HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Carson  Cruz  Bush  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Working on the last $8k! Let's get 'er done! Thank you very much for your loyal support, Jim

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $79,534
Woo hoo!! And now over 90%!! Less than $8.5k to go!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by jo kus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The little book that will cause a great storm ('Dominus Est' by Bishop Schneider) (Catholic Caucus)

    12/18/2008 9:36:49 AM PST · 8 of 83
    jo kus to Pyro7480
    After recalling the development of the reception of Communion on the tongue as a fruit of "a deepening understanding of the truth of the Eucharistic mystery...", the Instruction declares that "this method of distributing Holy Communion must be retained...."

    It also warned: "A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it...the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

    No kidding. Makes you wonder what the Liturgistical liberals were thinking when they allowed communion in the hand. Did they think "in the mouth" vs "in the hand" was the same symbol and sign? Did they think people would retain awe and reverance when they could take the wafer from the priest's hands and walk off non-chalantly???


  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 5:59:59 PM PST · 56 of 79
    jo kus to Ditter
    I guess I felt I had been roped into the “moron” group. If that is not what you intended then I misunderstood.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is quite offensive to me and it is impossible to believe they didn't know what they were doing. Can't we have something that is sacred without some people looking to make a quick buck and ruining it?


  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 12:12:42 PM PST · 54 of 79
    jo kus to Ditter
    I realize it was printed for Mexican people. I was speaking for MYSELF.

    Thanks for your opinion... But why did you become so offended when I was not even refering to you???

    Here is my post. Note, the context is the audience of the magazine, not you - since you are not Mexican or Catholic. "We didn't mean to..." Only a moron would believe that. Not a soul in Mexico could miss this one if they tried... Since you are neither, my comments don't apply to you...


  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 10:20:05 AM PST · 51 of 79
    jo kus to Ditter
    I am NOT in Mexico, I am NOT a Spanish speaker and I am NOT Catholic!

    So what? The magazine cover was printed for the MEXICAN public. Not for you. ANY Mexican would immediately make the connection, since they understand Spanish and practically all of them have some Catholic background - and know who our Lady of Guadalupe is. Anyone who spoke Spanish would know. Anyone who had been in a church with stain-glass windows and statues would know... Anyone who knew of the symbols on the cover would instantly make the connection.


  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 4:40:15 AM PST · 47 of 79
    jo kus to GOPJ
    We don’t have to riot if we can get the rumor going that Playboy was going after Muslim women in a very subtle way...

    The Muslims revere Mary more highly than any other woman in the Koran, to include Mohemmed's mother. If they were alerted, I'm sure they could provide some interesting 'rebuttal' to Playboy and their crap. Remember what some did when someone dared to put Mohemmed in a bad light in a comic?


  • "Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

    12/17/2008 4:35:49 AM PST · 46 of 79
    jo kus to Ditter
    I don’t know if that picture would have reminded me of the Virgin Mary if the title of this thread hadn’t told me. I could see some girl coming out from under the sheets before the VM.

    Do you know what "Te Adoramos Maria" means? Note the background and the pose.

    "We didn't mean to..." Only a moron would believe that. Not a soul in Mexico could miss this one if they tried...


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/17/2008 4:29:58 AM PST · 447 of 462
    jo kus to annalex
    The same pattern obtains with Novus Ordo Masses. Where the Mass is said reverently, the homily is orthodox and refers to the scripture readings, traditional Catholic pieties like perpetual adoration are encouraged, pro life activities are on a permanent basis, -- the church is full and the parishioners are younger.

    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.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 2:27:05 PM PST · 413 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    I think you are right. While the laity are certainly concerned about what they see as unOrthodox dogmas, innovations, I believe there is sufficient knowledge, among the laity who care, to understand and assess whatever explanations of those innovations might be presented to them. The only one, in all honesty, that I wonder about the resolvability of are the Vatican I proclamations. I sincerely believe those will be difficult to resolve.

    I think if they look at the relatio, the underlying desire of the Council can be ascertained and there would be room to clarify the doctrine of infallibility. I think the East's thinking has changed somewhat from the 1800's on this issue!

    The real problem, Jo, is our inability to trust that Rome can be consistent in much of anything and since with Orthodoxy, what you see (and hear and smell) is exactly what you get, when we see what you have done in the West and when we understand why you did it, well, its “Katie bar the door!”

    Understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain things. The consistency problem deals with the Liturgy, not infallible doctrine, so it is fixable.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 11:19:29 AM PST · 395 of 462
    jo kus to Pyro7480
    In fact, up until the 1960s, you had the ‘old’ Roman rite, the Dominican rite, the Carmelite rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Cistercian rite, among others. They’re still around, but were greatly diminished, along with the “extraordinary” form.

    Thanks, I didn't know that - although are you speaking of a Carmelite "rite" or "missal"? The pope states that the two missals did not mean there were two Latin rites. At least that is what the motu proprio says.

    In the end, I don't think the problem is having several rites/missals, but the abuses that have crept in because bishops were not holding wayward priests accountable for their deviant changing of the Liturgy on their own authority. Less vague rulings would help here.

    The NO Mass, when originally conceived and celebrated with due holiness, is quite capable of teaching the faithful through the Liturgy. People can witness this on EWTN.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 7:44:33 AM PST · 392 of 462
    jo kus to Pyro7480; Kolokotronis
    Yes, a good read. It addresses and recognizes problems with the confusion resulting from having two missals.

    Here is a link...



  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 7:35:12 AM PST · 391 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Here’s a link to parts of his sermon in 2006 when the Pope came to the Phanar. Give it a read:

    I just finished. I cannot agree more with the Patriarch's take on Liturgy. We teach the same thing. It's just a matter of implementing these words and those words found in the Catechsim by removing the problems that have entered into our public prayer. The NO Mass has the potential to fulfill the Patriarch's desire, if we can remove some of the abuses and tighten such loopholes that some deviants desire to use.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 6:14:35 AM PST · 387 of 462
    jo kus to Religion Moderator
    Attributing motives - and otherwise reading the mind of another Freeper - is a form of "making it personal."

    I don't need to read the mind of another Freeper when it is so obviously noted in posts. I've been doing this for a long time. However, next time, I'll just mention that I no longer wish to speak with someone and put them on the ignore list.

    Is that acceptable?


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/16/2008 6:10:20 AM PST · 386 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Jo, its simple. I want you to come to understand how it is that the modern Roman Church got to such a state that for us Orthodox, the prospect of reunion is terrifying.

    Yes, I agree that unification can seem terrifying to a Church that places form over function. From what I have heard so far, the West is being judged on "moving away from its Western orthodoxy". I have not disagreed that we have our troubles with the Liturgy. I accept your criticisms.

    However, I have strived to tell you that there ARE allowable items that can change and others that cannot. It seems to me that the East makes the slippery slope argument that "if the West changes matters on language of the Mass, they tommorrow claim that God is no longer a Trinity of persons". Am I not right? Is this not the fear of the East? That seems to be the fear in the mind of the Eastern Orthodox.

    However, it is based on an incorrect view of what is "faith and morals" that are infallibly defined for all time everywhere and "discipline" or "tradition" that is subject to change. I have tried to show that there is a distinction, and I hope that the Easterns here can realize we have no desire (nor will God allow) for false teachings to destroy already-infallibly-taught matters into the Roman Church.

    Do the Orthodox think for one second that the reason why heresy has not slipped into the Roman Church is based upon the Pope's own abilities??? LOL! No, it is God Himself, my friend. We trust that He continues to guard the Church from teaching error on such matters of faith and morals meant for the Church for all times and in all places.

    Our created purpose, Jo, is to become like God, not to become personally fulfilled.

    :> One enables the other to take place, doesn't it? Don't worry, the NO Mass is not designed to allow the participant to "become personally fulfilled"!

    Our end is to die to the self, not to become self satisfied. Our object of worship is God, not God’s community around us, as important as that is.

    True. But I do not think one can support the notion that the NO Mass INTENDS to remove worship of God from the Rite. Has it in the end? Perhaps it has removed the awe necessary to "more correctly" view God as holy and such. Liturgists have definitely made some statements that the current Pope would like to correct.

    But some of them were “fulfilled”, some of them became “important”, some of them could be on display playing “papadaki” (little priests)or dancing vestal virgins or truly perverse “fools for Christ” (disdaining the very concept). The focus could be on them instead of on Christ and every single bit of this is directly the result of the NO liturgy.

    While I agree with your premise, I do not agree this was a RESULT of the NO liturgy, but rather, silly priests who took it upon themselves to DEVIATE from what was allowed. The Second Vatican Council did not envision such craziness. I think we can agree that implementation of the Council's "mind" was very faulty, and some priests who were poorly trained took it upon themselves to put on a show. Most Catholics look on this stuff with disdain. I am not here to defend those ridiculous priests or "Catholics" who enjoy that stuff. But I don't blame the NO Mass for this either. The new Roman Missal does not call for such things.

    I don't know how this was allowed. Perhaps if more people were like your Serbians you mentioned who murmured when some priest didn't do something, we wouldn't be in this mess. It would take a lot of bandwidth to cover WHY the typical Western sat by quietly disapproving these abominations. Perhaps there was too much respect for priests still. Perhaps society had become more "open" with what they allowed (sexual revolution, women's rights, etc). I do not know why people didn't stand up in the Mass and say "HEY, what are you doing"? I'm trying to envisage myself in that situation. I have already detailed why the bishops were lax - they didn't want schism. But perhaps, in retrospect, they should have done more.

    Its no answer to say its the fault of bad priests and bishops. That sort of excuse has been around for 2000 years and its true as far as it goes. What makes it meaningless here is that it was the Roman Church itself which handed the explosives and the matches to the clerical mad bombers!

    LOL! You have a way with words, my friend. People will point to the ambiguous wording of Vatican 2 documents...However, we can also point to the "ambiguous wording" of Nicea that prompted Constantinople, which prompted Chalcedon... If you look at Counciliar history, I think you'll find it takes many years for the dust to settle and the "intent" of the Council to be made manifest amongst the people. We can discuss the example of Arianism... Manipulating of the words and meanings of the Creed forced FURTHER defining by subsequent Councils.

    Will we see another Council to "clarify" Vatican 2? I don't know, but I DO know that the Popes have been making efforts to correct the "manipulations" that come along with ALL councils. We place our trust that God will settle things and has given our Church the tools to do it through our Pope working down and the "sense of the faithful" who are providing the impetus to change things upwards.

    Jo, the theological differences between the East and West, I am convinced, can be relatively easily resolved. Whether or not the damage done by Vatican II and the NO liturgy can be resolved in less than 100-200 years is another matter.

    After these conversations, I completely agree. However, I have faith that the later part of what you say will be corrected sooner. It does seem that it can take 100 years for a Council's will to be "understood" and "implemented".

    My concern, frankly, is that the Roman Church has been so compromised that its future looks more like American Episcopalianism than Orthodoxy...and we have nothing but contempt for that as I am sure you do.

    Heaven forbid that God would allow His Church, either branch, to falter like that! I can appreciate your pessimism here in the US, but worldwide Catholicism is growing and in time, abuses will be corrected by closing the "loop holes". The seminaries are putting out better priests and it is our hope that the "wacko" priests will leave by attrition.

    The EP was and is so concerned about this issue that it has been front and center in his discussions with the Pope and other Latin hierarchs.

    I appreciate this discussion with you. It has given me the other side of the coin to look at. I was focusing on doctrines and pointing in particular to the Eastern laity as the cause of continued separation, that it hadn't occured to me that the REAL cause of mistrust is NOT the "theological lay experts of the East who misunderstand the Western infallible doctrines", but the mistrust caused by poor liturgical movements in the West. While there is validity to what I have said, your explanation makes more sense in today's world and I appreciate your correction.

    Certainly, this is a RECENT cause of our continued separation. This is less than a 50 year problem. However, it is heartening to hear that we can clear up the problems from BEFORE 50 years ago and it is up to the West to clean up our own house in the Liturgy. I pray the East can be patient with us as we were with them in the first 1000 years.

    Brother in Christ

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 7:38:31 PM PST · 378 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Jo, you do understand, I trust, that the faithful had missals with English on the right hand page and Latin on the left. Like I said, Jo, EVERYONE understood the Latin, even we kids who learned it by “rote memory”. Lots of things used to be learned that way, Jo. Converts to Orthodoxy still learn that way, Greek/Slavonic/Arabic on one page, English on the other. Within a few years John Smith, convert from Presbyterianism, can chant with the best of them and tell you just what is going on and why at the Divine Liturgy. Maybe modern Latins aren’t receptive to that sort of education, but modern Protestants, grown ups or kids, seem to be quite capable of learning that way.

    What exactly is it you want from me, Kolo? What is the purpose of this discussion again? To admit that the woes of the Western world stem from saying the Mass in English rather than Latin? Does it really matter what language we worship God in? Should we go back to Hebrew?

    Oh, and as an aside, the likes of Tex and Kosta and I could go to a Divine Liturgy in Arabic in Syria and be quite at home and know exactly what’s going on and being said even though, I suspect, none of us know more than a dozen words in Arabic.

    I had a pretty basic idea when I went to Rome and heard a Hungarian language Catholic Mass, as well...Some of the customs were different, but no matter, by the grace of God, I was able to raise my mind to God, not by some man-made construct, formula, or langauge.

    The point I am and have been making is that I do not see WHY the Mass said in English is "pernicious". My question remains, my friend. Catholic means universal, but that is not in reference to one language, since the Catholic Church before Schism did not consist of a culture with one language.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 7:31:28 PM PST · 376 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    I appeal to emotion? I use reference and data and pictures in my arguments. You call that emotional?

    Sure, whatever.

    The only reason why you are speaking to a Westerner on these matters is emotional. You do not desire constructive discussion. You prefer to batter your OPPONENT with your self-proclaimed righteousness while continuously pointing out perceived shortcomings. This is not discussion that I wish to be part of.

    I have done apologetics for years, and I have found that people like yourself (at least how you are presenting yourself now), Calvinists, Non-denominationals, SDA, JV's, and now you, are not looking to discuss issues. No matter what I say, it will just go in one ear and out the other as you either deny or ignore it, secure in your sense of superiority. I am able to accept constructive criticism, as I have been with Kolo. I cannot say the same for you, so I must bid you a farewell. I have no desire to waste time and energy with your constant pharisaical badgering. Spiritually, it is unsound to continue such talks that only aim at self-congratulatory pride.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:35:41 PM PST · 367 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    We are a Church of the Seven Councils, jo, and we do not subscribe to suboridnationalist tendencies, various individual theologians and Ecumenical Patriarchs notwithstanding.

    I'd comment on this and your understanding of the filioque, but I can see there is no hope of constructive discussion with you, as you tend to appeal to emotion and are not able to take constructive criticsm.

    Perhaps it would be better if I just don't respond anymore to you for awhile.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:30:54 PM PST · 366 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    You didn’t grow up then did you, Jo.

    I served as an altar boy in the 1970's, so no, I did not grow up then. However, I did know people who went to Mass every Sunday and prayed the rosary because they didn't understand what was said. The priest was doing his thing and the people were doing theirs. Participation was in name only. Mass was merely an obligation to attend to, not a meeting of our Lord and Savior.

    Hopefully, you will understand that mere rote memory of Latin words does not mean a person UNDERSTANDS what is happening during the Mass, just as my rote memorization of the Byzantium Rites would make me suddenly knowledgeable of the Mysteries proclaimed. I am still at a loss why you think the LANGUAGE said during the Mass has any transcendant meaning.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:24:16 PM PST · 365 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    The Church had a few whacky liberal theologians, but other than that no one was clammoring for any kind of monumental change that happened in the Vatican.

    I have asked you once already. Now again. Which "monumental changes" happened "in" Vatican 2?


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:18:21 PM PST · 364 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    The real stuff started with the John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, followed by the Martin Luther King's assassination five years later, and then Ted Kennedy's assassination, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, and the radicalization of the America's blacks as a result of Martin Luther's death. This is way past the Vatican II and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church! The women's movement and bra-burning protests didn't happen until the early 1970's, along with the Watergate scandal and the "love" culture that took over in that decade following our demise in Vietnam.

    And when was the Vatican 2 implemented by the Church again???


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:16:29 PM PST · 363 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    First you cite no sources, just some opinions of yours. You claim the Church would have been much worse off without the Vatican II. Prove it! Sounds like you have a crystal ball.

    What a hoot you are... How am I supposed to prove that if something didn't take place, we'd be worse off - to your liking??? Of course it is my opinion - and it far better explains your outsider opinion.

    Where are you getting this from? What dominoes were falling? Your statistics are wrong. You are making things up, or someone is lying to you.

    Slow down. What statistics did I give you??? I gave you reasons based upon my understanding of Catholicism from the inside. I deal with people falling away from Christainity and I deal with Church reports on WHY this happens. Reasons are not statistics. I know attendance is dropping, and I did not dispute that. I don't know, maybe you just like to argue. But I would suggest you actually read what I post and base your replies on that.

    The problems were already within the Church, otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a major problem so quickly once the windows were opened... I named MAJOR forces at work within the American culture at this time. Loss of respect of authority, civil rights movements, and lack of meaning of a Liturgy that few understood. They far excel the idea that saying the Mass in English rather than Latin had some sort of magical effect that suddenly people stopped going to Church!

    And guess what: despite all the pagan and abominal changes allowed to happen under the last Pope, the number of people who stopped coming to the the Church didn't stop, but increased!

    Perhaps you have forgotten the history of your own Patriarchs and their leading "Orthodoxy" into heresy over and over again during the first millenium? Would you like an extensive list of the heretical Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople? Then we could compare that to the number of heretics that sat at the Apostolic See in Rome... ZERO. So before you babble on about leading people into paganism, perhaps you should look to the mote in your own eye.

    How could the Church be better off with the Vatican II as you seem to suggest then without it if the shortage of priests and nuns continues and the parishes continue to close?

    It is quite naive to think that nuns threw off their habits BECAUSE the Mass was now said in the vernacular...!

    I don't attribute the cause of problems in the Western Church TO Vatican 2. The causes were already creeping into the Church BEFORE the Council. People's view on God and Church and authority from God had already changed by the time Vatican 2 came about. "WHY LISTEN TO THE CHURCH? THEY'RE CRAMPING MY STYLE"... The end result of the Enlightenment. The heresy of Modernism. Vatican 2 was promulgated to fight the heresy of removing the necessity of the Church of Jesus Christ from the lives of people of the world.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 10:57:52 AM PST · 351 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    No one is saying Orthodoxy is "superior."

    LOL!!! The attitude is clearly there in every one of your posts.

    We know we have the faith of the Church that canonized the Bible because we still pray and teach how she prayed and taught when she did.

    The East canonized the bible??? So when was the Book of Revelation, part of the Western Canon, accepted as the Word of God and preached during the Divine Liturgy in the East??? Which Eastern Counciliar definition has provided us an infallible list of the Table of Contents of Scriptures??? And IF they believe this is the Word of God, why is NOT the entire Word of God proclaimed?

    Secondly, you don't LITERALLY pray the same way that was prayed and taught by the earliest Church, since there were no Bascilicas the first 300 years of Christianity. EVERY rite that followed was an "innovation" from 300 years of celebrating the "Breaking of the Bread". Your arguments fall as hollow as those who cried about continuing to conform to the "rites" of 150 AD... Clearly, you are being anachronistic and conveniently ignore the fact that the East ALSO utilizes a rite that is not original with Christianity's roots.

    If we accept her Bible as pure and infallible selection of the infallible Church, then her faith had to be pure and infallible too, and was expressed in her prayers (liturgy) which remains unchanged in our Church. We have no other standard.

    The Apostle's Creed is not the exact same Creed as the Nicean Creed. The very FACT of a Council's existence proves your logic faulty. The Church grows in her understanding of herself. This includes how she prays to God in public worship. Why would that be different, while Councils convene to discuss what we believe intellectually?

    Frankly, I don't really care what your Church or other so-called "churches" believe nowadays.

    Yes, that is why you must post about the Catholic Church over and over again. You don't care...

    The only thing that smacks of superiority is for the Catholic Church to hope for and indeed ask for us to re-unite with something that is, frankly, in many instances unreocngiznable as a Church.

    Your definition of "church" and what makes a "church" is Pharisaical... "Unless I wash bowls in a precise way, unless I bow to the East three times at sunrise, unless I wear a red fez on my head, etc..., I am not a true follower of God". "Pure" Christianity does things "this" way, and unless people conform to that, they aren't "pure". Baloney. Religious pride. That's all it is.

    Asking for looking into the possibility of reunion is not a move of "superiority". Not sure I follow that logic...

    As I said before from the very beginning, there will be no reunion as long as the Eastern laity continues their prejudicial and myopic attitude, which fails to take into account that people can worship the One True God in ways other than Eastern ways. Even IF enlightened Eastern bishops were AGAIN able to see that Western theology was not contradictory to Eastern, it would be declared null and void by the millions of "theological experts" throughout Russia and Serbia and so forth. :]


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 10:34:33 AM PST · 350 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    The Church didn't share your opinion for centuries, especially after Trent. There was one Catholic Church, one Catholic morality, one Catholic language, and one Catholic culture. Anything secular was subjected to the higher ecclesial standards, regardless of culture, ethnicity or language.

    Could you please be more specific, rather than just telling me something without evidence? Quo Primum, the reform of the Missal that followed Trent, often cited by Catholic Traditionalists, has within it own pages the allowance for other Missals and rites. The simple fact is that "catholic" means universal - and so many rites are acceptable if they fall within accepted norms.

    Yes, it is true that secular thought is subject to the Church. However, the Church does not ignore the world, either. To make the Gospel clear to the WORLD, it must speak the Gospel in the langauge of the world. In other words, symbols are subject to change.

    With the exception of Galician and its derivative Mozarabic Rites (for reasons unknown to me), the Council of Trent made the TLM the only Rite in the Latin Church and prohibited any other, and any changes to or replacement of the same. It did not authorize creation of new Rites or new Missals, or new prayers, etc.

    The exceptions are enough to the thinking man to state that the TLM is not the only rite acceptable to Rome. The intent of Quo Primum was to prevent new ones from springing up at a priest or bishop's whim.

    And a God-centered rite emphases God. Now, if we have to choose between the Community of God and God...

    Perhaps you have forgotten the teaching of the Mystical Body of Christ? Christ HIMSELF dwells within the Church, the People of God, as does His Spirit. Now, unless you intend on dividing the Blessed Trinity into parts, (and it wouldn't be surprising, given the subordinationist tendencies of the East and Origen) your complaint has no warrant. We understand both aspects of Divine Liturgy and it is not necessary to place one over the other.

    We don't live in that age any more, jo.

    LOL! We live within the context of the outcome of that Age. Faith vs. reason STILL remain part and parcel a major issue between Modernists and Catholics. Modernism is the result of the Enlightenment. I am not making "excuses", that is just a fact of life of the tensions in society.

    History shows that when Pope Pius XII died in 1958, the Church was happy.

    "History"??? According to you? Please. If the Catholic Church was so "happy", then why, in less than 10 years, did the Church become so utterly "unhappy"? The problems were already deep-rooted. The Church already WAS unhappy and NEEDED reform. Desperately. It is my contention that God inspired men to bring about Vatican 2, inspired theologians to provide furtile grounds for subject matter on such things as "what is the Church" and "how can we make the Church more pertinent in the lives of the people of the world?" The Spirit of God doesn't need to reform a "happy" church. I think you are reading too much Traditionalist propaganda. You know, the type that claims the problems of the world can be blamed on the NO Mass?

    The Mass attendance was good, the people had no difficulties finding room for, and obeying the teachings of the Church...

    Perhaps you are also unaware of the distrust of authority in the US during this time frame? Perhaps you are unaware of the sexual revolution in the US during this time frame? Perhaps unaware of other social revolutionary action going on with women and blacks???

    People try to set up a false coorelation between the vernacular language Mass and the falling away of attendance, etc. It is a pitiful correlation that doesn't take into account the MUCH STRONGER forces rocking the culture that the Church existed within. Society ITSELF was changing. If the Church did not have a Vatican 2, we'd be worse off than before. Honestly, people were leaving Church for many other reasons than moving to English!

    No particular or specific "pastoral" problems existed.

    Wrong. NO Council is brought together without reason! The Church sensed there were serious problems, and the rapidity in the falling of the dominoes made it clear that the problems existed, albeit hidden to your eyes. Sure, attendance was higher in 1958 than 1968 - but is counting pew warmers a true testimony to the strength of the love of disciples of God? Blank and mindless prayers said because "that's the way it was done in 1259"? People praying rosaries because they don't understand the Mass is not indicative of pariticipating in the Divine Liturgy. Reciting the Baltimore Catechism without being able to EXPLAIN anything? Pitiful knowledge of Scriptures? Please. The Church was in dire trouble. It is sad that many people will not admit it.

    And for a Council that has no infallible dogma proclaimed, no anathemas, it has accomplished what no other Council did: it scrapped the whole Latin Catholic liturgical tradition and the life of Church as it was known...

    More mindless babble. Please cite the actual documents themselves that state ANYTHING being scrapped.

    Any Church that is not in reform is not worthy of being called Church, since we ALL are in need of reforming to Christ in humility. Not even the EO are "there" yet, as "pure" as you think it is...


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 9:00:29 AM PST · 346 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Your ghetto theory simply won’t work at least with my experience.

    Perhaps it is not so encompassing and universal! It seems to make sense to me.

    However, to the point, I don't feel the correct "RITE" is responsible for either the East's perceived superiority of itself or the West's faltering in catechesis and knowledge of the Divine. I think there are a lot of other very powerful forces at work besides the words (and language) said at Mass or whether we bow or kneel, or whether a girl is an altar server or not.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 8:57:17 AM PST · 345 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    That comment was intended as a question. I left out the question mark and I apologize for for my omission.

    Very well, you are forgiven.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 6:02:26 AM PST · 340 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    The justification for changing 1,400 years of tradition and in doing so apparently violating the infallible Tridentine Council, was for greater participation of the faithful during the Mass.

    I think you need another class on making the distinction between "Apostolic Tradition once given for the entire church to be believed everywhere and for all time" and "Discipline". The Rites as a whole are not infallible doctrine. They are dependent upon the culture which the people live in. Different cultures attach different meanings to symbols. Shaking hands, kneeling, standing, sitting can have different meanings to different people. As the cultural meanings change, so must the symbolism within the rite. As such, Rites CANNOT be entirely proclaimed "infallible". Thus, there was no violation of the infallible Tridentine Council.

    So, Kolo is absolutely right that the NO is people-centric. The orientation of the priest, alhtough NO can be done ad orienten, is in almost all instances done in versus populi.

    A rite that is "people-centric" emphasizes the Community of God coming together in Divine Worship, but again, does not remove the Sacrificial aspect.

    Funny that it "survived" 1,400 years without a problem. The Mass become "insufficient" (for what?) when the Church was subjected to the standards of the society, judged by fads and promoted by subclutures. A church that is made in the image of the society is no church. It is a pagan temple.

    Perhaps you are unaware of the repercussions of the Age of Enlightenment in the West? Hopefully, when such an age appears in the East, Eastern Orthodoxy will be able to counter it and remain pertinent in the lives of the young of the East.

    ALL Churches are "subject" to society since the Church must be made practical in the lives of those OF society. If the Church is seen as unnecessary in the lives of society, it will quickly die.

    Closing the windows will not fix anything. The next pope can just as likely open them again.

    Refer back to first sentence. Learn to distinguish between infallible doctrine and discipline. Nothing of infallible nature changed with Vatican 2. The opening statements of Vatican 2 by John 23 stated that it was a pastoral council - you do realize what the intent of a pastoral council is?


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:43:20 AM PST · 339 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    Jo, I only know what you say, to witt: "I do not know what a sub-deacon is or whether he is ordained. We don't have those here in the US as far as I know, maybe in the Curia?"

    What the heck does that have to do with this comment???

    You think "this" is the way it always was. Unfortunately, you make such prejudicial comments and then you refuse to recognize that you went beyond what I said. I said I did not know if Catholics had sub-deacons now. Your comment was unwarranted based upon what I actually wrote.

    I stand by what I first said....

    Stick to what I write, don't put words in my mouth.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/15/2008 5:34:58 AM PST · 338 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Yeah, what would I know with the paternal half of my family being all Irish Catholics, with three theology professors (two at Fordham, one formerly at the Gregorian Institute and now at BC), one a senior Jesuit as cousins, and me having gone to Catholic school and having been an altar boy at both the Orthodox and Latin churhes prior to Vatican II (it was an ecumenical time around here).

    That's not the experience I am talking about. I didn't say you had no experience as a Catholic. I am and was talking about a mobile society not being conducive to retaining the "religious ghetto" mentality that we both grew up in. When people move around every few years, it becomes difficult to retain that cultural connection to religious background you were raised in. That's the West, a mobile society. Where there are ghettos - where most everyone is "X" - of course OTHER religious groups are not going to infilitrate as easily. It has NOTHING to do with your "rite".

    But Orthodoxy is thriving with its 1700 year old liturgy.

    "Thriving"? It "thrives" only because it is a way of life where Modernism has not entered yet. Those who live within a community where nearly everyone is the same religion remain the same religion. Religion is part of the cultural norm. Whether people ACTUALLY ARE religious in the Biblical sense is another question entirely.

    If you get a chance, ask some convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, after he has been Orthodox for about 10 years, where and how he learned Orthodoxy. He’ll tell you in the liturgies and devotions of The Church not from books or Sunday School. One learns (and lives) The Faith by praying it!

    There are not a whole lot of such people I can ask those questions. I can't answer WHERE the Orthodox learn their faith from, but I would think it is more encompassing then just the Sunday Mass. I've been to Orthodox liturgy, and as beautiful as it is, it is not necessarily any more "instructing" than other Liturgies. If you follow the words of the NO Mass or Byzantium Rites Mass, one can learn a lot, in most cases, the same thing, so I don't see Orthodox liturgies being any more "instructive", except through particular emphasis on the symbolic awe. A proper NO Mass teaches community in a better manner.

    And since the teaching of adults requires more feedback and reflection, it is more likely that the one-way passive "instruction" at the Mass in not the only way we learn about God. Man doesn't pray JUST at Mass.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/14/2008 2:57:10 PM PST · 311 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    The NO liturgy so far as I can see teaches nothing but how important the people are.

    Untrue. The NO does emphasize the community and the Paschal Banquet teachings, but that doesn't mean that the Sacrificial aspects are removed. Perhaps you should listen to (or read) the NO Missal yourself. The Great Amen continues to be the high point, theologically, of the Mass, as all is offered to the Father in union with Christ and the Spirit.

    I live right here in America, about one mile from where I was born. The reason Protestantism has made no inroads into our Orthodox community is that it has absolutely nothing to offer us. Its that simple!

    Yes, you live in an Orthodox "ghetto" (there is no negative connotations to that word, I presume you know what I mean by "ghetto", my friend). I would posit that you do not have the experience I have in this regard. If you didn't live where you live now, who knows what "inroads" you would have seen.

    If I had remained in my Polish neighborhood of my birth, very strongly Catholic, I am sure I could say the same about Protesant inroads. Mass was said in Polish and this time of the year was especially pronounced with Polish traditions and such. I returned this summer to help bury my Dad, and I didn't see a lot of inroads of Protestantism there. The community is smaller, my former local church has closed and consolidated with another due to financial problems and lack of priests. But Polish hymns are still sung. There still is a Catholic "ghetto", albeit smaller than before.

    But in fact it is because of the “rite” in many ways. The “rite” is where we learn The Faith in the way that it has been successfully taught for 1700 years at least.

    That is true, I cannot deny that we do learn during the Liturgy, but it is not the only place we learn about God. Retaining the same rites without proper catechesis is a "dead" church, a la US Catholicism, 1960. "Follow the motions and you'll go to heaven". The Latin Mass was not, nor is enough, my friend. With Modernism, the Church needed some fresh air. Now someone needs to close the windows, the bugs are coming in...


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/14/2008 1:11:50 PM PST · 306 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis

    Out of respect for you, I will continue to be open and honest with you regarding our discipline and Rites, even if it means being self-critical. However, please realize none of this has anything to do with infallible doctrines to be held for all times.

    At what level, if any, do you believe that the NO mass becomes a travesty, destructive of The Faith?

    I do not deny that it already is, in some respect. It is well-known that many Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Many have little respect within the church nave - seen by continued talking and immodest dress in front of our Lord and Savior. There is often a non-chalant attitude towards the Divine Liturgy.

    Now, is this BECAUSE of the NO Mass? Or is this because of other, extenuating circumstance? Such as poor catechisis, poor stewardship by priests and bishops, the invasion of modernism and liberalism into the faithful, and so forth? I believe it is all of the above. The NO Mass ITSELF do not contribute to a lack of respect - but the symbolism is not as powerfully retentative to the mind, when compared to a Latin Mass (which the Pope has said a priest does not need permission to conduct).

    Jo, there has been no influx of fundy Protestants into my town in the past 40-50 years. Those Protestant assemblies are filled with former Catholics who have left the Roman Church since Vatican II.

    Kolo, it is hard to say whether the reason is BECAUSE of the NO Mass! I have read a number of reports on WHY Catholics leave the Church. An extensive study was done in Australia, and few people list "they took away the Latin Mass" as the reason for their falling away and taking up Protestantism. The reason is usually because they do not find the Church as meaningful in their lives. We know this is, in effect, a cop-out due their lack of education. However, the fact remains that these people are not experiencing Christ as they should, inside OR outside of the doors of their church. They are often bored with Mass (a distinct possibility if you don't understand the language!)

    I don't know where you live, so I cannot make comments on WHY Protestantism has not spread throughout your community. I would presume that Orthodoxy is largely a cultural way of life for people who live in Russia or Greece and "converting" to Protestantism is, in effect, a rejection of your culture.

    Catholicism does not have a strong cultural history in the US, with the exceptions of where Polish and Italian and Mexican immigrants have settled and have retained this "Catholic ghetto" mentality. Even this is in decline because the US is a mobile culture. People do not live and die within 10 miles of their birth place. I live in the opposite corner of the USA, THOUSANDS of miles from where I was born and raised. My family is spread to the four winds. When people move away, out of the "Catholic ghetto", it is difficult to retain those culture ties you were raised with, including your religion. Places like Serbia and Russia do not have that cultural mobility, so it is not surprising to see people born and die Orthodox. I hightly doubt it is because of their "rite".

    Is that your modern “communion of people gathered together in God’s name”? Is that how you cater to “People of the modern culture who want ‘participation’”?

    I don't have an answer. But I do not believe returning to old Rites is necessarily the answer. Because the problem is deeper than one hour a week, the Rite is really only a small issue.

    Jo, with all due respect, your Eucharistic theology of off. Those who approach the Holy Mysteries unworthily, eat and drink to their own condemnation!

    When Paul wrote those words, was he speaking about the correct Rites that should be practiced at Corinth? Was he speaking about the Greek or Byzantium Rites of Divine Liturgy being done "just so"? Or was he speaking about the recipient being free from sin and understanding that they were uniting to Christ through this participation of the ultimate sacrifice offered to the Father in heaven?

    And the priests who preside over these abominations carry an even greater condemnation as they are charged with being the guardians of the Holy Mysteries.

    I presume you are not refering to the licity NO Mass, but rather, the abuses of the NO Mass, such as ridiculous clown masses. I agree with the "clown mass" priests are in danger of sending their souls to hell. Those who scandalize the children of God are in grave danger. Such priests, unfortunately, are more concerned with putting on a show than conducting Sacred Liturgy.

    There is nothing magical about the liturgies or the consecration by the power of the Holy Spirit, the derivation of “hocus pocus” to the contrary notwithstanding. Do you think that if the Roman liturgy had maintained an ancient continuity, it would have been viewed by the modern pagans and heretics in the pews as magic? Where does this idea come from?

    I refer to the IDEA that unless one does everything "just as it was done" 1700 years ago, it is not a "true" form of worship to the Almighty God. Rites are changeable and are INTENDED for the People of God to attach the meanings of symbols to realities unseen. Since symbolic meanings CAN change, the rites must be changeable so that people are more readily able to experience the Risen Christ. Such formulas from 300 AD are not the only manner by which we can experience Christ. A symbol does not necessarily retain a meaning for 1700 years, nor does it deny that a different symbol may be BETTER.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/14/2008 8:48:46 AM PST · 299 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    Of course you don't. You odn't know what the Cathoiic Church was like 50 years ago. You think "this" is the way it always was.

    When did I say that? Try to follow what I say, rather than telling me what I think.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/14/2008 8:46:44 AM PST · 298 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    I wrote: The East is rightly emphasizing the Holiness involved in the Eucharist. I think the West is emphasizing the Banquet aspect.”

    You responded: The former works, the latter plainly hasn’t.

    I guess it depends on what you mean by "works"...

    Does the NO Mass bring about a sense of holiness and awe? It CAN, but most people do not get that sense since they are uneducated on theological matters. In that sense, it doesn't "work". As I said, the Orthodox have better retained that sense of awe.

    In the sense that the NO Mass brings about the idea that man is a communion of people gathered together in Christ's name? Yes, it "works".

    And finally, does the NO Mass bring graces from God Himself? Yes, it "works"...

    People of the modern culture want participation. They want to feel part of the sacred act, not viewing it from the outside. While there are certainly abuses by priests who have taken upon themselves to innovate, that was clearly forbidden by Vatican 2. Discipline has been lax, admittedly. But is the NO Mass of itself "not working"? I think whether the Mass "works" or not, Kolo, is DEPENDENT UPON GOD, NOT MAN.

    Otherwise, the Mass begins to take on a magical charecteristic in people's minds. If the priest doesn't perform the incantations correctly, nothing happens. It is an attitude strikingly similar to a magical performance. I do not feel that God is bound by that understanding of Sacred Rites.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/13/2008 4:01:41 PM PST · 280 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    I suppose to the extent that we were all under the boot of the Mohammedan Turks, we share some common cultural experiences and, mundanely, food. The Melkites, Maronites and Antiochian Orthodox however are all Syrian/Lebanese. Copts are not Greeks and Greeks are not Armenians and none of us are Slavs.

    Forgive me, I am not aware of the cultural differences between Slavs and Greeks, or the Copts and Syrians. Is there a big difference in culture between these peoples who live relatively close together?


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/13/2008 3:55:49 PM PST · 279 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    You will grant me, I am sure, that women are absolutely forbidden to be ordained. The Councils are uniform in this.

    Many Western theologians will say Pope John Paul 2 made an infallible teaching declaration verifying what has been said before to that effect. It is no longer up for discussion, despite the femi-nazi's.

    I am sure you will agree that sub deacons are in fact ordained, as the canons provide and yet, sub deacons “...have no right to a place in the Diaconicum, nor to touch the Lord’s vessels.”

    I do not know what a sub-deacon is or whether he is ordained. We don't have those here in the US as far as I know, maybe in the Curia? I do know that deacons are ordained and they do have the right to "touch the sacred vessels of the Lord".

    Women may not go to the altar.” Canon XLIV Council of Laodicea

    Here's the rub. Is this considered an infallible doctrine to be held by the Church in all times, everyplace and everywhere, or is this a discipline? It is my contention that if something was licitly done at one time, EVER, and then a later Council ordered it NOT to be done any longer, it is not an infallible doctrine, but a discipline. Why? Because the Church judges that ALL of what we believe, even before being officially defined, was INDEED believed "by the entire Church, everywhere and every place". In other words, it was something already practiced or believed. Not having women at the altar, then, cannot be an infallible part of our faith.

    If something was "always" practised and believed, it is an Apostolic Tradition, subjected to being called an infallibly declared doctrine if the Church so wills it through the Spirit at a later time. IF women were EVER allowed to "go to the altar" as part of a licit action, is it reasonable to say Laodicea is more along the order of a discipline that CAN be abrogated later?

    Now, it is conceivable that deaconesses did bring communion to sick women, but they received from the priest or a deacon outside the altar.

    Maybe. It is conceivable that in the first generation, that women were disciples of the Lord and others were not scandalized by receiving the Body from a female.

    Today’s Eucharettes, or for that matter the male version, are not ordained in any fashion and therefore are forbidden from even touching the Holy Vessels, much less the Holy Mysteries themselves. In the Orthodox Church, women are not allowed inside the altar and frankly no layman should be in their without a good reason.

    The East is rightly emphasizing the Holiness involved in the Eucharist. I think the West is emphasizing the Banquet aspect. Again, this is a matter of discipline, not infallible doctrine.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/13/2008 10:48:17 AM PST · 267 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Yeah...the heavy hand of Rome is always acceptable and welcome if its dropping on the other guy!

    There is a solution, however, a synodal one like the Patriarchs used to get rid of the former Pat. Of Jerusalem a couple of years back.

    Well said! Who likes to accept discipline? "WHAT DOES ROME HAVE TO DO WITH ME!" "HOW DARE THEY".

    If I may suggest a theory on why Rome may not be a heavy handed as before? I think the Pope is afraid of more schisms. We know the big ones, but there have been numerous "little" ones - and I think there is a sense that schism is to be avoid unless absolutely necessary. I believe this is part of the mindset behind not more strongly disciplining wayward American bishops.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/13/2008 10:44:19 AM PST · 266 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Yes, tonsured, older widows or virgins. Your Eucharettes, so far as I know, are not tonsured. Eucharettes exist only because some women demanded it as their “right” and accused the bishops of “discriminating”. What has any of that to do with The Church? Its an outrage!

    There are indeed instances of that. We have an extraordinary female minister whom the priest had to chastise for her "demands" of doing it her way. Men are not immune from that, either, Kolo. I agree that it is a temptation for SOME to see themselvse as part of a show and get attention. This is one of the reasons why I have chosen not to do this anymore unless their is a shortage. I do not care for watching 8 lay people go to the altar. However, I do know other women who are more humble and see their actions as a service, just as my actions were a service. I don't think a woman should be prohibited from this act of service, as sacramental theology does not prohibit it. The symbol of a female disciple of Christ is not, in my mind, an outrage! As you know, ANY ritual can be abused. We don't do away with rituals because of the potential. If it is theologically licit, then it should be allowed, while watching for abuses. Unfortunately, some priests, in an effort to remain politically correct, are fearful of calling the laity to the task and reminding them what is taking place on the altar...

    What theological reason would you have for not allowing a female to give the consecrated host during the Eucharist?

    Jo, its the very “flexibility” which has become so prevalent in the Western Church and Western culture since WWII which lead to the liturgical and catechetical mess the Church of Rome finds itself in now.

    Perhaps you are correct. However, the Church would have been even worse off today if they HADN'T done ANYTHING. Society is different here. I think there HAD to be some changes on how things were done. Where the problem stems from, my friend, is NOT the flexibility offered, but people taking carte blanc with the Liturgy and going BEYOND what was allowed or envisioned in this "throwing open the windows" movement. Of course I am not happy with some of our Liturgy. But people of the time were ALREADY just going through the motions, a dead faith, when they looked at life of the world around them. The Mass had little meaning and was not relevant to a rapidly advancing society. To make Christ relevant, the Church had to allow the vernacular during Liturgy, for example, to allow participation at an intellectual level.

    Please do not think I am the typical Catholic. There are many who are more liberal, others more conservative. I believe in following the essentials to the letter, but leave some room for "schools of thought" in allowable matters. That is how a teacher of the faith has to be. I have to allow for reasonable and allowable reflections from people on both sides. I provide correctives in matters that I feel are necessary and essential. On the rituals, there is more room for being flexible. Thus, I try to hear those who hate altar girls, and those who think they should be up there... I am in a difficult position - what am I going to base my teaching on if I say "NO" to, say, altar girls? "Because we never did that before"? That doesn't fly here. There are a lot of things "we haven't done before" that have been relegated to the trash heap, like belief in a flat earth...

    And then, Every man a pope...and heresy! :(

    I think that charge can be leveled against the Eastern laity who judge whether synods of Bishops are valid or not, sacking those who do not appeal to the ordinary. To some degree, we all like to "take control" since we "know better" than others. We are all under some self-delusion, and it is dangerous in the religious field.

    We do have a Catechism that acts as a guide, despite you disdain for it! We don't make things up on the fly ("we" meaning those who take their faith seriously, that it is revealed from God). Liturgical rites are not part of "Apostolic Tradition" or "Scriptures" that are unchangeable matters of our faith. The Liturgy SHOULD take into account the society for which it acts as a symbol of Divine Worship. If kneeling suddenly takes on a societal meaning of disrespect, you'd get rid of kneeling in Mass, wouldn't you??? You wouldn't care if it was part of the ritual for 1500 years. Rubics are supposed to move the mind to something spiritual and transcendant. If they don't, or move the mind to something different, then you have problems.

    Society has changed much more here, so we've had to change here on liturgy. Some changes were poorly handled - an understatement, you'd no doubt agree with. But the concept is valid, my friend.

    Brother in Christ

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/13/2008 9:17:49 AM PST · 257 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    What’s going on in Lebanon is almost 100% culturally based. When its seen here in the States, it is also culturally based to the extent that some Maronites and many Melkites feel much more affinity, in a religious culture way, with Orthodox here than with Roman Catholics.

    What I am positing is what has gone on, even in my own parish, with Copts and Armenians. What we see there in intercommunion is purely based in religion.

    You don't share any cultural affinity with Copts or Armenians? I am not sure I follow - please forgive my ignorance on this matter.

    Jo, all niceties aside, with the exception of some Lutherans and some C.S. Lewis style Anglicans, Protestantism is heresy. The fruit of the weed of heresy is always the same. All we have to do is look around to see it.

    LOL! I am not arguing that. I deal with them daily, my friend. I am aware of our differences on key matters. The point I was making is that they DO stand by US (you as well) on a number of cultural and political issues, such as abortion, religious freedom, rights for the poor and down-trodden, immigrants, etc. We had a "40 day" thing in town recently to protest against "Roe v Wade". Some Protestants joined us as we, together, stood outside a "Planned Parent" location with billboards and offered prayers together.

    I have found that when you work together and share a common goal, sometimes the other theological stuff takes a more secondary role. I'm thinking that Christ will judge us on whether we fed the poor and clothed the naked. Not that heresy is unimportant. But culturally speaking, in Evangelizing to the pagan Americans, we Christians should provide a more united front - American secularism is united, so to most effectively counter it, we must unite at some place. Though we differ, we share some common goals, primarily to bring Christ to people. One takes on a different attitude towards these "heretics" when you actually work with them and see they love God as well...

    It is easy to hate or fear what we do not know or are familiar with.

    The problem is that The Western Church failed to curb Modernism and the East has a somewhat inflated concept of the power of Rome.

    Yes, failed. That is fair. While it may appear, when looking at the development of the Papacy, that the Church is more centralized, in reality, the Pope has very little real power outside of Rome. Look at our Liturgy! Ask Kosta for the pictures! IF Rome was so "in control" and Catholicism was so centralized, the Pope would command this crap to stop. But the mindset is different here. However, we view our church a little differently than a corporation. It's more like a family. It's time for "Dad" to get the belt, I think, though!

    Your allies in the culture wars!

    Yes...Like the Saxons for Napoleon. Or the Italians for the Germans and Hitler... But we go with what God has given us.

    The canons and the Fathers aren’t. You see, here’s an example of what we find objectionable in the Western Church. You are flexible about something which is nearly as disgraceful, liturgically, to us (and would have been to you 50 years ago) as the clown masses and vestal virgins are. Can you imagine what the reaction to Eucharettes would be in an Orthodox temple?

    Oh, you misunderstand me. I am flexible on what HAS BEEN allowed before. There were no clown masses or vestal virgins or dancing girls at mass before. There APPEARS to have been females delivering the Eucharist. I think that is unfair to categorize them in the same way. The former is an abomination, the later is a legitimate development that is not theologicaly unacceptable.

    Please remember that the Liturgy is one of those things that expresses our differences in culture. We should be allowed to correct ABUSES, things that Vatican 2 NEVER allowed in the first place. You do realize that Vatican 2 did not do away with Latin or statues. Some INTERPRETED Vatican 2 incorrectly and ransacked our lovely Churches. What is sad is that the Traditionalists of the time did pretty much nothing but stand by helplessly. Now they complain.

    Anyway, we are flexible in what is allowed - not flexible in everyone's personal opinion. For example, I would like to see the priest have the OPTION of turning to the people (as the NO) OR turning towards the tabernacle during the Eucharistic prayer. BOTH have legitimate symbolic meanings, since the Eucharist is a sacrifice offered to the Father AND it is the Paschal Banquet which we ALL share in. This is what I am talking about when I say being flexible. The rubics themselves are opporunities to teadch the faithful. Some variance in rubics, accepted by Rome, to me is tolerable. Not dancing women during the Eucharist. WHO IN GOD'S NAME is going to get the idea that the Eucharist is SACRED seeing such crap?

    Lex orendi, lex credendi...


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/13/2008 8:48:45 AM PST · 254 of 462
    jo kus to kosta50
    Didn't even have the courtesy to include me while making sly remarks about my tagline? My tagline is a fact, not my opinion. It is a fact because our divine liturgy was implemented by and reflects the same faith the Church had when it canonized the Bible. If you don't think the Church had pure faith in those days, that is your prerogative, but if you accept the Bible on the authority of that Church then you are contradicting yourself.

    Let me just say that I think many of you can only wish to have a 1,700 year old unbroken liturgical tradition and the faith of the Church that canonized the Bible because then none of your circus I have been showing you (and there are much worse examples that I will never show) would have never allowed it, and your sheepish laity would have never followed.

    Religious pride is indeed a dangerous thing...

    Sorry that I have offended you. I hope you can find it in your heart to forive me - although you seem to enjoy rubbing our faces in the fact that there have been liturgical abuses in the West. I can assure you I had nothing to do with that, so why must you keep showing us that?


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 3:41:53 PM PST · 222 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    First of all, I appreciate you keeping your head during this.

    Jo, most of us really do believe it, though our parish priest says its a species of pride. Religous pride, as you say, is an extremely dangerous sentiment and almost always ends up in Pharisaical attitudes.

    It is a difficult thing to judge in oneself, my friend. I think it usually takes another person, an advisor or friend to make mention of it, and by God's grace, they look in-ward and agree. This sort of self-delusion (I'm better than Catholics because...) is very difficult to admit to, especially when one has a tagline about the purity of their religious system...

    Exactly, though in point of fact there is only one Orthodoxy. It was here and there expressed differently in the East and the West even 1000 years ago.

    I think it is more accurate to say there is one "faith", an idea that exists in the mind of the Church about something that cannot necessarily be put entirely into words that future men will not find some better way of saying it. Remember, we are dealing with mysteries, and we DO grow in knowing them as we further reflect on them. Basing our faith on a formula sounds backwards to me. I think the formula is meant to express our faith. No?

    The social, cultural and moral depravity of the West has infected to a degree almst all areas of the Christian East and while that materialistic, hedonistic depravity attracts some in the East, it repels many more.

    Yes, it has. Popes have tried to fight against the invasion of modernism and liberalism - but the temptation is incredible. When men are comfortable with their lives, why call upon God? Why worship a God when "I am a self-made man"? I am sure you know the thinking. Coupled with the culture problems in the United States and Europe, God is not a large part of people's lives. It is difficult. Popes speak against it, some bishops bravely forge on, but many bishops, as you say, will soon be paving the road to hell. Christ Himself said that the head servants are responsible to the Master, and clearly, many of our Western Bishops are not doing there job.

    I really am happy that Eastern culture is less effected by this heresy. We are not so lucky here.

    The Roman Church fairly or unfairly is seen as the overwhelmingly dominant religious force in the West. Protestantism isn’t really even on the radar.

    Well, from there, maybe, but here, "Protestantism" itself is seen as a "church", as well. They are indeed a force on the "Religious right" who often are our allies in political issues. We are on the same side on many cultural issues. I do speak with many of them on these forums and we try to put our differences aside sometimes because we realize we are going to sink or swim together, culturally speaking, since God Himself is the issue. Removing Him from the public forum, removing His Law from judicial judgments, etc. We are indeed a pagan society, for all intents and purposes. We need another Paul. Or perhaps some Christian martyrs to wake the sleepy Western up.

    As such, Rome is either seen as a failed Church because of the state of the society around it or, and this is something I hear all the time from monastics especially down in Greece, the Church of Rome is part and parcel of the depravity as witnessed by the destruction of the liturgy and, maybe not so surprisingly, of Western monasticism.

    Ah, well that's too bad Rome is blamed for cultural depravity, because the Pope has been issuing warnings and encyclicals and teaching about the dangers of Modernism since the 1800's. Perhaps the Church wasn't taken seriously at the time - almost a "faith vs reason" battle (which was the OTHER feature of Vatican 1 that you probably didn't know about). Society has pitted faith vs. reason while the Church has said they are not mutually exclusive. The Fundamentalists have largely co-opted that with their literal reading of Genesis 1, etc... I hope that the East learns to realize that Rome has been fighting this.

    I was talking about very recent (30-40 years ago) talks between the Monophysites and the Orthodox. What that has lead to could be a model for what might happen between Rome and the Eastern Churches.

    Oh, I believe we had this conversation before regarding the Eastern Rite Catholics, and Pope John Paul 2's comments about them being a "bridge". You disagreed then. I can see how the Coptics would be a better example, and I believe they are more "neutral" if you will.

    Not at this point because we have not determined, even provisionally, that we likely believe the same things in all dogmatic areas. If we had reached that conclusion, we would have intercommunion by economia or perhaps even as it exists de facto in Lebanon (and here and there even in No. America) among the Orthodox, the Melkites and the Maronites.

    That is certainly your perogative. This is a matter that must be decide by particular bishops, as they determine what is "enough" to be in communion to share in the Eucharist. It is a judgment call, I guess. There is not a checklist that you would go through. Perhaps the Creed? However, that is fraught with danger, as a lot of Protestants say THEY believe the Creed, as well - and they have different meanings when they say certain words. We have already determined that. I am not sure the Orthodox and the West has fully explored that yet...

    These deaconesses will not be some random lady from the community, however, who will go home to the husband and kids or grandchildren after the liturgy. Jo, lay people have no authorization to handle the holy vessels or the Holy Mysteries. That was the universal practice before Vatican II except perhaps for reception of communion in the hands.

    There are a number of Catholics who feel the same way here. I can understand both points of view, my friend. I am more fairly flexible on this issue. I leave it to higher authority.

    A number of Orthodox here on FR discussed once if they would receive communion, indeed seek it out, from a Latin priest if they were “in extremis”. Everyone said Yes and without hesitation. But as we lawyers say, “Hard cases make bad law”. “In extremis” is just that.

    Well, that is good to hear. I have no problem viewing ourselves as the "younger brother", as I have said before to you - I am not too proud. Younger brothers DO, however, appreciate being treated with respect, rather than disdain and indifference.

    Thanks again for your patience and attention.

    Brother in Christ

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 2:58:36 PM PST · 218 of 462
    jo kus to TexConfederate1861
    This is not hatred or anger on my part, but just plain REASON. (and I am “cool” as a cucumber!)

    ...a cucumber? How about we just drop it. Nothing further can come from this but more occasions to sin. I have made my point abundantly clear and you have proven it by your responses. I am sorry if I have caused you bouts of anger through all of this, I do feel responsible, and in retrospect, perhaps my methods were not in keeping with what Jesus would do, but perhaps, when you feel better, you may realize there is truth to what I have said about the Eastern Laity, God bless them.

    Have a good weekend

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 10:01:16 AM PST · 202 of 462
    jo kus to TexConfederate1861
    Wrong. Theology has EVERYTHING to do with it.

    You can keep believing that fantasy if you want. We have already established WHY the Council of Florence failed. The Eastern laity wouldn't allow it. You yourself agree that the Eastern laity had to correct the Bishops who were traitors... Apparently, only pig farmers were legitimate theologians during this era... The hatred of things West is well advertised and documented among Byzantium writings - no use in pretending there isn't. This hatred was merely stoked by the encyclicals like the one you posted. Filled with strawmen to beat up the West and the Eastern laity go along, hook, line and sinker, since (as you admit) the East does not desire to know about the West's point of view. Ask an Eastern to DETAIL what the West ACTUALLY believe, and you'd hear a pin drop. Are we really supposed to believe that the typical peasant of 1400 knew ANYTHING about Aquinas except what Father whatever told them??? That is just gullible, through and through. I call them like I see them - I don't belong to the PC police...

    Theology has nothing to do with it. It is perception. As long as the East looks down on the West, NO COUNCILIAR agreement has a chance of succeeding at an Eastern synod, as the ignorant Eastern laity (of things Western) wouldn't have it... Old wounds and strawmen would prevent it. Someone like Kosta would repost all the exceptions to the ordinary Western liturgy or your would huff and puff that "It's either you are right or we are right - and we are not wrong"... My exercise has proven that.

    I think if you cool down and come back here and read these posts a few days later, you might see that your attitude will not allow a reunion, no matter what is decided at a Council. Some other excuse will be invented and things will go on as before.

    If you want reunion, then changes have to take place. The Orthodox are happy with their beliefs.

    We are happy with ours, as well. We have gotten along, had Councils, proclaimed doctrines, celebrated the Eucharist, canonized saints, spread the Gospel, etc., without the Eastern Orthodox. The point is not about "happiness" but about fulfilling the Will of Jesus Christ, who desires ALL be as one. If you recall your Nicean Creed, it says the ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Christ's Body is not MEANT to be so divided.

    I can see nothing that Rome offers to be attractive.

    Well, for us, it's all about those cool hats. If we could only get our hands on them... :>

    But seriously, it is not a matter of finding "attractiveness" on union. You are thinking too worldly. Christianity is MEANT to be united with one faith. Only the human condition keeps us separated. Things like pride and misunderstandings.

    As for who I speak for, you would be suprised at just how many of the Orthodox faithful feel the same way. I am just a Texan that tends to be more blunt about it.

    I know. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said you speak for hundreds of thousands... The problem is the hatred is spread far and wide in the East and you don't see it. Which is why reunion cannot work now. Religious pride must first be admitted before it is overcome.

    I'm an Arizonan who also can be blunt, if you haven't noticed by now.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 9:40:40 AM PST · 200 of 462
    jo kus to TexConfederate1861
    No one here is angry unless that would be you.

    LOL! What makes you think I am angry? You are the one threatening me and talking about warning shots. "Beware about ad hominem's or else???" Please, wake up and smell the coffee...

    There is not a jot of hatred in my heart concerning Roman Catholics.

    Perhaps there is another "Texconfederate1861" here on Free Republic. Perhaps he left himself logged in and you took over? However, "not one jot of hatred in my heart concerning Romans Catholics"??? Stop kidding yourself. You don't really believe that, nor do I. Your posts speak louder than your denials...

    I am adamant about my beliefs.

    I'm sure you were before becoming Orthodox, as well...

    Either we are wrong, or you are.

    You are wrong to even suggest a false dichotomy. The disagreements are not so easily "either right or wrong". Anyone who actually KNOWS something about theology realizes these questions are not so "right vs. wrong".

    It is unfortunate that you think that constitutes hatred, because you have never been more wrong.

    So if I disagree with you again, you going to threaten me again? You are only kidding yourself, Tex. I am able to recognize condescension and disdain among people who then turn around and then tell me "God be with you". Such langauge means nothing if it doesn't come from the heart. It is an empty prayer that God told us He refuses to hear. Repent, my friend. We can disagree without the condescenscion and the comments posted here about your supposed superiority and how Rome must become Eastern Orthodox.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 6:20:56 AM PST · 190 of 462
    jo kus to annalex
    The Orthodox do not expect us to stop believing the dogmata past 1054 in formulation. Likewise, they are not prepared to stop believing in Palamism, and, of course, each side keeps its customs, liturgies and disciplines.

    I think KOLO may think that way, but I highly doubt OTHER Orthodox feel the same way. I applaud him and wish more were like him. That is why I have chosen to speak with him then discussing these issues with men who have lost control of themselves through their anger.

    The latter doctrines (Aquinas, Vatican I, Assumption, Palamas) become local doctrines. The Catholics continue to be instructed by their bishops and the Orthodox continue to be instructed by their bishops. Each side tolerates the other side's doctrines even if it does not itself teach them, and neither we or they retract doctrines.

    On paper, that sounds good, but I am not sure how that would work out in reality. Unless we come to the table on several issues, there will continue to be distrust. We must explain ourselves, they theirselves (word?) and come to a commonly accepted agreement, if possible. OR decide that "this is not an 'essential' of the faith, there is room for speculation or opinion". In any case, we can't just leave things "lay" and not do anything - that would be corrosive to our union.

    Of course, I agree with you, Jo, that the hearts and minds are not there right at this point, but I also like to point out that the dynamics are in favor of reunification, unlike ever before.

    Time and Jesus Christ heals all wounds. But if we continue to see this condescending and proud attitude, I don't see how union can take place now. We have already been told that the work of Florence was undone by the laity. What will prevent a replay IF the East continues to distrust and hate us?

    For unification to work, we need to clean up our house and they need to ask Christ to release them from the slavery of hatred. The problem is that religious pride is very difficult to recognize from within.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 6:11:15 AM PST · 189 of 462
    jo kus to TexConfederate1861
    WE DON’T WANT REUNION. You may need it, but we don’t.

    I realize you speak for hundreds of thousands of people. I also realize that you do not want reunion, but the reasons for that has nothing to do with theology. Once you admit that, my work is done.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 6:09:48 AM PST · 188 of 462
    jo kus to dangus
    I’m afraid you don’t get it. There are many here who desire no union. Do you not notice that while pictures of clown masses are used to end all arguments, those same people make no suggestion that a return to the Gregorian Mass would facilitate reunion? Indeed, the 1848 letter and the 1437 rejection of the Florentine Council took place before even the Tridentine mass. Instead, we get demands that Rome exalt Constantinople over Alexandria. Fortunately, the Pope and several patriarchs have better relations.

    I believe I have exposed the strawman argument on why there won't be a reunion. It has little to do with theology and everything to do with the perceived wrongs felt and attitudes of the Eastern laity. The Eastern bishops don't help, with "encyclicals" as posted on this thread. I know many do not desire union, and that is my point. If THEY do not desire it, we are merely in for a replay of Florence. Some revisionist historian will again blame the West, maybe poison another Metropolitan or some other invention to stoke the fires of hatred in Russia. Rest assured that unless the Eastern laity walk the walk rather than just talk it, we are not even going to get a fair hearing.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 6:03:44 AM PST · 187 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Oh, no, Jo you’ve got that one really wrong. We are, I assure you, the chief among sinners and we know it.

    Please understand that saying it and REALLY BELIEVING IT is two different things. I am not saying anything vs. your own personal devotion and attitude towards being a sinner. However, when a person in general, remain unnamed, has a condescending attitude, it is an act of not knowing themselves, self-delusion, not "knowing themselves as chief among sinners". That can very easily become Pharisaical, don't you agree? Religious pride is a dangerous thing, and I think a few of my brothers (not you) need to be alerted to that danger they place their souls in, despite their rigid adherence to their liturgy and so forth. God desires mercy not sacrifice. I believe some of my brothers of the East are a bit condescending towards whom they say are their brothers.

    Jo, if you want reunion with the East, you do need to return to the Orthodoxy the West was a champion of during the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.

    I believe I can say that the West does desire union for the sake of Christ. But when you say "Orthodoxy", I presume you mean the Latin version of it? The term can be confusing. WHOSE "Orthodoxy"? That is the question. We believe the Spirit guides the Church and CONTINUES to, regardless of whether there is unification or not. Did Paul believe the Spirit had left Corinth despite the schisms and dissensions? Not the Body. Thus, our separation did not necessarily retire the Spirit. As such, Counciliar documents need to be at least LOOKED at. It appears you are refusing even that. Is it not possible that the West has indeed CONTINUED its own Patristic developments?

    From that point, without all the theological innovations of the past 1000 years, we can discuss what is dogma and what is theologoumenna.

    Kolo, my wise friend, that is ALL we ask, that they be examined WITH AN OPEN MIND. Now, the problem I see, my friend, is that we are being pre-judged by the Eastern laity. This hatred of the West seems to be very shallowly buried under the surface if I am able to stir it so quickly. I would think that any new union effort would yield the SAME results as at Florence, IF the Eastern laity had the same attitude. That is what I am seeing here. I hope this is not prevalent throughout the East, but I fear it is indicative of the attitudes towards the West.

    Think about it. If the Eastern laity has an underlying disgust and condescenscion towards the Western Church (as we see here), then ANY agreement on what is opinion and what is infallible can not HOPE to reach agreement in Eastern synod, since the Eastern laity will not have it. Not because of theology, my friend - as you have admitted, most Easterns don't know Western theology - but because of the distrust and condescenscion barely disguised under the surface. Unless the West became fully Eastern, I fear the Easterns won't have it. The Eastern bishops would be sacked and another "Florence excuse" will be devised by revisionist historians to appease the conscience of some Easterns.

    Indeed we don’t, but Jo, you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying. Let me try it this way. Since the Council of Chalcedon there has been a schism with the Oriental Orthodox and the Copts and the Armenians over the nature of Christ and thus both you Latins and we Orthodox, accepting the formulas of the 4th Ecumenical Council, call them who do not accept those formulas “Non-Chalcedonians” or “Monophysites”. Late in the last century it was decided that likely the perceived differences didn’t really exist but rather were the result of how concepts came out in different languages.

    Yes, I believe that after the Greeks had left Florence, there were further discussions with these smaller churches as the Armenians and Copts, and it appears that there was some closer ties developed after language problems were overcome.

    As a result, though our bishops are not in communion with theirs, we can receive communion in their churches and they in ours, but only by permission of the bishops and under certain circumstances, usually that there is no Orthodox church within a reasonable distance. This practice is contrary to the usual practice that communion between bishops is a necessary precondition to the reception of communion by the clergy and people in each other’s churches. The Latin Church, as I understand it, views the common reception of communion with the Orthodox as a means towards communion among the bishops, we view it as a sign that communion among the bishops already exists (except in economia cases)which as between Orthodoxy and Rome does not yet, de jure, exist.

    No, we don't see it as a "means towards communion". If so, we'd also let the Protestants in. The Sacrament is indeed the sign of our communion that ALREADY exists. WE recognize that the East is closer to us, close enough to say a communion exists at the Eucharistic level. We continue to call the Orthdox a valid Church with valid sacraments and rites. We can celebrate the Eucharist together because we ARE Church, although we have differences of opinions that keep us from TOTAL reunion. I think we see that we have the same view on the Eucharist and that you have valid rites and priests, etc, so you can receive here - but your view of this seems to require more strict unity.

    In fact, most Orthodox Christians I know are frankly scared to death that what has happened to the Roman Church might happen to us if there were to be a reunion. We have enough problems of our own.

    I pray that Modernism doesn't creep in over there. It is a life and death struggle, probably one of the most pernicious heresies we have ever faced. This is not some esoteric definition on the relationship of Christ to the Father. Even Arians believed in God and had their own worship of the Father, etc... This is a TOTAL either/or. Modernism strips the supernatural from life. This cannot help but remove God from one's life. How is the spiritual life maintained under this attack? Our culture here is in serious trouble, my friend. Pray that you are not subjected to it. And pray for us that we may overcome, with God's help. Recreational sex, contraception and abortion is destroying the minds of the faithful.

    I’ve found it fascinating that the Roman Church has such different regard for the Eucharist; lay women handing it out, carrying around chalices, using it as a tool to create communion where there is none.

    That is because you are not aware of culture's pressure on such matters over here. Woman's rights are here to stay. It is difficult to deny their accusations when they cannot do something that WAS perfectly lecit to do long time ago - take the Eucharist to those who were sick. There is no Tradition or theological idea that I am aware of that would prevent women from handling the Eucharist already consecrated. Priests, different story. He is "Christ personified". But sacramental theology does not prevent women from taking the Eucharist, as a disciple of Christ, to others, including within the Liturgy itself. Traditionalists don't like it, but I am not aware of any theological reasons why this is not acceptable. Does Christ not want women bringing Him to other people?

    We are, as you know, directed not to receive communion anywhere but in an Orthodox Church (except when by economia. Rome knows this so why do you offer the Eucharist to Orthodox Christians? That is so irritating. You won’t see that up here. To his credit, the local Latin ordinary had that removed from the misselettes when we complained. Actually, it was causing a problem with loon Roman Catholics (you know the type, the sort who see Panagia in nuclear mushroom clouds are are compelled to tell everyone about it) showing up at our parish and others demanding communion.

    The statement in the Missal is like you said. It strongly suggests Orthodox go to Orthodox Liturgy to receive. The extraordinary case is not denied, however. It doesn't suggest that Orthodox can come in regularly, nor is there any suggestion of evangelizing Orthodox away. I am aware of the type of Catholic you speak of, but I try to be open minded, as it is not my place to judge other's walk in the Lord.

    “I think the reunion hinges upon the typical lay Eastern more than on any other group, Western, theologian, or bishop.” - You are absolutely correct.

    To earn the trust of our Eastern brothers, I think we are going to have to clean up our own house a bit. This doesn't reflect on our doctrines, but on the Liturgical abuses that have crept into Divine Worship in the mis-implementation of Vatican 2. Our bishops need to grow some balls and act like defenders of the faith, rather than corporate CEO's. We do indeed need to work against the heresy of Modernism that has infiltrated Catholic colleges and seminars. We see the signs already that this is happening. All we can do is pray that God will draw us to Him and the East will see this progress and begin to trust us more. Until then, I don't see how the Eastern laity will allow union. Look at the posts from some of your brothers!

    The West needs to clean up their Liturgy and the East needs to recall what love is.

    Brother in Christ

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/12/2008 5:13:37 AM PST · 186 of 462
    jo kus to TexConfederate1861
    When you fire a shot across my bow, just what do you expect?

    I didn't say a word about you, so calm down.

    As I said earlier, I am not in favor of reunion, nor will I be until the Pope is Primus Inter Pares, and the un -Orthodox is gone.

    Interpret: Until the West becomes Eastern Orthodox, I will not be in favor of a reunion.

    All that is missing is throwing yourself on the ground kicking and screaming... Absolutely no room for compromise.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/11/2008 4:28:45 PM PST · 154 of 462
    jo kus to dangus
    98% of the people in 1436 couldn’t read or write. On what basis could they possibly discern heresy in the writings of another people from another culture expressing themselves in another language? Or as sons, are your presupposing they had some supernatural discernment?

    Exactly, I made that point already. We are supposed to believe that simple farmers, based on their readings of the "Aquinas Daily", in Latin, knew exactly what the Latins believed and rejected it out of hand, because the Bishops were so daft that they were TRICKED - I think that was the word used - into accepting an "un-Orthodox" position. Naturally, these farmers got together in a number of local synods and overruled their bishops.

    Hey, if they want to believe that fantasy, that's fine. The truth of the matter is that the East hated the West and REFUSED to accept ANY explanation the bishops had. Moscow was not about to be "ruled by those Papists". Nor were the Byzantines, who earned their bread and butter by lambasting Latins. The people had heard how terrible and heretical the West was that there really was NO chance of reconciliation at Florence, no matter what the Emperor and some of the Bishops tried to explain.

    If that situation has not changed, there will be no reconciliation, because the Easterns have told us THEY are in charge of determining heresy or Orthodoxy. As we see, animosity is still within their blood towards us. We will never get a fair hearing - nor do will they even offer to sit down and listen. Kosta has already said that. With such attitudes permeating throughout the East, union is not going to happen, unless we start speaking Greek and paint icons and have our priests get married and take up the Byzantium rites.

    Why am I writing this way? I am hoping that our Eastern brothers will begin to sense the truth of their position. Because if we leave things as they are, union is not happening. We need to start a grass-roots opening of the minds in the East - an acceptance to listen to supposed brothers in Christ. We need to stir the pot and let them see the vanity and pride of being close-minded.

    I am now going to back off from the sarcasm (it was a planned exercise), hoping that my Eastern brothers will examine themselves and their demands and give us a fair hearing.

    Brother in Christ

  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/11/2008 4:14:08 PM PST · 147 of 462
    jo kus to TexConfederate1861
    I would appreciate it if you would curb your sarcasm. If you start ad hominem attacks with me, you will not like the result.

    Nor will you - but that would be because it would be sinful. I'm not worried about your verbal attacks. I have not said anything about your person. I am sorry if the truth hurts. The fact is that the lay Easterns will determine whether there is a reunion or not. THEY decide what is heresy and what is Orthodoxy. And considering the quickness of the animosity, the old bitterness remains.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/11/2008 4:05:04 PM PST · 143 of 462
    jo kus to Kolokotronis
    Your version of the symbol of faith, however, is plainly false as you pray it. You say you mean “from the Father through the Son”, which of course is correct...but that’s not what either the English or the Latin says.

    No, it's not. However, you are entitled to your non-expert opinion - which is the entire gist of my posts: to alert the Easterns that they think they know what we mean when we say "from the Father and the Son", when they do not.

    And therein, Jo, lies the rub. It WILL be left to the People of God to decide, not hierarchs whose skulls, it is said, pave the floor of Hell.

    Yes, I'm sure there are no Eastern laity in hell, since religious pride is not a sin in the East, but an indication of lay holiness, apparently...

    Excuse my sarcasm. It is tiring hearing this again how the "people of God" must decide. Not sure where you Scriptural warrant IS for that. I don't recall Moses or Paul running things past the Jews or the Corinthians first... This is a sign of the times, not apostolic teachings.

    We will listen to what the bishops say and then decide.

    Considering the animosity, the decision has already been made, just as after Florence.

    We recognize what isn’t Orthodox Christianity.

    That's grand. And THAT'S the point! WE MUST BECOME ORTHODOX! You deny it and claim it in the next paragraph. Before any reunion is accepted, it must be an Orthodox settlement. No compromise. Everything back to 1000 AD. We both know that is impossible. For both of us.

    When are you going to accept the fact that ALL Christian means of expression do not depend upon the "Orthodox interpretation"?

    We’d cut them off! The Latins simply quake, which, now that I think of it, would be a good thing in the matter of clown Masses.

    The Lord said to have the faith of a child, not act childish.

    Under stand that the sort of intercommuion I am speaking of is quite literally pursuant to “economia”. There would need to be a substantial reason for the intercommunion.

    Quite literally, we don't need each other. The Romans offered an olive branch out of recalling the command of Christ "that all should be one". But beyond that, I am not sure what the East has to offer the West, practically speaking, at least here in the US. Perhaps in other countries, I do not know. But as I said before, the Orthodox are a novelty here, sort of like the guy who rides around town in a SMART car, those little itty bitty cars that look like a circus car... It is a wonderful liturgy because it is different and foreign, which instills more awe and wonder than the ordinary and mundane. But in the end, the Eastern churches are not universal, they are national. The union is more for the sake of our Lord and Savior.

    Paddy O’Brien couldn’t come over to my Greek Orthodox parish and receive communion because there are 7 or 8 Roman Catholic parishes within 15 minutes of my parish.

    You know that is not true. Even if there were no Catholic Churches at all there, a Catholic cannot receive communion at an Orthodox Church, unless that has changed very recently, or maybe if he is dying. This is the sort of thing I am talking about, the subtle arrogance from the East.

    Similarly, if I were in Athens I couldn’t properly go to the Latin parish there and receive communion as there are dozens of Orthodox Churches there.

    The front of our missal tells us that Orthodox MAY come to receive communion, but it is SUGGESTED they receive at their own community. Catholic priests would not refuse communion to an Orthodox. That is not the case the other way around. When you view such things from our point of view, Kolo, maybe you can begin to understand why the West is wondering about the East's motives.

    You may well be right. But remember, what we know is what is and is not Orthodox and that’s what we react to.

    No one is asking you to put that aside, my brother. We ask that we give some leeway to the fact that we may annunciate the faith a bit differently. We view things differently, we analyze and prioritize differently. We have endured different histories and cultural movements. Culture's relationship to God are not universal. Definitions of faith, by NECESSITY, may be different, since symbols of faith MUST speak to the people.

    What needs to be said and decided upon are "what are the essentials of our faith"? In what areas are there NO room for compromise? What areas of the faith can be expressed in ways that differ but still maintain our underlying key beliefs?

    I am of the mind that when we speak about the Godhead, we shouldn't really think we can know very much at all. God's revelation of Himself is VERY limited, and the East and West have long traditions of theology that recognizes that we do NOT know God!

    A union would be great for Christianity as a whole, but we certainly are not going to go back 1000 years in time and become Eastern. Orthodoxy is not the "guideline" of the faith before the Schism. Orthodoxy is not the measure we will use in any such discussions. We are going to have to accept that there is room in the Catholic faith for Eastern and Western views. Orthodoxy will have to grant that the Latins had particulars that the East didn't care for BEFORE the Schism. That has not changed. Until the laity in the East accepts that, anything the Eastern bishops bring back will just be more "traitorous heresy".

    I think the reunion hinges upon the typical lay Eastern more than on any other group, Western, theologian, or bishop. It will depend upon how open they are to listening, rather than dictating.


  • Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

    12/11/2008 8:39:43 AM PST · 102 of 462
    jo kus to annalex
    1. The Orthodox people in Orthodox lands, such as Russia and the Balkans have to familiarize themselves with the larger realities of the perils that the Western civilazation is facing.

    An excellent point. We face an incredible heresy here, Modernism. It is rocking the West, just as Arianism was in the East many years ago. I don't think the East realizes the fiendishness of this heresy, how it draws people out of the faith. Consider most spiritual writers think of material comforts and such as completely detrimental to the devout lifestyle. That, coupled with a general malaise towards anything spiritual and invisible.

    2. The Western Church has to mature. She should clear up its liturgy, above everything else. At this point, serious Catholics dread the thought of attending a Catholic service in some clown parish down the street.

    I agree, although the clown mass is a bit exaggerated, as if we can hardly avoid it here... I agree wholeheartedly that the Liturgy is instrumental in teaching the faithful that inner sense of awe and worship - that is largely missing from many Catholic Churches here in the US. I cannot answer for other places, but I know in Italy, they still have it. Probably our stinkin' liturgists at work in the "spirit of vatican" misinterpreted.

    Good post, Annalex.