusalem), but of the world." Are the popes, St. Peter's successors, really so far off the mark understadning the episode as "indicative of St. Peter's more ready mind"?
It would be fine, albeit surprising, for the Eastern Patriarchs to disagree with Sts Cyril and John the Chrysostom on this vexing issue of the primacy of St. Peter and the Pope. But what compelled them to assure their trusting flock that "our divine Fathers, with one accord, teach" something they don't? Or am I being judgmental?
No, you are being disingenuous...and you of all people know it! Lest there be any misunderstanding among lurkers, +John Chrysostomos here describes almost exactly the role which is ascribed to the primate of a synod with all that implies, though on a "universal" level, but nothing more, no infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth with "immediate local jurisdiction".
That he does, but you would never have guessed that from the Encyclical. My quarrel is not with St. John but with the misrepresentation of the patristic teaching therein.
I think you can twist out of context, any document or writing that you wish, but the bottom line here, is that the Pope was NEVER anything other than “Primus Inter Pares”, a Chairman of the Board type that settled disputes on occasion. The Orthodox Church may concede that as Patriarch of the West, he may hold authority over his own sphere of influence, but he will NEVER...Let me repeat...NEVER be a Universal, Infallible Pope by Latin Definition, over the Eastern Orthodox Church.
My issue is the inaccurate (putting it very mildly) presentation of the patristic teaching in the encyclical you posted and not what you think will or will not happen as regards the papacy.
It may be, but it seems you were making a case for Papal Authority, hence my response.
That's not a judgment; that's our fallen nature, Alex, as the Bible reminds us. Adam knew he was naked.
+Ioannis of Pergamon is the co-chairman of the committee on the Ctahoic-Orthodox Dialogue and his one of the few Orthodox bishops who see papacy in the light of Matthew 16. St. John Chrysostom was likewise one of few (+Maximos the Confessor comes to mind), who sought refuse in Rome during an Eastern heresy, who was a biblical "papist."
But the Church as a whole wasn't. Sure, papal legates at the Council of Chalcedon referred to the successor of Peter as the the "ruler of the Church," but the bishops, by their vote on Canon XXVIII demonstarted a different opinion of the Bishop of Rome.
They actually made sure to qualify, as they have in a Council preceding it, lest tere be no misunderstanding, that the privilege and honor of the Bishop of (elder) Rome was entirely due to the imperial dignity of the elder Rome, and that these privileges were given to the pope by the very same bishops!
Read the proceedings of the Council and see it for yourself. In other words, the Church, not one Eastern bishop (i.e. St. John Chrysostom) in the 5th century did not buy into the Latin interpretation of Matthew 16:19 or any biblical authority of the pope. And they made that known for all posterity.
Today, as in the past, the majority of Eastern bishops do not see papacy in the light of Matthew 16:19 and point to the fact that the verse is in the future tense ("I will give you") and that in Matthew 18:18 the same is given to all the disciples.
We can literally talk until kingdom come, and neither side will have a clear-cut argument for their position. The Cathjoic-Orthodox Dilaogue on the nature of the primacy of +Peter has been going on for years now, and they have not been able to come up with a joint statement as they have on the filioque (which didn;t give any positive fruit whatsoever because it is being ignored!).
This is why I keep saying it is best if we fraternally embrace each other on those issues we share in common and leave our dogmatic differences in peace without judgment. Pressing for re-union creates artificial hope in people who are not familiar with what keeps us apart, and that's rather deceptive in my opinion.
“That he does, but you would never have guessed that from the Encyclical.”
But Alex, the Eastern Patriarchs were, to their way of thinking, and truth be told I mostly agree with them, addressing a power mad heretic and schismatic, a true ravening wolf, preaching some new gospel and loose in the fold of the Faithful. Why would they want to encourage the presumption of Rome with a misinterpretation of +John to the effect that the successors (as it is alleged) of +Peter, the popes of Rome were some sort of Son of God and as for +Cyril, well that curmudgeon praised the Pope and groveled at his feet about as much as he excoriated him. +Cyril has absolutely no credibility at all when it comes to the papacy.
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.