In other news, the "world orthodox" continue to embrace the Vatican.

Barney2.0 · Dec 13, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
no it doesn't. if it was, Pope Francis would not have said it's a sin to convert the Orthodox.

That’s what the Catechism says to bring all people back into the Catholic Church, it doesn’t matter what Pope Francis’s private opinions are.

Barney2.0 · Dec 13, 2018

prodromos said:
The 0.5% of the Catholic Church that the 99.5% of Catholics (Latin rite) put up with (the ones that even know they exist, that is).
The rites and traditions so 'treasured' by the Church that one entire group (approx. 20,000) converted to Orthodoxy under St Alexis Toth.

Most Orthodox don’t know that the Orthodox Church once composed the Syriac and Coptic rite not merely the Byzantine rite. And about 200,000 Orthodox converted to Catholicism under Patriarch Cyril Tanas. So that’s not really an argument.

ArmyMatt · Dec 13, 2018

Al Masihi said:
That’s what the Catechism says to bring all people back into the Catholic Church, it doesn’t matter what Pope Francis’s private opinions are.

far too many ignore when Popes do that stuff. Pope JPII would allow Buddhist idols to go on the altars of Catholic parishes, Pope Benedict prayed in a mosque facing Mecca.

this is more than opinion.

Barney2.0 · Dec 13, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
far too many ignore when Popes do that stuff. Pope JPII would allow Buddhist idols to go on the altars of Catholic parishes, Pope Benedict prayed in a mosque facing Mecca.

this is more than opinion.

And Pope Stephen VI was known for being insane. Does this effect official Church teaching?

ArmyMatt · Dec 13, 2018

Al Masihi said:
And Pope Stephen VI was known for being insane. Does this effect official Church teaching?

those are two different issues. both Pope JPII and Benedict XVI knowingly and sanely and publicly violated Church teaching and canon law.

Barney2.0 · Dec 13, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
those are two different issues. both Pope JPII and Benedict XVI knowingly and sanely and publicly violated Church teaching and canon law.

They weren’t the first Popes to do so and won’t be the last. God will judge them accordingly.

ArmyMatt · Dec 13, 2018

Al Masihi said:
They weren’t the first Popes to do so and won’t be the last. God will judge them accordingly.

name prior Popes who removed crosses on altars so pagan idols could be put up.

prodromos · Dec 13, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Most Orthodox don’t know that the Orthodox Church once composed the Syriac and Coptic rite not merely the Byzantine rite.

Both of which communed infants and had a married priesthood, two things common with the Byzantine rite that have scandalized many of those in the Latin rite.

And about 200,000 Orthodox converted to Catholicism under Patriarch Cyril Tanas. So that’s not really an argument.

So on the one handh we have one Patriarch excommunicating another Patriarch because he was leading his flock away from their traditional faith into Latin errors, and on the other we have one Catholic bishop deliberately quashing the legitimate traditions of another Catholic bishop.

I really don't see how you think this does anything other than support my point. It certainly doesn't help your argument.

TheLostCoin · Dec 13, 2018

Al Masihi said:
The Maronite Church was technically always in communion with Rome.

Technically yes - but it was fundamnetally restructured to be the "Antiochian Church" when a bunch of ethnic Maronites (Lebanese) seized a political opportunity of gaining influence for their ethnic group during a period of Sedevacante for the Patriarch of Antioch, by asking Rome to appoint one of their own (the Maronites) as the Patriarch of Antioch.

The Maronite Church wouldn't be existing as of now had it not been for politics.

Saint Josaphat Kuntseyvich himself was killed by an angry Orthodox mob not to mention the persecution the Orthodox clergy pretty much dishes out on anyone who accepted the Union of Brest. The Catholics responded by their own persecutions after Josaphat’s death and the violent rejection of the council by the Eastern Orthodox.

While I'm not saying his killing was morally just, there was a reason as to why there was an angry Orthodox mob - they were extremely angry at his belligerent and violent crackdowns on the Orthodox.

TheLostCoin · Dec 13, 2018

prodromos said:
Both of which communed infants and had a married priesthood, two things common with the Byzantine rite that have scandalized many of those in the Latin rite.

Let's not forget that Rome did too - Ignoring the fact that the Apostles had married Priests and even married Bishops, and the fact that Saint Paul and Saint Peter worked to establish the Roman Church, Saint Gregory the Great's Dialogues explicitly discusses married priests in Rome, and even in the 1200s, St. Francis of Assisi was "Confirmed" as a baby according to a biography I read on him a while back.

Barney2.0 · Dec 14, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
Technically yes - but it was fundamnetally restructured to be the "Antiochian Church" when a bunch of ethnic Maronites (Lebanese) seized a political opportunity of gaining influence for their ethnic group during a period of Sedevacante for the Patriarch of Antioch, by asking Rome to appoint one of their own (the Maronites) as the Patriarch of Antioch.

The Maronite Church wouldn't be existing as of now had it not been for politics.

While I'm not saying his killing was morally just, there was a reason as to why there was an angry Orthodox mob - they were extremely angry at his belligerent and violent crackdowns on the Orthodox.

Technically the Maronites were isolated from the Greek Orthodox Patriarch due to the Islamic invasions. They had no choice, but to appoint Yuhanna Maron as Patriarch. There were crackdowns on both sides, not to mention the Tsardom of Russia cracking down on any “uniats” prior to Brest.

Barney2.0 · Dec 14, 2018

prodromos said:
Both of which communed infants and had a married priesthood, two things common with the Byzantine rite that have scandalized many of those in the Latin rite.

So on the one handh we have one Patriarch excommunicating another Patriarch because he was leading his flock away from their traditional faith into Latin errors, and on the other we have one Catholic bishop deliberately quashing the legitimate traditions of another Catholic bishop.

I really don't see how you think this does anything other than support my point. It certainly doesn't help your argument.

Communion of infants was never a big thing in the West and different understandings of clerical celibacy ended developing, but that’s not an issue to doctrine. The Latin rite merely has different views of clerical celibacy in the Orthodox Church itself the Bishops and Patriarch are celibate. And we have many things in common with Roman Catholics and we have our differences. I wouldn’t say the Syriacs and Copts were exactly and are still exactly like the Byzantines. Your Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril before any voice was formed to join Rome. It’s known that the Patriarch of Constantinople had rivalries with Cyril Tanas. But he still had no right to excommunicate him as technically Antioch was still in dual communion with Rome and Constantinople it was the Patriarch of Constantinople that provoked a split into a pro Rome and pro Constantinople faction.

Barney2.0 · Dec 14, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
name prior Popes who removed crosses on altars so pagan idols could be put up.

Can you name me the exact event? There were Popes who committed murder, what your telling me is nothing compared to what certain Popes did:

The 6 Most Awful Popes

ArmyMatt · Dec 14, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Can you name me the exact event? There were Popes who committed murder, what your telling me is nothing compared to what certain Popes did:

The 6 Most Awful Popes

Pope John Paul when he would host ecumenical gatherings, would do so for his friend the Dalai Lama. after Pope Benedict XVI said Islam is violent, Muslims got offended, killed people and burned parishes. the pope apologized by praying in a mosque.

and we are talking about ecumenism. popes sinning in other ways is irrelevant.

Barney2.0 · Dec 14, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
Pope John Paul when he would host ecumenical gatherings, would do so for his friend the Dalai Lama. after Pope Benedict XVI said Islam is violent, Muslims got offended, killed people and burned parishes. the pope apologized by praying in a mosque.

and we are talking about ecumenism. popes sinning in other ways is irrelevant.

Again the Catechism is pretty clear on what Ecumenism is, how individual Popes choose to express that is there own choice. Pope Francis is the one who prayed in the Mosque of Istanbul. Pope Benedict never really apologized for his saying on Islam.

prodromos · Dec 14, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Communion of infants was never a big thing in the West

Source please, or are you making stuff up again?

Barney2.0 · Dec 14, 2018

prodromos said:
Source please, or are you making stuff up again?

Can you prove to me it was? You made the claim that the West left it as a practice to begin with.

TheLostCoin · Dec 14, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Communion of infants was never a big thing in the West and different understandings of clerical celibacy ended developing, but that’s not an issue to doctrine. The Latin rite merely has different views of clerical celibacy in the Orthodox Church itself the Bishops and Patriarch are celibate. And we have many things in common with Roman Catholics and we have our differences. I wouldn’t say the Syriacs and Copts were exactly and are still exactly like the Byzantines. Your Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril before any voice was formed to join Rome. It’s known that the Patriarch of Constantinople had rivalries with Cyril Tanas. But he still had no right to excommunicate him as technically Antioch was still in dual communion with Rome and Constantinople it was the Patriarch of Constantinople that provoked a split into a pro Rome and pro Constantinople faction.

According to Pope Francis’s own standards, your Patriarch is the one who “sinned against Ecumenism” by entering into communion with Rome first and foremost.

There wouldn’t have been a pro-Roman faction in the first place if he didn’t enter into communion with Rome, so to blame Constantinople for needlessly causing division is ludicrous - given the precedent especially of Florence and 2 Lyons

TheLostCoin · Dec 14, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Can you prove to me it was? You made the claim that the West left it as a practice to begin with.

I don’t think he did.
You’re the one making the claim.
You can’t make a claim and lay the burden of proof on someone else to disprove it.

As I’ve said, St. Francis of Assisi was confirmed as an infant.

ArmyMatt · Dec 14, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Again the Catechism is pretty clear on what Ecumenism is, how individual Popes choose to express that is there own choice. Pope Francis is the one who prayed in the Mosque of Istanbul. Pope Benedict never really apologized for his saying on Islam.

incorrect, I remember the beef folks had when Benedict did it in 2006.

In other news, the "world orthodox" continue to embrace the Vatican.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

A Lonesome Coin

A Lonesome Coin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

A Lonesome Coin

A Lonesome Coin

Regular Member

Similar threads