Author Topic: The Orthodox Christian question (Read 2197 times)

Sans Peur · « **on:** October 13, 2012, 07:53:31 AM »

Hi all.

For those who haven't read my intro on this forum, i have been attending on and off Russian Orthodox churches for the past few years, but have always had trouble committing to the Church - its hard not speaking a word of Russian, obviously.

I have always loved Traditional Catholicism (Latin, Gregorian chants, etc) and have just recently started mulling over returning to Rome, but i have lots of criticisms and questions, that i wonder if members of this forum can answer for me or at least point in the direction of places where i can get answers.

The thing is, the criticisms i have are quite common criticisms of Romanism, and if i was coming from a Protestant or Evangelical or Atheist background there would be lots out there for someone like me, but there isn't much Traditional Catholic info for people who are considering coming out of Orthodoxy. So please bare that in mind.

As someone soaked in Orthodox theology, one of my main points of criticism of Rome would be the Papal claims to infallibility. Most traditional Catholics who haven't studied Orthodoxy probably don't realise just how well developed the Orthodox criticism of Papism is, consider the following:
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx
(Story of a Spanish Catholic Monk who became disillusioned with Papism and became Greek Orthodox monk).

I can understand and accept the Pope as the head of the Church, the visible Unity of the Church and whatnot, but its when it goes into the realm of universal jurisdiction and infallibility........ Thats when i get uneasy about it not just being a head of the Church but trying to take the place of Christ.

Another point where i have misgivings about Rome is Romes standardisation and universalisation of the Mass. All of the ancient Western Rites of the Latin West have been removed or changed by Rome over the millenium, and some Western Rites are only being kept alive by the Orthodox. The Orthodox believe in various cultures and peoples using different rites according to their needs and wishes, even in their own languages, but (and as much as i love Latin) Rome has always wanted the same liturgy said in the same tongue everywhere and by everyone.

And i suppose my third big roadblock to Rome would be the overemphasis on Mary. The Orthodox give much honor to Mary the Mother of God, but it seems that in Rome Mary has been elevated to such an extent she is almost "co-redemtrix" with Christ.

And lastly, the wordliness of Rome. Where are the monks? Even to this day in Orthodoxy you have a thriving monastic movement, spiritual men who reject the world and take the path of the Desert Monks of the First Millenium of Christianity. Even in the middle ages of Rome it seemed the monks of the West were more concenered about theology, scholasticism, teaching, philosophy etc rather than on God.
The Orthodox criticism of Scholasticism is this - the West spends more time talking ABOUT God than being deep in prayer getting to KNOW God.

Anyways, thats enough for now, i have more but we'll start off with this stuff.
If people can help me out with interesting essays, books, articles or just their own wisdom that would be much appreciated.
Because, in purely secular and temporal terms i would much RATHER be Roman Catholic, its the religion i was raised in, i want to be a Latin teacher, and i am not Russian or Greek. BUT, i have to be convinced that Rome is the true Faith first.

Cheers!
Nick.

s2srea · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2012, 08:57:30 AM »

Hello and welcome-

May God reward your efforts and seeking the Truth, and may the Holy Ghost enlighten you, through your humility, in finding it.

Quote from: Sans Peur

I can understand and accept the Pope as the head of the Church, the visible Unity of the Church and whatnot, but its when it goes into the realm of universal jurisdiction and infallibility........ Thats when i get uneasy about it not just being a head of the Church but trying to take the place of Christ.

So that others who are well versed in these things may help you here, I would like suggesting that you clarify what your understanding of Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility is. You seem very well learned, but wouldn't it be benefical to ensure, first, that there are no mis-understandings?

Quote

Another point where i have misgivings about Rome is Romes standardisation and universalisation of the Mass. All of the ancient Western Rites of the Latin West have been removed or changed by Rome over the millenium, and some Western Rites are only being kept alive by the Orthodox. The Orthodox believe in various cultures and peoples using different rites according to their needs and wishes, even in their own languages, but (and as much as i love Latin) Rome has always wanted the same liturgy said in the same tongue everywhere and by everyone.

There is a gentleman who posts here, Sigismund, who is a Byzantine Rite Catholic, and whose son is a Priest of that rite. I'll send him a message to see if he is able to answer this question for you as well.

Quote

And i suppose my third big roadblock to Rome would be the overemphasis on Mary. The Orthodox give much honor to Mary the Mother of God, but it seems that in Rome Mary has been elevated to such an extent she is almost "co-redemtrix" with Christ.

Because she is indeed Co-Redemptrix, dear brother. Often, as I have seen, the confusion this phrase may bring some is the emphasis and interpretation given on the "Co" (of 'co'-redemptrix), which does not mean that our Blessed Mother could have redeemed the World without our Blessed Saviour. I'll leave the explanation to others, but wanted to give you a quote of a very learned fellow on this forum. Please be assured of my prayers.

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

This ultimately has its foundation upon the teaching of the Fathers regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Second Eve: please consult the following thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Blessed-Virgin-Mary-the-Second-Eve

It must be remembered that the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Mysteries of the Redemption and in the economy of salvation is absolutely singular and unique: the Divine Maternity to which she had been predestined from all eternity, and all its the concomitant and consequent glories and graces, made her a world unto herself.

----------------

The theologians of the 19th century warmly disputed the question pertinent to this discussion, so that in the theological manuals of Fr. Pohle and Fr. Scheeben, one may detect a certain suspicion on the doctrine of Our Lady as Co-Redemptress, found in the writings of Sts. Alphonsus and Louis-Marie, amongst others. This was mostly because these theologians were afraid that a sacerdotal character would be superimposed upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, who never received, nor was capable or receiving, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, as all other women are.

However, since the reign of Pope St. Pius X, who sanctioned the devotion to Our Lady as Co-Redemptress, and with the elucidation of eminent Mariologists following the definition of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and corporeal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and various key Encyclical Letters of the Sovereign Pontiffs and the introduction of new Offices in the Roman Missal and Breviary (e.g., the Immaculate Heart, the Queenship, &c.), the general consensus of the theologians regarding this matter has changed very much.

In his work The Mother of The Savior and Our Interior Life (Part II, chap. ii., art. 3; trans. Rev. Father Bernard J. Kelley; Dublin: Golden Eagle Books, Ltd., 1948), Rev. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange expounds upon this matter most lucidly and elegantly, and represents the general consensus of both theologians and the faithful.

Nishant · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:35:53 AM »

Hello and welcome, again.

Quote from: Sans Peur

I can understand and accept the Pope as the head of the Church, the visible Unity of the Church and whatnot, but its when it goes into the realm of universal jurisdiction and infallibility........ Thats when i get uneasy about it not just being a head of the Church but trying to take the place of Christ.

Well, does the testimony of the Fathers make you uneasy, then? Because what they have always held and taught in their day as the rule of Faith is what the Catholic Church holds today as well - that the See of Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built, so that he who knowingly and wilfully departs from this foundation thereby would fall into schism from the Church.

Without such a principle of unity, schism is absolutely impossible to determine, if A separates from B, no one knows whether A is in schism or whether B is so. This is what you have in Greece and Russia today, at best a collection of many autocephalous bodies, certainly not one body in Christ subject to one visible head, as it was instituted by Christ in Peter and the Apostles.

Here is one of the great Greek Fathers of the Church, one of my favorite Saints, Maximus the Confessor, bearing most eloquent witness to the recognition of Rome's universal jurisdiction in the seventh century. It is so excellent I quote it in full and at some length.

Quote from: St.Maximus, Father of the Church, seventh century

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from of old until now, as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter, and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical docuмents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law.

Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God.... It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy....

Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also.

The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.

Such testimonies may be easily and indefinitely multiplied even to the earliest of ages immediately after the Apostles. From Saints like Augustine, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose etc as well as even the Ecuмenical Councils. And even before all these, in the second century, the same principle is found in Sts Irenaeus and Ignatius, all of whom the separated Greeks accept.

Quote

Another point where i have misgivings about Rome is Romes standardisation and universalisation of the Mass.

Please read this Papal Encyclical from Pope Leo XIII

Some excerpts,

Quote from: Pope Leo XIII, Orientalium Dignitas

At the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We turned eyes full of love towards the Christian nations of the East. We made haste, in fact, to direct Our solicitude to alleviating their state of want. We then saw the beginning of other opportunities for bearing witness to Our feelings of kind regard and expressing them in deeds. But nothing was nor is more important, nothing more sacred than to kindle the ardor, to elicit fruitfulness in the Faith in those souls in union with the Apostolic See, so that they shine forth as renewed proofs of the excellence and glory of their ancestors.

It has been possible to offer these Churches some assistance. We have founded in this very City a college for the formation of Armenian and Maronite clergy, likewise at Plovdiv and Edirne for those of the Bulgarian rite. We have decreed the construction of the Leonianum in Athens. We have fostered in larger measure the Seminary of St. Anne that was begun for the instruction of the Greek Melkite clergy in Jerusalem. Our activity includes increasing the number of Syrian students in the Urbanianum, restoring the Athanasianum for the Greeks to its pristine condition. This is the institute that Gregory XIII, its generous founder, wisely wished built. From it have issued men of great renown. We ardently wish - now all the more intensely - that We shall be able to cause and see with Our own eyes more activity of this and like type.

In point of fact there is more importance than can be believed in preserving the Eastern rites. Their antiquity is august, it is what gives nobility to the different rites, it is a brilliant Jєωel for the whole Church, it confirms the God-given unity of the Catholic Faith.

For that very reason, even as her Apostolic origin is all the more proven especially by these Churches of the East, at the selfsame moment there shines out and is made manifest these Churches' original, complete unity with the Roman Church. Nothing else, perhaps, is so breathtakingly effective for illustrating the mark of Catholicity in God's Church than that striking sight of differing forms of ceremonies and noble examples of the tongues of the ancient past - made all the more noble by their use by the Apostles and Fathers - rendering their submission to the Church.

Quote

And i suppose my third big roadblock to Rome would be the overemphasis on Mary. The Orthodox give much honor to Mary the Mother of God, but it seems that in Rome Mary has been elevated to such an extent she is almost "co-redemtrix" with Christ.

Apart from Fr.Lagrange's excellent explanation cited by Hobbledehoy and reproduced by Richard above, here is the same doctrine in St.Irenaeus in the second century. Eve brought ruin and death to the human race and in the exact same way, Mary brought life and salvation.

Quote from: St.Irenaeus, second century, Adversus Haereses, Book III, chapter 22-4

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin, having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race...

And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith."

Quote

The Orthodox criticism of Scholasticism is this - the West spends more time talking ABOUT God than being deep in prayer getting to KNOW God.

Yes, the separated Greeks of our day like to erect such patently ridiculous strawmen against the Latin Church, for how else indeed will they justify their separation, but the example of their own Fathers themselves refutes them. The Fathers were as learned, as studied, as eloquent, as philosophical as anyone, when necessary. This was not inspite of, or to the derogation, of meditation and the contemplative life, but rather because of it. And so it was with the great scholastic theologians. It was because they so zealously pursued sancitity, that as Christ had promised, everything else, including an enlightened understanding of the divine mysteries was given to them.

Read, for instance, the Imitation of Christ, it includes advice to monks. Read the excellent writings of St.Francis De Sales, or St.Louis Marie, see how deeply they knew and loved God above all things, and renounced everything for His sake. Who exemplifies the monastic ideal better than St.Francis of Assisi? The care for the needy and the suffering better than St.Vincent De Paul?

Lest I forget, while she accepts the other august discipline in the East, it has always been the noble discipline of the West to only choose her priests from those who have already committed to the monastic life. Therefore, it is beyond absurd to say we do not greatly esteem the commitment and renunciation it involves.

And it was in this that Protestantism found most cause to attack the Church, as they did by closing monasteries and convents wherever they prevailed.

You asked for a book recommendation, so I advise this one

Quote

Because, in purely secular and temporal terms i would much RATHER be Roman Catholic, its the religion i was raised in, i want to be a Latin teacher, and i am not Russian or Greek. BUT, i have to be convinced that Rome is the true Faith first.

God bless you, my friend, and may He show you His will and give you grace to follow as He leads.

Roland Deschain · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2012, 08:38:47 PM »

I have also struggled with this very question. What has carried much weight is the moral laxity of the Orthodox. Birth control is winked at. Divorce and re-marriage 3X is accepted. Even abortion, under the usual cop-out reasons, is accepted.

The Orthodox continue to be separate from us through pride. This has lead to a stagnation of various aspects of their theology, in particular, moral theology. They spit on Thomism as being a barbarian theological construct. As was recently pointed out to me by an esteemed member of this forum, St Thomas represents the pinnacle of refinement of Patristic theology.

There is much to admire in the Orthodox. At the end of the day, though, it seems that what mostly defines an Orthodox Christian is the fact that you're not Roman.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2012, 09:51:05 PM »

Hey, Sans. Welcome to CatholicInfo. s2srea and Nishant have already provided you with some excellent responses, so I'm not going to say a whole lot here. But to add one thing:

Quote from: Sans Peur

Another point where i have misgivings about Rome is Romes standardisation and universalisation of the Mass. All of the ancient Western Rites of the Latin West have been removed or changed by Rome over the millenium, and some Western Rites are only being kept alive by the Orthodox. The Orthodox believe in various cultures and peoples using different rites according to their needs and wishes, even in their own languages, but (and as much as i love Latin) Rome has always wanted the same liturgy said in the same tongue everywhere and by everyone.

The Catholic Church is a Universal Church, and thus, it needs a Universal Mass celebrated in a Universal language. It is not about meeting the personal needs of other people. Rather, it is about honoring Jesus Christ.

Those who say they don't understand Latin and a Mass said in their own language need to realize several things. For one thing, if they want to understand what the priest is saying, they could always simply follow along in their Missal. But more importantly, there's always going to be something about the Mass that we don't understand. The Mass is a mystery, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the Mass. Just as God would not be God if he weren't a mystery. We are incapable of fully understanding God or the Mass. So even if we understand what the priest is saying, there are going to be other things about the Mass that we do not understand.

Sans Peur · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2012, 12:13:13 AM »

Thank you to all for your replies. I have not been able to read through all the quotes just yet, particularly the one on Mary the Mother of God, but i will spend the rest of the day studying all this, so thank you.

I have just come back from my first Latin Mass in some years at SSPX Chapel some hour and a half from me in Perth WA. It was really good. The Priest advised me that if i said Confession, as i was baptised Catholic and was never baptised into Orthodoxy, that i would be able to recieve Holy Communion - which i did.

The Latin Mass was beautiful... Latin is an extremely beautiful language. All in all i was very fulfilled in going there. It's been a problem for me that whilst i dont understand Latin as yet, attending a Russian liturgy and not undersanding Church Slavonic is another matter entirely. I always felt (despite their warmth) that i was an outsider looking in at a purely Russian affair.

As to the points i raised above, well, coincidentally (or not?) the Sermon today at Mass was on the Rosary and the role of the Mother of God - so i understand the Catholic position now. I wouldnt say i wholeheartedly agree, but i am going to submit to the Churchs teaching.

Quote

Yes, the separated Greeks of our day like to erect such patently ridiculous strawmen against the Latin Church, for how else indeed will they justify their separation, but the example of their own Fathers themselves refutes them. The Fathers were as learned, as studied, as eloquent, as philosophical as anyone, when necessary. This was not inspite of, or to the derogation, of meditation and the contemplative life, but rather because of it. And so it was with the great scholastic theologians. It was because they so zealously pursued sancitity, that as Christ had promised, everything else, including an enlightened understanding of the divine mysteries was given to them.

This does make a lot of sense, and i must admit that i dont agree with being "anti-intellectual" which is an accusation always levelled at Christians, but after a studied reading of "Atheist Delusions" its a hard case to maintain - Greek and Latin was spoken more purely by the Church Fathers than even their pagan critics. I know that in my case i will be returning to University next year to major in Classics (Greek and Latin) and Philosophy.
Having said that though, it does make me wonder why when Western Christianity is in shambles (as mainstream Catholicism currently is) Orthodoxy has been able to maintain a thriving Monastic tradition (Mount Athos and Valaam as an example) and Saints and Martyrs by the tens of thousands - even after 70 years of forced Atheistic Communism - they have not been as affected as Rome by the Culture Wars (or the anti-God war of the godless).

Quote

The Catholic Church is a Universal Church, and thus, it needs a Universal Mass celebrated in a Universal language. It is not about meeting the personal needs of other people. Rather, it is about honoring Jesus Christ.

Those who say they don't understand Latin and a Mass said in their own language need to realize several things. For one thing, if they want to understand what the priest is saying, they could always simply follow along in their Missal. But more importantly, there's always going to be something about the Mass that we don't understand. The Mass is a mystery, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the Mass. Just as God would not be God if he weren't a mystery. We are incapable of fully understanding God or the Mass. So even if we understand what the priest is saying, there are going to be other things about the Mass that we do not understand.

This is food for thought. I will think on this and get back to you. Thankyou.

Quote

So that others who are well versed in these things may help you here, I would like suggesting that you clarify what your understanding of Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility is. You seem very well learned, but wouldn't it be benefical to ensure, first, that there are no mis-understandings?

A summation of an Catholic Monks rejection of the Papacy is here:
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx

I read this about a week ago and have read it a few times since. It does concern me quite a bit. If i could have anyone here's opinions on it it would be much appreciated.

Nishant · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2012, 05:56:11 AM »

Quote from: Sans Peur

I have just come back from my first Latin Mass in some years at SSPX Chapel some hour and a half from me in Perth WA. It was really good ... attending a Russian liturgy and not undersanding Church Slavonic is another matter entirely.

This is truly wonderful news. I am very happy for you. I hope you will continue on this path.

Quote from: Sans Peur

This does make a lot of sense, and i must admit that i dont agree with being "anti-intellectual" which is an accusation always levelled at Christians ... even after 70 years of forced Atheistic Communism - they have not been as affected as Rome by the Culture Wars (or the anti-God war of the godless).

Well as Roland mentioned, in order to be affected by culture wars, one ought first to be "in the world, but not of the world" as Our Lord said. You must oppose the terrible evil of divorce, plainly condemned by Our Lord, you must stand with the Fathers, and with the Bible, in denouncing the practice of contraception, and of abortion. And this the Catholic Church has always and everywhere done, and for that she is hated, while the separated Greeks are much less opposed to it, mostly because there are conflicting teachings among them, and an absence of unity on these questions.

The Catholic Church is for example hated because she does not believe throwing condoms at the problem is any kind of long term solution to AIDS in places like Africa, but rather that long term programs structured around abstinence, fidelity and monogamy are the way forward, following staunchly the tradition of the Fathers, and she is hated even though she herself provides around 25% of all the care there is for AIDS victims.

I also agree with SS, so far as we are talking about the Latin rite alone, there are innumerable benefits to maintaining a single language, not the least that it is a testimony to universality and a sure guarantor of orthodoxy - but of course, in the Catholic Church itself today, there are 23 rites. Many Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome are perfectly content in maintaining their own liturgical traditions while professing their Catholic Faith.

Also, in Communist years, some of these were very rudely persecuted, with great efforts being made to separate them from Rome, to induce them to fall into schism by uniting with the separatists, which they heroically resisted, counting communion with Rome worth dying for.

Also, when Rome requested discussion with members of Russia's separated Church, one of the preconditions laid down was, incredibly - that Communism should not be condemned by name.

So I don't deny the problems in the Catholic Church today, but they were all foretold, as was also foretold, the spread of Russia's errors including militant atheism and marxism to the west, the overcoming of these errors, the complete restoration of all things, and finally, that Russia would enter the Catholic Church.

Quote

I read this about a week ago and have read it a few times since. It does concern me quite a bit. If i could have anyone here's opinions on it it would be much appreciated.

Well, I read it, but I was rather surprised at how weak it was. It cited few sources from Scripture and Tradition.

In response, I'll give you a few brief thoughts of my own, and some sources for you to peruse.

In Sacred Scripture, nothing is more clear and visible than that Jesus Christ instituted His Church as a hierarchical society subordinated to a visible head. In Mat 16:16-19, we see Our Lord single out Simon, rename Him Peter or Rock to be the head of the Church, and give Him the singular power of the Keys, explaining the unfettered doctrinal authority associated with it. Whatever he bound on earth, would be bound by Christ in heaven.

Nishant · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2012, 06:10:25 AM »

[Sorry, I intended to edit the post above, but it wouldn't let me, so I continue here]

Keys symbolize both authority and succession. We see this in Isa 22:22, where Sobna, the royal steward of the Davidic Kingdom, is succeeded by Eliachim. Similarly, Peter, and his successors, are the chief steward of Christendom, Christ Himself being the King.

As if more proof was needed, we see in Luke 22:31-32 very nicely, Our Lord laying out, that St.Peter is promised an unfailing faith, and is charged to be the very source of strength for his brethren in ministry, the other Apostles. So it has always been in the Catholic Church, so with Peter and the Apostles then, so with the Pope and the Bishops today.

Finally, all of this is confirmed by the Lord after the Resurrection. He singles out the Prince of the Apostles once more, then gives Him absolutely (Jn 21:15-17) the supreme pastoral charge, "Take care of My sheep", placing all of them without exception, the other Apostles included, in the care of St.Peter. By this act, Our Lord made St.Peter His Vicar on earth to shepherd His whole flock in the stead of Our Lord Himself, the good Shepherd.

Like I said, all of this is manifest in Holy Writ, but it is even more easily provable from Sacred Tradition.

For example, in the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.), we read,

Quote

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

St.Cyprian calls the Church of Rome, "the principal Church from which episcopal unity has its source". He says, "If anyone departs from the See of Peter, on which the Church is founded, can he imagine that he is still in the Church".

St.Peter Chrysologus that "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome"

Innumerable such citations could be so given from Tradition.

I recommend these articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia very highly. Here and here.

God bless you, my friend.

Sans Peur · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2012, 06:49:45 AM »

Quote

This is truly wonderful news. I am very happy for you. I hope you will continue on this path.

Ill just keep studying and praying. Time will tell. Im not ready to fully commit either way as yet. The Russians piety is moving, it's not easily forgotten.

Quote

Well as Roland mentioned, in order to be affected by culture wars, one ought first to be "in the world, but not of the world" as Our Lord said. You must oppose the terrible evil of divorce, plainly condemned by Our Lord, you must stand with the Fathers, and with the Bible, in denouncing the practice of contraception, and of abortion. And this the Catholic Church has always and everywhere done, and for that she is hated, while the separated Greeks are much less opposed to it, mostly because there are conflicting teachings among them, and an absence of unity on these questions.

I dont know about this. Catholics always level this charge against the Orthodox, and whilst i was never fully Orthodox i have never really seen this. All i ever saw were very pious, god-fearing people, who took their Faith and devotion to the Lord VERY seriously.

Quote

Also, in Communist years, some of these were very rudely persecuted, with great efforts being made to separate them from Rome, to induce them to fall into schism by uniting with the separatists, which they heroically resisted, counting communion with Rome worth dying for.

I recently watched a Catholic video (i cant remember where off hand) which pointed out the persecution of Catholics under Communism, which apparently was some fulfilment of the prophecies about Russia at Fatima. You know what? There was no mention of the suffering of Orthodox Christians under the communists, and i can think of no greater insult and no greater ignorance - estimates anywhere between 50-70 million Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians were murdered, numbers incomprehensible to us in the West - and yet they dont rate a mention to these Roman Catholic apologists yet the Catholics in Poland and Hungary do. What an insult.

More importantly whatever the truth of Fatima is, one part is wrong. Communism was not "Russia's errors" but Western errors (Karl Marx was a German you know), as was every other error - liberalism, socialism, atheism, agnosticism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, relativism, "enlightenment", naturalism - all Western. Communism was a Western import to Russia, and one that was financed by New York Jєωs at the behest of their Rothschild masters - and somehow this error is Russias? My ass it was!

The problem with some Westerners is a real ignorance of Russian history. I'll give you a short overview. Russia inherited Orthodoxy from Byzantium, and in Russian theology when Byzantium fell (New Rome), Moscow became Third Rome, protector of Orthodoxy. Since that time, Russia was constantly having to protect itself from the West and every error that came from (the list of errors i just cited above, but the Russians would include Papism in that list of errors). Anyway, the point i am making is that Russia never had any "errors" to spread. She maintained the Christian faith she inherited from the Roman Empire (Byzantium) and maintained it for a thousand years against despots from the East and modernist heresies from the West.

The battle rages to this day with Putin leading the charge in resurrecting Russia in opposition to the latest Western heresay - NATO, America, the U.N, etc.

I am sorry for this rant, but the denegration of Russia by Christians is something i cannot accept - which also causes me to disagree with the message of Fatima, another roadblock for me.

Roland Deschain · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2012, 07:10:56 AM »

Quote from: Sans Peur

Quote
This is truly wonderful news. I am very happy for you. I hope you will continue on this path.

Ill just keep studying and praying. Time will tell. Im not ready to fully commit either way as yet. The Russians piety is moving, it's not easily forgotten.

Quote
Well as Roland mentioned, in order to be affected by culture wars, one ought first to be "in the world, but not of the world" as Our Lord said. You must oppose the terrible evil of divorce, plainly condemned by Our Lord, you must stand with the Fathers, and with the Bible, in denouncing the practice of contraception, and of abortion. And this the Catholic Church has always and everywhere done, and for that she is hated, while the separated Greeks are much less opposed to it, mostly because there are conflicting teachings among them, and an absence of unity on these questions.

I dont know about this. Catholics always level this charge against the Orthodox, and whilst i was never fully Orthodox i have never really seen this. All i ever saw were very pious, god-fearing people, who took their Faith and devotion to the Lord VERY seriously.

Quote
Also, in Communist years, some of these were very rudely persecuted, with great efforts being made to separate them from Rome, to induce them to fall into schism by uniting with the separatists, which they heroically resisted, counting communion with Rome worth dying for.

I recently watched a Catholic video (i cant remember where off hand) which pointed out the persecution of Catholics under Communism, which apparently was some fulfilment of the prophecies about Russia at Fatima. You know what? There was no mention of the suffering of Orthodox Christians under the communists, and i can think of no greater insult and no greater ignorance - estimates anywhere between 50-70 million Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians were murdered, numbers incomprehensible to us in the West - and yet they dont rate a mention to these Roman Catholic apologists yet the Catholics in Poland and Hungary do. What an insult.

More importantly whatever the truth of Fatima is, one part is wrong. Communism was not "Russia's errors" but Western errors (Karl Marx was a German you know), as was every other error - liberalism, socialism, atheism, agnosticism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, relativism, "enlightenment", naturalism - all Western. Communism was a Western import to Russia, and one that was financed by New York Jєωs at the behest of their Rothschild masters - and somehow this error is Russias? My ass it was!

The problem with some Westerners is a real ignorance of Russian history. I'll give you a short overview. Russia inherited Orthodoxy from Byzantium, and in Russian theology when Byzantium fell (New Rome), Moscow became Third Rome, protector of Orthodoxy. Since that time, Russia was constantly having to protect itself from the West and every error that came from (the list of errors i just cited above, but the Russians would include Papism in that list of errors). Anyway, the point i am making is that Russia never had any "errors" to spread. She maintained the Christian faith she inherited from the Roman Empire (Byzantium) and maintained it for a thousand years against despots from the East and modernist heresies from the West.

The battle rages to this day with Putin leading the charge in resurrecting Russia in opposition to the latest Western heresay - NATO, America, the U.N, etc.

I am sorry for this rant, but the denegration of Russia by Christians is something i cannot accept - which also causes me to disagree with the message of Fatima, another roadblock for me.

Keep in mind that this personal piety is inherent in the Latin Church as well. 50+ years of humanistic, social justice political nonsense that has infected the clergy and faithful of the Latin Church has not changed this fact.

I recently purchased this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089555352X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=089555352X&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

In this book lies the same kind of interior piety that you may find in the Philokalia, yet is written by a Western monk. It is very readable and the ideas contained therein are doable for your average Catholic seeking to live the Gospel. Don't think for one second that the Easterners have a cornered market in this area. It is just harder to see for us for the reasons I mentioned above.

You may also find this edifying, I did:

As far as the accusations of moral laxity in regards to sɛҳuąƖ morality, I have encountered this first hand. Your typical Orthodox layman has a very worldly view of contraception and divorce.

This is taken from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website:

"2.Generally stated, fornication, adultery, abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and any form of abusive sɛҳuąƖ behavior are considered immoral and inappropriate forms of behavior in and of themselves, and also because they attack the institution of marriage and the family. Two representative statements, one on abortion and another on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America follow. They are from the Twenty-Third Clergy-Laity Congress held in Philadelphia in 1976. The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die."

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

So on one hand abortion is murder, however, it is A-ok for the same BS reasons that worldlings give to justify infanticide.

The above is a sad consequence of having an underdeveloped moral theology and sneering at Thomism which provides clear and concise answers to the above.

Sans Peur · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2012, 07:50:48 AM »

Quote

Keep in mind that this personal piety is inherent in the Latin Church as well. 50+ years of humanistic, social justice political nonsense that has infected the clergy and faithful of the Latin Church has not changed this fact.

I recently purchased this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089555352X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=089555352X&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

I am not saying that there is no holy people in the Latin Church. What there is not, at least not to the degree and as well developed in the Eastern Church, is a mystical approach to Christ and the Church. Roman Catholicisms central motiff is sin and atonement for sin, where Christ is this judge who determines punishments or rewards for our behaviour... this is a very legalistic way of looking at Christian theology. In the East, the central motiff is story of Christ the Conqueror of Death, where the Church is literally heaven on Earth. Also, the East's teaching on Theosis is unrivalled (imo). Thats the difference. Christ the judge of sin, or Christ the conqueror of death and Hell.

Quote
In this book lies the same kind of interior piety that you may find in the Philokalia, yet is written by a Western monk. It is very readable and the ideas contained therein are doable for your average Catholic seeking to live the Gospel. Don't think for one second that the Easterners have a cornered market in this area. It is just harder to see for us for the reasons I mentioned above.

You may also find this edifying, I did:

Thankyou for this link, i'll watch it tonight.

As far as the accusations of moral laxity in regards to sɛҳuąƖ morality, I have encountered this first hand. Your typical Orthodox layman has a very worldly view of contraception and divorce.

Quote
This is taken from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website:

"2.Generally stated, fornication, adultery, abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and any form of abusive sɛҳuąƖ behavior are considered immoral and inappropriate forms of behavior in and of themselves, and also because they attack the institution of marriage and the family. Two representative statements, one on abortion and another on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America follow. They are from the Twenty-Third Clergy-Laity Congress held in Philadelphia in 1976. The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die."

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

You must be careful which Greek Church you quote from, a lot (if not all) mainstream Orthodox Churches are in the World Council of Churches. It's like me trying to prove the moral laxity of Catholics by pointing out the problems in mainstream Catholicism (paedophile priests, etc). The Old Believers, Old Calendarists, etc are a large body who retain the original Orthodox teachings. Much like the SSPX in the West. Its to them you must turn to to understand True Orthodoxy.

Quote
So on one hand abortion is murder, however, it is A-ok for the same BS reasons that worldlings give to justify infanticide.

The above is a sad consequence of having an underdeveloped moral theology and sneering at Thomism which provides clear and concise answers to the above.

I intend to study Philosophy at Uni, and my understanding of Western scholasticism is negligible, so i'll decline from passing judgement on this one, except to reiterate what i said above about mainstream Orthodox being a modern heresay like Catholicism since V2

Roland Deschain · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2012, 08:32:33 AM »

Quote from: Sans Peur

Quote
Keep in mind that this personal piety is inherent in the Latin Church as well. 50+ years of humanistic, social justice political nonsense that has infected the clergy and faithful of the Latin Church has not changed this fact.

I recently purchased this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089555352X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=089555352X&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

I am not saying that there is no holy people in the Latin Church. What there is not, at least not to the degree and as well developed in the Eastern Church, is a mystical approach to Christ and the Church. Roman Catholicisms central motiff is sin and atonement for sin, where Christ is this judge who determines punishments or rewards for our behaviour... this is a very legalistic way of looking at Christian theology. In the East, the central motiff is story of Christ the Conqueror of Death, where the Church is literally heaven on Earth. Also, the East's teaching on Theosis is unrivalled (imo). Thats the difference. Christ the judge of sin, or Christ the conqueror of death and Hell.

Quote
In this book lies the same kind of interior piety that you may find in the Philokalia, yet is written by a Western monk. It is very readable and the ideas contained therein are doable for your average Catholic seeking to live the Gospel. Don't think for one second that the Easterners have a cornered market in this area. It is just harder to see for us for the reasons I mentioned above.

You may also find this edifying, I did:

Thankyou for this link, i'll watch it tonight.

As far as the accusations of moral laxity in regards to sɛҳuąƖ morality, I have encountered this first hand. Your typical Orthodox layman has a very worldly view of contraception and divorce.

Quote
This is taken from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website:

"2.Generally stated, fornication, adultery, abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and any form of abusive sɛҳuąƖ behavior are considered immoral and inappropriate forms of behavior in and of themselves, and also because they attack the institution of marriage and the family. Two representative statements, one on abortion and another on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America follow. They are from the Twenty-Third Clergy-Laity Congress held in Philadelphia in 1976. The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die."

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

You must be careful which Greek Church you quote from, a lot (if not all) mainstream Orthodox Churches are in the World Council of Churches. It's like me trying to prove the moral laxity of Catholics by pointing out the problems in mainstream Catholicism (paedophile priests, etc). The Old Believers, Old Calendarists, etc are a large body who retain the original Orthodox teachings. Much like the SSPX in the West. Its to them you must turn to to understand True Orthodoxy.

Quote
So on one hand abortion is murder, however, it is A-ok for the same BS reasons that worldlings give to justify infanticide.

The above is a sad consequence of having an underdeveloped moral theology and sneering at Thomism which provides clear and concise answers to the above.

I intend to study Philosophy at Uni, and my understanding of Western scholasticism is negligible, so i'll decline from passing judgement on this one, except to reiterate what i said above about mainstream Orthodox being a modern heresay like Catholicism since V2

Thank you for your response. I wanted to address the bolded part. You have highlighted the reason why a visible head of the Church is so necessary. Different Orthodox jurisdictions have different opinions on these issues. The Russians take a more strict view while the Greeks are more lax. When asked whether contraception is ok the answer is usually: "ask your priest." I often see the term "economia" used to justify just about anything pertaining to contraception, abortion et al.

There is zero debate in the Catholic Church regarding BC and abortion since the Holy Father, in keeping with the constant Tradition of the Fathers and Scripture, has condemned it. The matter has been decided.

What you get with Orthodoxy is a lot of warring juridictions who can't decide what the Church has always taught here. Sadly, without a Byzantine Emperor to call an Ecuмentical Council, these things will remain to be decided by individual bishops and bishop synods putting out contradictory statements.

Ceasar-papism is another issue, though.

Roland Deschain · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2012, 08:59:22 AM »

Quote from: Roland Deschain

Quote from: Sans Peur

Quote
Keep in mind that this personal piety is inherent in the Latin Church as well. 50+ years of humanistic, social justice political nonsense that has infected the clergy and faithful of the Latin Church has not changed this fact.

I recently purchased this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089555352X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=089555352X&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

I am not saying that there is no holy people in the Latin Church. What there is not, at least not to the degree and as well developed in the Eastern Church, is a mystical approach to Christ and the Church. Roman Catholicisms central motiff is sin and atonement for sin, where Christ is this judge who determines punishments or rewards for our behaviour... this is a very legalistic way of looking at Christian theology. In the East, the central motiff is story of Christ the Conqueror of Death, where the Church is literally heaven on Earth. Also, the East's teaching on Theosis is unrivalled (imo). Thats the difference. Christ the judge of sin, or Christ the conqueror of death and Hell.

Quote
In this book lies the same kind of interior piety that you may find in the Philokalia, yet is written by a Western monk. It is very readable and the ideas contained therein are doable for your average Catholic seeking to live the Gospel. Don't think for one second that the Easterners have a cornered market in this area. It is just harder to see for us for the reasons I mentioned above.

You may also find this edifying, I did:

Thankyou for this link, i'll watch it tonight.

As far as the accusations of moral laxity in regards to sɛҳuąƖ morality, I have encountered this first hand. Your typical Orthodox layman has a very worldly view of contraception and divorce.

Quote
This is taken from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website:

"2.Generally stated, fornication, adultery, abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and any form of abusive sɛҳuąƖ behavior are considered immoral and inappropriate forms of behavior in and of themselves, and also because they attack the institution of marriage and the family. Two representative statements, one on abortion and another on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America follow. They are from the Twenty-Third Clergy-Laity Congress held in Philadelphia in 1976. The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die."

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

You must be careful which Greek Church you quote from, a lot (if not all) mainstream Orthodox Churches are in the World Council of Churches. It's like me trying to prove the moral laxity of Catholics by pointing out the problems in mainstream Catholicism (paedophile priests, etc). The Old Believers, Old Calendarists, etc are a large body who retain the original Orthodox teachings. Much like the SSPX in the West. Its to them you must turn to to understand True Orthodoxy.

Quote
So on one hand abortion is murder, however, it is A-ok for the same BS reasons that worldlings give to justify infanticide.

The above is a sad consequence of having an underdeveloped moral theology and sneering at Thomism which provides clear and concise answers to the above.

I intend to study Philosophy at Uni, and my understanding of Western scholasticism is negligible, so i'll decline from passing judgement on this one, except to reiterate what i said above about mainstream Orthodox being a modern heresay like Catholicism since V2

Thank you for your response. I wanted to address the bolded part. You have highlighted the reason why a visible head of the Church is so necessary. Different Orthodox jurisdictions have different opinions on these issues. The Russians take a more strict view while the Greeks are more lax. When asked whether contraception is ok the answer is usually: "ask your priest." I often see the term "economia" used to justify just about anything pertaining to contraception, abortion et al.

There is zero debate in the Catholic Church regarding BC and abortion since the Holy Father, in keeping with the constant Tradition of the Fathers and Scripture, has condemned it. The matter has been decided. They who dissent from this teaching stand condemned.

What you get with Orthodoxy is a lot of warring juridictions who can't decide what the Church has always taught here. Sadly, without a Byzantine Emperor to call an Ecuмentical Council, these things will remain to be decided by individual bishops and bishop synods putting out contradictory statements.

Ceasar-papism is another issue, though.

Nishant · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2012, 11:01:24 AM »

Well, Sans Peur, please don't think Our Lady spoke of the errors that would come from Russia because she is antagonistic to Russia, far from it. Communism prevailed openly in Russia at first, and many of the like errors associated with it now prevail openly in the west, this is the import of the statement. She said so because she loves Russia, for this reason she desired the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, that all Catholics may know how dear to her Heart it was, and has said the very peace of the world depends on it. I agree about the Jєωιѕн influence on Marxism, also agree that Russians themselves suffered terribly under Communism. But there are other points I disagree with.

Pope Pius XII wrote, "Who does not know, that Patriarch Alexius I recently elected by the dissident bishops of Russia, openly exalts and preaches defection from the Catholic Church. In a letter lately addressed to the Ruthenian Church, a letter, which contributed not a little to the persecution?"

Here is a brief excerpt from Wikipedia.

Quote

The Catholic Church was annihilated. Church institutions were confiscated and expropriated; churches, monasteries and seminaries closed and looted,[12] After the war, the Catholic Uniate churches were integrated under the Moscow Patriarchy, after all residing bishops and apostolic administrators were arrested on March 6, 1946. The Catholic Church of Ukraine was thus liquidated. All properties were turned over to the Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow.

This is one example, there were more, of how the dissident Russian hierarchy sometimes, owing to its tendency of Caesaropapism and Erastianism perhaps, benefited from the very Communist persecutions.

Again, I do not thereby deny, that Russians too, suffered greatly under the Communist scourge. Nor do I doubt their good faith and sincerity in doing so or in any way minimize their struggle from a human point of view, that is a misrepresentation of what I said.

Bella Dodd, former member of the US Communist party, who worked at trying to neutralize the Catholic Church in the same way, by turning against herself from the inside, especially by encouraging liberal influences in seminaries and the priesthood, said "The Catholic Church is the only enemy feared by the Communists because it is its only effective opponent"

The other point in what you said that I disagree with is with regard to Constantinople and your statement, "Russia inherited Orthodoxy from Byzantium, and in Russian theology when Byzantium fell (New Rome), Moscow became Third Rome, protector of Orthodoxy." The problem with this statement, is that there is no such distinction in patristic Tradition and it is "Old Rome" that is forever to be until the end of time when Our Lord returns, the guarantor of orthodoxy for the whole world. Even so illustrious a Greek Father of the Church as St.Maximus bears express witness of this fact. This is so in the Church by divine institution, this is so forever by the divine promise.

The article I gave earlier gives an excellent summary of the schism of this See, that of Constantinople, the unhappy influence of which is one of the chief reasons Russia herself remains separated from Rome today.

Quote from: The Catholic Encyclopedia

Long before Photius there had been schisms between Constantinople and Rome, all of them healed up in time, but naturally all tending to weaken the sense of essential unity. From the beginning of the See of Constantinople to the great schism in 867 the list of these temporary breaches of communion is a formidable one. There were fifty-five years of schism (343-98) during the Arian troubles, eleven because of St. John Chrysostom's deposition (404-15), thirty-five years of the Acacian schism (484-519), forty-one years of Monothelite schism (640-81), sixty-one years because of Iconoclasm.

So of these 544 years (323-867) no less than 203 were spent by Constantinople in a state of schism. We notice too that in every one of these quarrels Constantinople was on the wrong side; by the consent of the Orthodox, too, Rome in all stood out for right. And already we see that the influence of the emperor (who naturally always supported his court patriarch) in most cases dragged a great number of other Eastern bishops into the same schism.

A quote of St.Irenaeus finally, on the great evil, the horrible crime, that is schism.

Quote

"He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it -- men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. He shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself shall be judged by no one."

Whatever the past has been, the present and the future are in our hands, as in God's. The schism must end, no reason suffices to justify it, nothing ever could, its solution is at hand, it is the old rule, the eternal rule, the simple rule - return to Rome.

What is true of Constantinople is also true of Russia, as St.Maximus advised his countrymen in his day as the only way to be sure of their orthodoxy, both must return to the See of Peter, the Rock on which it pleased Our Lord to found His Church. Nothing unreasonable at all has been asked or will be asked, only the confession of a pure, pious and orthodox faith in its entirety, under the successor of St.Peter, that East and West may both rejoice as one, that this schism lasting a millenium may be healed, and that there be no more seams in the spotless body of Christ.

Quote

The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now ... the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore...

All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers.

There is no humiliation in retracing one's steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom.

God bless.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2012, 02:09:04 PM »

Some quotes from early eastern Fathers, or leaders, of the Church and early Councils regarding the Papacy, except for one by the Roman - St. Thomas of Aquinas, who spoke about St. John Chrysostom.

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe." -Council of Chalcedon, Session II after St. Pope Leo's Tome. The Church believed that the Pope was the successor of St. Peter the Bishop of Rome. The Pope's voice was authoritative, because it conferred to the teachings of the Fathers, the Apostles, and of St. Cyril (previous Ecuмenical Councils).

"The most blessed bishops of Illyria said: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome." -Council of Chalcedon, Session V, Those who contradict the Ecuмenical Council's position are to go to Rome, to see Pope Leo.

"And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren.” " St. Thomas of Aquinas, Contra Errores Graecorum, referencing St. John Chrysostom in his homilly 58 on John

St. Ephraem the Syrian, from the 4th century:

“Blessed are you Simon Kepha
Who holds the keys which the Spirit forges
Great is the word and ineffable
...That could stand bind and loose above and below
Blessed are thou who wert as the head
And as the tounge of the body of brotheren
Through Simon was heard the Revelation from the Father
Through the Rock unshakable”
(De Virginitate15.6,7)

Emperor Justinian of Constantinople (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:
Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole... Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Emperor Justinian of Constantinople (520-533)

"Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all." (Coll. Avell. E...p. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as t...o a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

St. Maximus the Confessor:

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well a...s from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical docuмents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Paschal:
Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholi...c Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)