New Pope Elected for Roman Catholics [Archive]

Matrona

19th April 2005, 01:05 PM

A German Pope! Michael the Iconographer will flip!

AND it's a conservative traditionalist...the former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI...

Congratulations and many blessings to Benedict XVI and to all our Catholic friends!!!:wave:

I love the name choice...St.Benedict is one of my favorite saints!
I think Benedict is a good name for a pope. I was kind of hoping for Gregory, but Benedict is good. It means "one who speaks well" or something like that, IIRC.

EDIT: Oh, it means Blessed. Well, that sounds good. :) He sure has his work cut out for him.

So much for the saying "One who enters conclave as pope, leaves as a cardinal" because Ratzinger has been a favorite from the beginning.

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 01:26 PM

Benedict XVI

The Glory of the Olive according to St. Malachy

The FOX news media just announced that he is in good health and could live 10 to 15 years.

Edited to add: Just after the bells began to ring the clouds cleared up and by the time the new Pope appeared, the sun began to shine.

This was noticed at the Vatican and here where I live.

Rilian

19th April 2005, 01:38 PM

The Glory of the Olive according to St. Malachy

I think even the Vatican acknowledges Malachy's prophecies are forgeries.

Padraig

19th April 2005, 01:40 PM

Many years to Benedict XVI!

Matrona

19th April 2005, 01:49 PM

I'm hearing something about a 2000 encyclical where Ratzinger asserted primacy of the RCC over other Christian groups. I wonder how this will affect the way in which he deals with the Church.

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 01:50 PM

I think even the Vatican acknowledges Malachy's prophecies are forgeries.

I hadn't heard about that.

Proof?

It is interesting how Ratzinger took Benedict XVI when Glory of the Olive does refer to Benedictines.

Rilian

19th April 2005, 01:54 PM

From Catholic Pages.com (http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp)

The prevailing view today is that they are elaborate forgeries, probably perpretrated by a school of Jesuits in the 1600s. This is based on the clear relation of the mottos to the various popes until that period, and the need to find oblique references (such as the motto of the Pope's home diocese) to make the particular motto fit the particular pope. The inclusion of anti-popes would also appear to militate against the authenticity of the prophecies.

I can't believe people take them seriously, especially non Catholics.

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 02:01 PM

From Catholic Pages.com (http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp)

I can't believe people take them seriously, especially non Catholics.

Notice that the above article is only a view point- not a pontification that the prophecies of Malachi are forgeries.

Even if these prophecies were not penned by St. Malachi but were only ATTRIBUTED TO HIM, doesn't mean that they were forgeries.

After all, many biblical scholars say that many of the first 5 books of the Old Testament including Exodus were ATTRIBUTED TO MOSES. Furthermore, how could Moses have written about his own death?

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 02:02 PM

Hopefully Pope Benedict XVI will continue the work of Pope John Paul II to unite the two Churches.

Do you all agree?

Highway
__________________
"The Witness" Pope John Paul II Tribute http://www.christianforums.com/t1494483-a-tribute-to-the-great-pope-john-paul-ii.html

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 02:07 PM

I have long thought that Cardinal Ratzinger would be the next Pope, going back to my days before seminary in 1996. The liberal Catholics referred to Cardinal Ratzinger as Cardinal Nazinger because of the hard line stances he took with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I was always a big fan of Cardinal Ratzinger when I was Catholic, and not just because he hails from Muenchen! May God bless Pope Benedict as he guides the Catholic Church. Liebe der Papst! Now, if only God would create a German Orthodox Church, then I would be even more happy!

edited to remind all of my Germanophile friends that not only is His Holiness a German, but he is BAVARIAN!

Rilian

19th April 2005, 02:17 PM

Notice that the above article is only a view point- not a pontification that the prophecies of Malachi are forgeries.

I don't know if there's an official pronouncement one way or the other. I don't think as Orthodox Christians that would really matter to us.

Even if these prophecies were not penned by St. Malachi but were only ATTRIBUTED TO HIM, doesn't mean that they were forgeries.

After all, many biblical scholars say that many of the first 5 books of the Old Testament including Exodus were ATTRIBUTED TO MOSES. Furthermore, how could Moses have written about his own death?

This is not a good comparison. It is quite likely to say Moses authored part, all or most of the Pentateuch. Scripture does not give a definitive answer either way. It's also a completely different type of document and context than these prophecies. You could very well argue I suppose the Donation of Constantine is valid, even if Constantine had nothing to do with it.

We as Orthodox Christians should take the words of our Lord and Savior very seriously even if other people don't. We know not the time or the hour.

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 02:30 PM

I don't know if there's an official pronouncement one way or the other. I don't think as Orthodox Christians that would really matter to us.

So, you agree, there is no official ruling that these prophecies are in fact a forgery. Thanks.

This is not a good comparison. It is quite likely to say Moses authored part, all or most of the Pentateuch. Scripture does not give a definitive answer either way. It's also a completely different type of document and context than these prophecies. You could very well argue I suppose the Donation of Constantine is valid, even if Constantine had nothing to do with it.

Oh! Why do you mention the Donation when we now know for sure that they are forgeries?

Have you studied literature? A lot of writings are done by people in honor of another person. This is historical fact. And it is not considered to be a forgery. So the books of the Pentateuch are attributed to Moses. And there is nothing wrong with that.

We as Orthodox Christians should take the words of our Lord and Savior very seriously even if other people don't. We know not the time or the hour.

Why do you constantly change the subject, do a hit and run, and always put me down? Look at the message I delivered. Read my signature.

We don't only listen to the words of Christ. We do not underline and put in red the words of Christ in the Bible as some Protestants do in their Holy Scriptures. Our Holy Orthodox Church does not take the Lutheran position of Sola Scriptura. We do take the writings of the Early Church Father as our Holy Tradition also.

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 02:39 PM

http://daily.webshots.com/content/ap/current/h69384329.html

AP news ...

....Ratzinger, the first German pope since the 11th century ..

[Is he the first German Pope since the Great Schism of 1054?]

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 02:41 PM

http://daily.webshots.com/content/ap/current/h69384329.html

AP news ...

....Ratzinger, the first German pope since the 11th century ..

[Is he the first German Pope since the Great Schism of 1054?]

If I am not mistaken, Ratzinger is the first post Schism German Pope, and not only is he German, but he is Bavarian (as is the Family Goltz)!

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 02:45 PM

Long live Michael ....

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 02:46 PM

One of my relatives is from German nobility: Elizabeth Von Claus from whom I take my name.

Oh, by the way, I am a descendant of Adam and Eve ... and I can prove it. :D

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 02:49 PM

One of my relatives is from German nobility: Elizabeth Von Claus from whom I take my name.

Oh, by the way, I am a descendant of Adam and Eve ... and I can prove it.

Wow, you and I have much in common. The Family Goltz is one of the oldest and most noble of the Bavarian German families and yes, I too am a decendant of Adam and Eve. :)

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 02:50 PM

One of my German ancestors were Adam and Eve Walter.

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 02:52 PM

One of my German ancestors were Adam and Eve Walter.

YOU GOOF! I took it to mean you were a direct descendant of Adam and Eve von Eden! :D

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 02:54 PM

YOU GOOF! I took it to mean you were a direct descendant of Adam and Eve von Eden! :D

It was really funny when they sent out their first Christmas Cards.

Love,

Adam and Eve

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 02:59 PM

edited to remind all of my Germanophile friends that not only is His Holiness a German, but he is BAVARIAN!I'm not familiar with what a Bavarian is... what is it?

Highway
__________________
"The Witness" Pope John Paul II Tribute http://www.christianforums.com/t1494483-a-tribute-to-the-great-pope-john-paul-ii.html

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 03:00 PM

Is the new Pope Benedict XVI also a Bavarian?

Matthew777

19th April 2005, 03:05 PM

The new Pope is awesome. This guy is truly conservative on church tradition. I hope he cracks down on the charismatic movement.

Philip

19th April 2005, 03:11 PM

[color=Green]I'm not familiar with what a Bavarian is... what is it?

A Bavarian is a person from Bavaria, a region in southern Germany.

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 03:22 PM

Ratzinger was born in Bavaria of an anti-Nazi policeman.

He rode in a milk truck.

Rilian

19th April 2005, 03:29 PM

So, you agree, there is no official ruling that these prophecies are in fact a forgery. Thanks.

I actually said “I don’t know”, which means just that - I don’t know. I also think it doesn’t really matter what the official or lack of official stance is, it’s the stance of a church I’m not a member of. That said, I just looked on Odox.net and the people giving the evidence for the lack of authenticity are Catholics.

This isn’t about pseudonymous literature either, that’s a non sequitur. They are end time prophecies from a source outside the church, a source with documentary evidence that is suspicious. I would give them no credence, just as I dismiss the end time prophesying of Protestant Dispensationalists.

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 03:35 PM

Fox news said that Ratzinger was drafted into the Nazi Army but that he deserted.
The Vatican site is silent about the war years, but his dad was anti-Nazi according to Fox news.

Vatican website cited (http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_ratzinger_j_en.html)

Julio

19th April 2005, 03:35 PM

Congratulations to all those of the Roman-Latin confession on the election of their new visible head.

I met Pope Benedict once in the summer of 1993, being a 15-year-old Augustinian minor seminarian, when he visited the Order's Curia Generalizia on the corner of the Via della Conciliazione and the Via Paolo VI. I kissed his ring.

The new Pope is a prominent dogmatic theologian, and I hope that, finally, oneness of faith will be front and center in the Roman Catholic faith community, which has been reaping the fruits of radical theological individualism for far too long.

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 03:36 PM

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 03:38 PM

I actually said “I don’t know”, which means just that - I don’t know. .

Let's drop this petty argument, Rilian. And read you first post. You strongly implied that it was a forgery.

Let's celebrate the new Pope who hopefully will bring a period of peace to the western world.

Julio

19th April 2005, 03:38 PM

Bavaria [....] is also a state of being! :)

Ha ha! Ain't that the truth! :D

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 03:41 PM

Ha ha! Ain't that the truth! :D

Where the best beer is made ...

and the best farms!

Rilian

19th April 2005, 03:42 PM

Let's drop this petty argument, Rilian. And read you first post. You strongly implied that it was a forgery.

Happily, but just to clarify I believe it is a forgery. What I don't know is what the official Roman Catholic stance is.

Julio

19th April 2005, 03:42 PM

Let's drop this petty argument, Rilian. And read you first post. You strongly implied that it was a forgery.

*yawn*
The whole thing (both the supposed prophecies and arguing about them) is petty, I think.

Let's celebrate the new Pope who hopefully will bring a period of peace to the western world.

What in the world?

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 03:44 PM

Happily, but just to clarify I believe it is a forgery. What I don't know is what the official Roman Catholic stance is.

The Catholic Church doesn't proclaim dogmatically things of this matter, thank goodness.

Julio

19th April 2005, 03:44 PM

Where the best beer is made ...

and the best farms!

I must admit, even as a devoted Hollandphile, I have a soft spot for Bavarian beer. :D

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 03:47 PM

*yawn*

What in the world?

I am just praying that God will bless the world with real leaders.

We need real men of God.

Fox news said that Pope Benedict XVI in his Way of the Cross this year mentioned the many who will leave the Church. I think he honestly is preparing the world for the End Times when the faith of many will grow cold.

I honestly believe that his mind and heart are in the right place.

Pray with me for Benedict XVI that God will work through the new Pope to bring the world back to Christ. Pray for our Orthodox Bishops and Patriarchs that they may likewise lead the flock of Christ to repentance.

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 03:51 PM

Where the best beer is made ...

and the best farms!

Yes! Paulaner, Paulaner, ueber alles trinken Paulaner! Ok, can anyone guess my favorite German bier?

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 03:51 PM

Chronia Pola! to the new Head of our Sister church!!

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 03:53 PM

Chronia Pola! to the new Head of our Sister church!!

Entschuldigen sie mir bitte? Excuse me? The idea of a sister church is not an Orthodox idea.

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 03:56 PM

Well We awere one church at one time. I once heard a preist call it sister church

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 04:00 PM

Well We awere one church at one time. I once heard a preist call it sister church

Yes, at the death of Pope John Paul II, a Greek Orthodox priest referred to the Roman Catholics as our sister church.

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 04:01 PM

Well We awere one church at one time. I once heard a preist call it sister church

We were one church 1000 years ago, prior to the schism. The priest was in grave error to refer to the Roman Catholic Church as a sister Church to Orthodoxy. I am being seriously tempted to break my 40 day moratorium on pope bashing to show you why Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church are not sister churches. The Romans believe that way, but we Orthodox do not.

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 04:04 PM

MTI-Its almost over

I had an idea the preist was in error but a preist did say it.....

I know the deep rift between the two churches.

Julio

19th April 2005, 04:08 PM

I honestly believe that his mind and heart are in the right place.

Pray with me for Benedict XVI that God will work through the new Pope to bring the world back to Christ. Pray for our Orthodox Bishops and Patriarchs that they may likewise lead the flock of Christ to repentance.

That I fervently believe as well. I have long respected Pope Benedict's theological writings, and while I disagree with him in many things (inasmuch as, well, he's Catholic and I'm Orthodox), I hope that his papacy will be one of great internal emphasis on the Roman Catholic faith, which for many years now has given way to programs and politics.

Let us all pray, indeed, that all will be lead to repentance!

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 04:11 PM

That I fervently believe as well. I have long respected Pope Benedict's theological writings, and while I disagree with him in many things (inasmuch as, well, he's Catholic and I'm Orthodox), I hope that his papacy will be one of great internal emphasis on the Roman Catholic faith, which for many years now has given way to programs and politics.

Let us all pray, indeed, that all will be lead to repentance!

Amen.

Maximus

19th April 2005, 04:17 PM

We should all remember that conservative is a relative term and that traditionalist is hyperbole when applied to any supporter of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae.

Matrona

19th April 2005, 04:18 PM

Hopefully Pope Benedict XVI will continue the work of Pope John Paul II to unite the two Churches.

Do you all agree?

Highway

Of course.

Don't we all hope that the Roman Catholics will be restored to their former Apostolic glory and dignity by rejoining the one true Orthodox Christian faith?

Moros

19th April 2005, 04:21 PM

77 years old on his first day... hmm.

Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta

19th April 2005, 04:26 PM

According to my uncle Phil, the family's very own charismatic evangelist [insert nose picking smilie here], this pope is the Anti-Christ.:doh:

Theophorus

19th April 2005, 04:26 PM

I knew it would be Ratzinger since April 5th (http://www.christianforums.com/t1425609-who-will-be-the-next-pope.html&page=4).

:D

countrymouse33ad

19th April 2005, 04:29 PM

According to my uncle Phil, the family's very own charismatic evangelist [insert nose picking smilie here], this pope is the Anti-Christ.:doh:

I guarantee that until the moment John Paul II departed your uncle Phil thought he was the anti-Christ. There's been a l-o-o-o-n-n-g chain of mistaken "prophcies" about that.

Matrona

19th April 2005, 04:31 PM

Looks like the Vatican hasn't gotten the memo about the new pope yet. (http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm) :P It still says, "Vacancy of the 'Apostolic' See" at the top of the screen.

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 04:31 PM

the Antichrist? I doubt it.

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 04:32 PM

I dont see it

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 04:32 PM

Dear Matrona:

The Vatican site has updated their site with pictures of the new Pope greeting the crowds.

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

Rilian

19th April 2005, 04:34 PM

Here is an interesting quote from the book Principles of Catholic Theology (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898701333/104-7589992-0251111?v=glance) written by then Cardinal Ratzinger.

“Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today…. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millenium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millenium. Rode need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cesae to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millenium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legiimate in the form she has always had.”(pgs 198-199)

This was written in the 1980's.

MariaRegina

19th April 2005, 04:36 PM

Dear Rilian:

By 800 AD, the development of Papal powers was already leading to the schism.

Matrona

19th April 2005, 04:38 PM

According to my uncle Phil, the family's very own charismatic evangelist [insert nose picking smilie here], this pope is the Anti-Christ.:doh:

Ugh.

My dad despises the RCC, but he thought well of JPII because of all he did to bring down communism. When I said that the Pope deserved all the coverage, he even agreed with me. :clap:

Rilian

19th April 2005, 04:55 PM

By 800 AD, the development of Papal powers was already leading to the schism.

Yes it was.

I found the quote interesting because I think it essentially mirrors what was outlined in Ut unum sint. The point being that based on what he has said in the book, and judging by his close relationship with the former Pontiff, it's a reasonable guess to say he will have the same approach. I suppose you could see that either as a glass half full or half empty.

It's also interesting to note the previous Pope named Benedict (XV), was the founder of the Pontifical Oriental Institute which is geared specifically towards reuniting the East and West.

Theophorus

19th April 2005, 04:58 PM

Dear Rilian:

By 800 AD, the development of Papal powers was already leading to the schism.

I believe that the choice today reflects the desire of the vatican to consolidate its power base, as opposed to weakening it. They will strengthen the conservatives that remain in Europe, and elswhere, and continue to have Rome be the major policy maker of the Church. I would not be surprised to see them become aggresive with , and exert more pressure on some of their more liberal bishops.

I believe they also see this as the best way of dealing with the shortage of priests, for many reasons.

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 05:02 PM

Interesting, It now seems that Unity is becoming More and more elusive a prospect.

Rilian

19th April 2005, 05:07 PM

Interesting, It now seems that Unity is becoming More and more elusive a prospect.

Depending on your perspective, this can be a good or bad thing. Like I said, I pretty much expect Pope Benedict XVI to follow the same course as John Paul II in regards to the East. John Paul pretty much threw the door open to dialog with Ut unum sint, and he essentially got no response from the East on it.

Theophorus

19th April 2005, 05:09 PM

Interesting, It now seems that Unity is becoming More and more elusive a prospect.

Yes, many had been watching the former Pope, and the EP as barometers for this, but I think that is a mistake. The true state of East West relations will play out in Russia, and eastern Europe. There, the picture is not so rosy.

ukok

19th April 2005, 05:23 PM

So much for the saying "One who enters conclave as pope, leaves as a cardinal" because Ratzinger has been a favorite from the beginning.
I believe that the experession is in relation to one who enters the conclave thinking oneself suitable. :)

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 05:30 PM

Rilian

19th April 2005, 05:34 PM

Here are the thoughts (http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2005/04/viva_il_papa.html) of Fr. Patrick Reardon.

InnerPhyre

19th April 2005, 05:43 PM

Matrona

19th April 2005, 05:50 PM

He even said he was willing to sit down and reconsider doctrines that the East finds problematic....including papal infallibility. He didn't get much in the way of a response though.

The Church is not to be placated, or negotiated with.

If JPII was willing to do that, he didn't need help from us. It would have only required sitting down with his synod and figuring out if his church had gotten off-course, and if they determined that the answer was yes and that the Orthodox Church is really where it's at, they would have made the necessary reforms. Seeing this, the Orthodox Church would waste no time in inviting the Vatican and its flock to return.

Dominus Fidelis

19th April 2005, 05:54 PM

I think JPII definitely tried to promote understanding. He even said he was willing to sit down and reconsider doctrines that the East finds problematic....including papal infallibility. He didn't get much in the way of a response though.

Papal Infallibility can not be reconsidered, it is a Dogma, not a doctrine...thankfully. :crossrc:

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 05:58 PM

If that is the case then unity is all but impossible.

Oblio

19th April 2005, 06:00 PM

Papal Infallibility can not be reconsidered, it is a Dogma, not a doctrine...thankfully.

If that is truly the case, then the Catholic church will never be welcomed back into the fold. And thankfully so, for to do so would be to obliterate the faith of our Fathers.

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 06:03 PM

:amen: I would never relinquish my faith!

InnerPhyre

19th April 2005, 06:04 PM

The Church is not to be placated, or negotiated with.

If JPII was willing to do that, he didn't need help from us. It would have only required sitting down with his synod and figuring out if his church had gotten off-course, and if they determined that the answer was yes and that the Orthodox Church is really where it's at, they would have made the necessary reforms. Seeing this, the Orthodox Church would waste no time in inviting the Vatican and its flock to return.'

Matrona, you cannot really expect a billion Catholics to just make a big jump Eastward without dialogue happening first. If reconciliation were to happen, both side would have to be willing to actually sit down with each other and engage in dialogue so that we could both gain a better understanding of where the other side is coming from.

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 06:35 PM

I think an eigth Ecumenical council is coming........

Rilian

19th April 2005, 06:47 PM

'

Matrona, you cannot really expect a billion Catholics to just make a big jump Eastward without dialogue happening first. If reconciliation were to happen, both side would have to be willing to actually sit down with each other and engage in dialogue so that we could both gain a better understanding of where the other side is coming from.

I think the real problem is there are internal issues on both sides which need to be addressed first. Hopefully the Lord will guide us in what is right.

The election of Benedict XVI is a good thing for our Catholic brothers and sisters regardless. He was the best candidate, he's a good theologian and he will make a good Pope.

Plus he's going to annoy the Richard McBrien/Hans Kungian type people, which is just an added bonus.

ProCommunioneFacior

19th April 2005, 07:09 PM

Plus he's going to annoy the Richard McBrien/Hans Kungian type people, which is just an added bonus.

:cool:

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 07:11 PM

I sincerely hope this We can heal our differences and Be One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church once again. But if the Papacy keeep asserting Papal Infalability then Unity (IMHO) is a VERY fargone prospect. Lord Bless Benedict XVI!!!

OrthodoxServant86

19th April 2005, 07:21 PM

Many years to his holiness Benedict XVI!

-Justin

Matrona

19th April 2005, 07:56 PM

Let's talk about the smoke, eh?

When I got up this morning and turned on the news, I saw the plume of smoke rising from the chimney and I thought it was white! But the news commentators were saying "it's black smoke, the smoke is black" and I thought, maybe the light is hitting it wrong, and there was no tolling from the bells, so I thought, I guess the commentators are right and I'm just seeing things, it must be black smoke somehow. So I went on my merry way to class. When I came back, those same commentators were like, "they have a pope, we're waiting for him to come out!". I rolled my eyes. FoxNews is loony. They are soooo not my choice for future pope-coverage.

In the replays, things become clearer. In the close shots, it looks grayish black, but in the further shots it looks more white. The overcast sky doesn't help.

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 08:37 PM

The same happened to me I flipped on the TV while on lunch and HEC(my news station) said It was Black!!!

Alexis OCA

19th April 2005, 08:41 PM

Bavaria (http://www.free-definition.com/Bavaria.html) is not only the southern German State in between Baden Wurtemburg, Austria and the Czech republic, but it is also a state of being! :) A round of Paulaner Hefeweizen on me!

Congrats to Catholics for getting a pope. Even if he is Bavarian!

Some of my people are from Osterholz-Scharmbeck in Lower Saxony where they make real beer.;)

German Bock beer originated in the historic town of Einbeck, a small town of only 30,000 people near the old Saxon cities of Hanover and Brunswick, in northern Germany. This town almost certainly gave its second syllable to describe one of the great beer styles, bocks, and its traditional sub-styles (helles bock, maibock, doppelbock and eisbock). The beers that made Einbeck famous were first produced in the 14th and 15th centuries. Traditionally, these beers were very strong, because they were sent long distances, with fermentation continuing during transport. The most famous long-distance carrier of bock beers was Napoleon Bonaparte, who provided them to his armies across the continent.

World Class Examples of Bocks

Einbecker Maibock, Einbecker Brauhaus, Einbeck, Lower Saxony, Germany
This one's on me Michael!!!:wave:

Alexis OCA

19th April 2005, 08:43 PM

If that is truly the case, then the Catholic church will never be welcomed back into the fold. And thankfully so, for to do so would be to obliterate the faith of our Fathers.

I glad a senior mod said that. If I did I would be accused of being insensitive and therefore inhuman.:D

After all I wouldn't want someone throwing this quote from Elder Paisios in my face:

Those who wrong or wound sensitive people inwardly are not human

Thank you Oblio for always standing up for Orthodox Truth.

Padraig

19th April 2005, 08:49 PM

Papal Infallibility can not be reconsidered, it is a Dogma, not a doctrine...thankfully. :crossrc:

But it can be interpreted in such a way that it would mean something different than it has been taken to mean.

Padraig

Matrona

19th April 2005, 08:51 PM

I glad a senior mod said that. If I did I would be accused of being insensitive and therefore inhuman.:D

Oh, you're lucky. When I say something like that, I get flayed alive and called a bigot.

Those people have no damn clue what real bigotry looks like.

Xpycoctomos

19th April 2005, 08:54 PM

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 08:57 PM

Me too Xpycoctomos! I know what you mean!

Alexis OCA

19th April 2005, 09:08 PM

After John, Paul, John Paul and John Paul......Benedict is quite refreshing!

Konstantinos

19th April 2005, 09:10 PM

:D :D Indeed it is!

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 09:27 PM

The new Pope is awesome. This guy is truly conservative on church tradition. I hope he cracks down on the charismatic movement.Why? What do you have against the Charismatics?

Highway
__________________
"The Witness" Pope John Paul II Tribute http://www.christianforums.com/t1494483-a-tribute-to-the-great-pope-john-paul-ii.html

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 09:29 PM

You know what's wierd? When ever I heard Pope, I would expect John Paul after it. If I heard any other name, it was always in the context of history. SO I have to get used to hearing Pope Benedict and not automatically thinking "what time period was that in?" lolHaha, LOL... me too.
__________________
"The Witness" Pope John Paul II Tribute http://www.christianforums.com/t1494483-a-tribute-to-the-great-pope-john-paul-ii.html

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 09:40 PM

Of course.

Don't we all hope that the Roman Catholics will be restored to their former Apostolic glory and dignity by rejoining the one true Orthodox Christian faith?
The Church is not to be placated, or negotiated with.

If JPII was willing to do that, he didn't need help from us. It would have only required sitting down with his synod and figuring out if his church had gotten off-course, and if they determined that the answer was yes and that the Orthodox Church is really where it's at, they would have made the necessary reforms. Why do you say things like this? Do you realize how this looks?

Unity will never happen with this attitude.

Seeing this, the Orthodox Church would waste no time in inviting the Vatican and its flock to return. Of course the RCC would have to drop every doctrine they have ever believed and come under the authority of the east right?

Highway of Life

TexasCatholic

19th April 2005, 09:45 PM

Hopefully Pope Benedict XVI will continue the work of Pope John Paul II to unite the two Churches.

Do you all agree?

Well, I do, but there's some hostility from some EO's for RC's. I think this is exemplified in the Russian Church. I say that only as an observation, as I do pray for reunification of the Church. I hope that Pope Benedict XVI has this in mind, as it was the one unaccomplished goal of JPII. It will likely take much longer to do, but we must work at it. I think those who refuse to work at it may as well consider themselves to be going against Scripture. Those who believe that only the RC or only the EO is the "true Church" are both wrong in some ways (sorry, I won't debate here, just a simple 2-cents).

-Michael

Alexis OCA

19th April 2005, 09:53 PM

Why do you say things like this? Do you realize how this looks?

Unity will never happen with this attitude.

Highway of Life

So if we all just change our attitude, loving unity will blossom between the churches? Centuries of division and mistrust erased? WOW! I'm checking in for an attitude readjustment right now! How bout you Matrona???:D

(above levity not intended to derail thread or injure the highly sensitive).

Jay2004

19th April 2005, 09:58 PM

Yes I believe your riht that it will play out in eastern Europe. My opinion is that there can be no unity without understanding. The Catholic church has to try to understand us (orthodox christians) more. then maybe an agreement can be reached. Konstantinos

But Orthodox Christians should try to understand us too....

We were one church 1000 years ago, prior to the schism. The priest was in grave error to refer to the Roman Catholic Church as a sister Church to Orthodoxy. I am being seriously tempted to break my 40 day moratorium on pope bashing to show you why Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church are not sister churches. The Romans believe that way, but we Orthodox do not.

The RCC, OOC, EOC are in Schism, not split.
We are part of the same body, just different branches.
Depending on which Orthodox church, depends the Opinion of the RCC as a sister church or not... Take Lebanon for example....

One did not leave the other...... Both are valid ...
Just if we could see what unites us instead of divides us...

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 10:02 PM

[/color]Well, I do, but there's some hostility from some EO's for RC's. I think this is exemplified in the Russian Church. I say that only as an observation, as I do pray for reunification of the Church. I hope that Pope Benedict XVI has this in mind, as it was the one unaccomplished goal of JPII. It will likely take much longer to do, but we must work at it. I think those who refuse to work at it may as well consider themselves to be going against Scripture. Those who believe that only the RC or only the EO is the "true Church" are both wrong in some ways (sorry, I won't debate here, just a simple 2-cents).

-Michael
:amen:

Since Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) worked so closely with JPII, I believe he will continue this aspect of ministry to the East. And I think that many Catholics and Orthodox alike are praying for this... pray for those who pray agaist unity. :prayer:

unite

v 1: act in concert or unite in a common purpose or belief [syn: unify] [ant: divide] 2: become one; [syn: unify, merge] [ant: disunify]
3: have or possess in combination;
4: be or become joined or united or linked; [syn: connect, link, link up, join]
5: join or combine; [syn: unify, merge]

I believe unity will take the effor of both sides to want to see the broken church come back together... not one under another, but as a genuine unity. For it is love that will unite. And not hate, or selfishness. for that only leads to division from the Church and from God.

Highway

Orthosdoxa

19th April 2005, 10:07 PM

The Church is not broken. The Church is One, always has been, always will be. All who wish to embrace Her are welcome, but we do not believe that there are two equal sides that need to "come back together". That is the fundamental difference here between us. It is not a hatred of RC's, or elitism, or enjoying division, or anything like that. It is simply that we have the One Church, we always have, and we will not change Her or alter Her truths. All are welcome. But there is no "reunifying" that needs to happen.

LK

PS - I'm also wondering why non-Orthodox members are continuing to be allowed to debate here. The Orthodox position is clear, yet people keep trying to push us to say "Let's unite!" I value Holy Truth above unity with others who do not hold to these Truths. That is the Orthodox position. Please accept it and stop trying to downplay our differences. I love my Catholic friends, and I love you enough to tell the Truth, and not just encourage us all to have a big happy Kum Bah Yah lovefest, when we are emphatically NOT the same Church. That would not be love, but cowardice.

Again - I'm not a mod, but please respect us enough to not debate these things in our forum.

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 10:08 PM

So if we all just change our attitude, loving unity will blossom between the churches? Centuries of division and mistrust erased? WOW! I'm checking in for an attitude readjustment right now! How bout you Matrona???:D

(above levity not intended to derail thread or injure the highly sensitive).
Hey! no sarcasm. IMO Attitude (Hate, selfishness, pride, lovelessness) is the only thing that keeps both of the Churches divided.

Love unites.

Anyways... we strayed a bit from the topic.

Back to the topic.

I was hearing on the news that the liberals are angry at the Pope selection, because Pope Benedict XVI is very traditional, I think that is a good thing. Don't you?

Highway

Matrona

19th April 2005, 10:16 PM

Why do you say things like this? Do you realize how this looks?

What, am I supposed to fall all over myself for 'reunion'? Roman Catholics left the Church, so they are the ones who have to come back home. The prodigal son came home... his father stood watch at the door, but didn't come looking for him.

Unity will never happen with this attitude.

Why not? Is it too much to ask for truth to be upheld?

Truth is objective. Its fullness belongs to the Orthodox Church alone. The Roman Catholic religion does not have the fullness of Truth and until they repent and rescind every last one of their errors to be considered Orthodox again.

Of course the RCC would have to drop every doctrine they have ever believed and come under the authority of the east right?

Highway of Life

If you want to be allowed to partake of the mysteries at a parish of the Church founded by Christ Himself, you must adhere absolutely to her teachings.

nikephoros_spatharios

19th April 2005, 10:18 PM

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 10:21 PM

But Orthodox Christians should try to understand us too....

The RCC, OOC, EOC are in Schism, not split.
We are part of the same body, just different branches.
Depending on which Orthodox church, depends the Opinion of the RCC as a sister church or not... Take Lebanon for example....

One did not leave the other...... Both are valid ...
Just if we could see what unites us instead of divides us...

That is the Roman Catholic view, not the Orthodox view.

countrymouse33ad

19th April 2005, 10:23 PM

But Orthodox Christians should try to understand us too

With trepidation...

Hi, Jay. I can agree that both sides should try to understand each other. However...

The RCC, OOC, EOC are in Schism, not split.
We are part of the same body, just different branches.
Depending on which Orthodox church, depends the Opinion of the RCC as a sister church or not... Take Lebanon for example....

One did not leave the other...... Both are valid ...
Just if we could see what unites us instead of divides us...

That is not the way we see it. The Orthodox Church sees herself as the Church that has preserved the Faith in its fullness and without innovations. The implications, otherwise, would be: a) Some other church has done this instead, meaning we would not be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that we confess we are, or b) No church has done this, and therefore the apostolic Faith in its completeness and purity has been lost to the world until the Resurrection.

Neither option is acceptable in our eyes. As we see it, if we do not preserve the apostolic Faith, no one else will.

If we are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that has preserved the Faith, then we have no reason to believe in a "branch theory" or "two lungs theory," etc. That does not mean that there are no Christians outside the visible Orthodox Church (which gets confusing, I know, but that's another discussion). We don't have the Holy Spirit in a corral. We have brothers and sisters out there (people who truly have faith in Christ), but not sister churches. (You could think of other churches as being, in a sense, like lifeboats, but then the Mother Ship never sank. But the people in the lifeboats today are not the ones who jumped out in the first place.)

I pray for restoration of what has been lost for these many centuries, for the return of all Christians to the fullness and purity of the apostolic Faith. That's not meant to be uppity or condescending.

I hope that's more helpful than confusing, and as inoffensive as possible.

Regards,
Dianne

miroku_kazaana

19th April 2005, 10:30 PM

st banadict the 16 th they dont want him to last too long

countrymouse33ad

19th April 2005, 10:32 PM

edit

Orthosdoxa

19th April 2005, 10:35 PM

Let me repeat myself from a prior post:

I'm also wondering why non-Orthodox members are continuing to be allowed to debate here. The Orthodox position is clear, yet people keep trying to push us to say "Let's unite!" I value Holy Truth above unity with others who do not hold to these Truths. That is the Orthodox position. Please accept it and stop trying to downplay our differences. I love my Catholic friends, and I love you enough to tell the Truth, and not just encourage us all to have a big happy Kum Bah Yah lovefest, when we are emphatically NOT the same Church. That would not be love, but cowardice.

Again - I'm not a mod, but please respect us enough to not debate these things in our forum.

Matrona

19th April 2005, 10:39 PM

Seems like every so often, some thread will be here in TAW and RC's from OBOB will come over and act ABSOLUTELY DUMBFOUNDED when they realize we don't have their ecclesiology, or that we don't believe in purgatory, or that we don't see the filioque as 'mere semantics'. And when we point out what we actually believe, we're branded as horribly unloving people who hate them.

Yes, this has to happen every three days, or TAW will explode.

Oh, and once a month, someone has to apply "Father, may they all be one" to the Great Schism, or TAW will become a sentient robotic killing machine and take out eighty million people in a maelstrom of death and destruction. YADDA, YADDA, YADDA!

countrymouse33ad

19th April 2005, 10:43 PM

edit

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 10:43 PM

To my Roman Catholic friends, if you continue to debate with us here on TAW which is against the rules, I will personally lift my self imposed moratorium on saying bad things about the Papacy for 40 days after the death of John Paul 2. We Orthodox are not Eastern Catholics with a different liturgy and smells and bells. We differ from you greatly and it is about time you show us the respect we deserve! I may love Pope Benedict XVI as a person, and think the world of his conservative stand on issues, but I am Orthodox and in my view he is heterodox.

xenia

19th April 2005, 11:03 PM

/MOD HAT

I deleted several argumentative posts from non TAW-members. I may delete a few more.

To those of you who are not Eastern Orthodox: You are welcome to visit us in TAW and you are welcome to make fellowship-type posts and you may ask us questions. We will answer them, from the Orthodox point of view, which we believe is the true point of view. Do not argue with us. If you do, we will delete your posts as soon as they are brought to our attention and you may be warned.

/MOD HAT OFF

xenia

19th April 2005, 11:06 PM

Hey! no sarcasm. IMO Attitude (Hate, selfishness, pride, lovelessness) is the only thing that keeps both of the Churches divided.

Nope. Serious doctrinal differences separate us. Sweeping them under the rug with a group hug and a few rounds of Kum By Ya is not going to fix it.

Maximus

19th April 2005, 11:08 PM

Maximus

19th April 2005, 11:12 PM

After John, Paul, John Paul and John Paul......Benedict is quite refreshing!

I was kind of hoping for Ringo I.

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 11:16 PM

I cant edit my post. I'm trying to edit it.

Highway of Life

19th April 2005, 11:19 PM

Oh, never mind.

I was posting at the same time.

THANKS MODS!!!

Tried to edit... then it was gone. *whew*

Okay, I will leave you brothers and sisters in peace.

Thanks for the wonderful discussions!

Highway

Matrona

19th April 2005, 11:20 PM

I was kind of hoping for Ringo I.

:D

Wonder what his Latin name would have been?

Philip

19th April 2005, 11:23 PM

I was kind of hoping for Ringo I.

My Catholic friend (sounds like the beginning of a Chick tract, doesn't it) was pulling for Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, but hoping he'd take the name George Ringo.

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 11:25 PM

I was kind of hoping for Ringo I.

That would mean the next pope would definitely need to take the name George.

Maximus

19th April 2005, 11:32 PM

:D

Wonder what his Latin name would have been?

Well ring in Latin is orbis, right?

So maybe he would be called Roy Orbison. :cool:

Pretty woman, walking down the street
Pretty woman, the kind I like to meet
Pretty woman
I don't believe you, you're not the truth
No one could look as good as you
Mercy

Pretty woman, won't you pardon me
Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see
Pretty woman
That you look lovely as can be
Are you lonely just like me
Wow

Pretty woman, stop a while
Pretty woman, talk a while
Pretty woman, gave your smile to me
Pretty woman, yeah yeah yeah
Pretty woman, look my way
Pretty woman, say you'll stay with me
'Cause I need you, I'll trear you right
Come with me baby, be mine tonight

Pretty woman, don't walk on by
Pretty woman, make me cry
Pretty woman, don't walk away, hey...okay
If that's the way it must be, okay
I guess I'll go on home, it's late
There'll be tomorrow nigh, but wait
What do I see
Is she walking back to me
Yeah, she's walking back to me
Oh, oh, Pretty woman

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 11:37 PM

Yeah, I can just see it now. A pope dressed in liturgical robes, with long side burns, wayfarers and a guitar singing Pretty Woman!

Well ring in Latin is orbis, right?

So maybe he would be called Roy Orbison. :cool:

Pretty woman, walking down the street
Pretty woman, the kind I like to meet
Pretty woman
I don't believe you, you're not the truth
No one could look as good as you
Mercy

Pretty woman, won't you pardon me
Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see
Pretty woman
That you look lovely as can be
Are you lonely just like me
Wow

Pretty woman, stop a while
Pretty woman, talk a while
Pretty woman, gave your smile to me
Pretty woman, yeah yeah yeah
Pretty woman, look my way
Pretty woman, say you'll stay with me
'Cause I need you, I'll trear you right
Come with me baby, be mine tonight

Pretty woman, don't walk on by
Pretty woman, make me cry
Pretty woman, don't walk away, hey...okay
If that's the way it must be, okay
I guess I'll go on home, it's late
There'll be tomorrow nigh, but wait
What do I see
Is she walking back to me
Yeah, she's walking back to me
Oh, oh, Pretty woman

Maximus

19th April 2005, 11:42 PM

He would probably commission some new Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with Elvis in Las Vegas:A Hunk A Hunk o' Burnin' Love.

Aw, come on and gimme a peanut butter 'n' 'nana samich.

TexasCatholic

19th April 2005, 11:43 PM

I always hear how we must learn about each other, and talk to each other, or try to understand each other. I don't think that's the real problem. Educated Latin and Orthodox theologians know the positions of the other side very well. The problem is that these positions are incompatible, and unless one or the other position changes them to make them compatible, then there will be no unity. Either the Pope is infallible, or he isn't. Either he has authority over the entire church or he doesn't. There is no way around these core issues, and no amount of good will or dialogue will be able to find a solution in which A and not A can both be true.

As I was pondering entering the Church, I had issues with the papacy. As such, I sought out answers. I found them in the exact place that I wanted to find them: in the original, primary-source materials from the early Church. Further, I was guided on this "tour" by another convert from protestantism -- Stephen K. Ray, in his book Upon This Rock. It's available on amazon.com for pretty cheap... be sure to read the footnotes: it's the meat of the text.

That being said, I find the EO's view on the RC (within these forums, in any case) to be bordering upon (if not standing square in the middle of) pomposity. Is it to be suggested by the EO that upon the split (and it is just plain inane to refer to it as anything else, except perhaps schism, which we take to mean split), the entire membership of the Roman Church then became excommunicated from Christ's Church as a whole? Were the factions within the Church at Corinth, to whom Paul addressed his epistle, no longer a part of the Church estabished by Christ? Paul admonished them for their divisions. Further, they were again admonished by Clement. Was one or more of the divisions acknowledged as valid or not valid? No, all were admonished. Both are wrong.

The split of the Western and Eastern Church is without any question whatsoever the saddest event in Christendom. I hope that some perspective can be had in the next decades that will alleviate the smugness that rears its head on both sides, and mend Christ's Church.... whatever that may mean. I agree that Truth is objective. I hope that we (the EO and the RC) at some point agree on it in every way.

-Michael

Matrona

19th April 2005, 11:44 PM

It's too bad he didn't decide to be Cletus II.

Matrona

19th April 2005, 11:47 PM

Michael the Iconographer

19th April 2005, 11:47 PM

IT is a shame that being that Ratzinger is a good German boy he didn't take a German name! Something like Wolfgang, Rhinehard, Friedrich, Herman, Otto, even Boniface would work!

Philip

19th April 2005, 11:50 PM

Wasn't one of the Leo's German?

Maximus

19th April 2005, 11:54 PM

Here is my choice.

Maximus

19th April 2005, 11:56 PM

And in Latin he gets even more sophisticated looking.

Michael the Iconographer

20th April 2005, 12:00 AM

Wasn't one of the Leo's German?

Yes but Leo is not a German name, not like Gerhard is!

TexasCatholic

20th April 2005, 12:01 AM

SouthCoast, if you like, we can suggest some things for you to read. One I can think of right off the bat, is The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. Also, Clark Carlton's The Truth is like being hit between the eyes with a clue-by-four on several matters, including the papacy.

Always willing to read, so long as it's not revisionist history or third-party views. Meaning, at least 1/3 of the text of the book should be primary-source material... that is, the actual (or translated into English, hopefully) words of those who originally recorded the facts. I am happy to read others conclusions, but only when I have the ability to also have access th the material from which their conclusions were derived. That's why I recommended that specific book, because it does this pretty concisely (in a single volume).

If these books meet my historical qualifications, I will look up the books you listed on amazon and add them to my long list of books I need to read :)

On a relatively unrelated question (not debate) for the EO's: What exactly should Roman Catholics in the West have done in order to remain in Christ's Church following the Great Schism?... Forget that it's 2005... let's go back a thousand years. There's no internet, phone, cars.... and the church in town is a Roman Catholic church... as is every church for 2,000 miles... now what? Stop attending church? Declare your local Catholic church heterodox?... Wait a few hundred years until a few Eastern Church missionaries finally come by?... Honest questions, as the view seems to be that the Western Church was heterodox from the Great Schism onward (perhaps you feel even earlier).... So what of these Christians? What of their immortal souls? What of their salvation? What of their sacraments?.... What is the Eastern view on this?... I've never understood (from these forums) how the Orthodox-as-the-only-true-Church view reconciles with the "leftover" majority of Christendom that became instantly heterodox.

-Michael

Michael the Iconographer

20th April 2005, 12:06 AM

I've never understood (from these forums) how the Orthodox-as-the-only-true-Church view reconciles with the "leftover" majority of Christendom that became instantly heterodox.

-Michael

You seem to forget that 4/5 of the Patriarchs remained Orthodox and only 1 of the Patriarchs went into schism and became heterodox. What should they have done? Their bishops should have stood up to Rome and if that meant spilling their blood, being imprisoned or defrocked, then so be it! Please, the Pope sold out to Charlemagne on the matter of the Filioque circa 800 AD after resisting the change for 200 years out of fear from the threat of force.

Philip

20th April 2005, 12:10 AM

What exactly should Roman Catholics in the West have done in order to remain in Christ's Church following the Great Schism?...
Forget that it's 2005... let's go back a thousand years. There's no internet, phone, cars.... and the church in town is a Roman Catholic church... as is every church for 2,000 miles... now what?

A good question for which I have no answer at the moment. I think it is similar to asking about the fate of the Native Americans of that same time.

So what of these Christians? What of their immortal souls? What of their salvation?

That is up to God and His mercy.

What of their sacraments?.... What is the Eastern view on this?...

We do not accept them.

I've never understood (from these forums) how the Orthodox-as-the-only-true-Church view reconciles with the "leftover" majority of Christendom that became instantly heterodox.

I understand the question, but for the most part, we don't take a position on it. We leave it to God.

Michael the Iconographer

20th April 2005, 12:21 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153862,00.html

The last pope from a German-speaking land was Victor II, bishop of Eichstatt, who reigned from 1055 to 1057.

Matrona

20th April 2005, 12:28 AM

Always willing to read, so long as it's not revisionist history or third-party views. Meaning, at least 1/3 of the text of the book should be primary-source material... that is, the actual (or translated into English, hopefully) words of those who originally recorded the facts. I am happy to read others conclusions, but only when I have the ability to also have access th the material from which their conclusions were derived. That's why I recommended that specific book, because it does this pretty concisely (in a single volume).

In that case, the first book is probably your best bet. Clark Carlton is not big on primary source material, but if you are looking for an easy read to see if the subject piques your interest, he is the guy to go to.

Free online resources include the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (http://www.goarch.org) website and the Orthodox Church In America (http://www.oca.org). Both include articles detailing our view of the papacy that I hope you will find interesting.

On a relatively unrelated question (not debate) for the EO's: What exactly should Roman Catholics in the West have done in order to remain in Christ's Church following the Great Schism?... Forget that it's 2005... let's go back a thousand years. There's no internet, phone, cars.... and the church in town is a Roman Catholic church... as is every church for 2,000 miles... now what? Stop attending church? Declare your local Catholic church heterodox?... Wait a few hundred years until a few Eastern Church missionaries finally come by?... Honest questions, as the view seems to be that the Western Church was heterodox from the Great Schism onward (perhaps you feel even earlier).... So what of these Christians? What of their immortal souls? What of their salvation? What of their sacraments?.... What is the Eastern view on this?... I've never understood (from these forums) how the Orthodox-as-the-only-true-Church view reconciles with the "leftover" majority of Christendom that became instantly heterodox.

-Michael

What you have to realize is that the Great Schism didn't occur overnight, like suddenly someone turned off a lightswitch and apostolic succession evaporated in the west. It happened very slowly, from the 500's when the council of Toledo approved the Filioque, to 1204, when the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and torked us off but good. 1054 is a good date to settle on for history textbooks.

Philip has responded well to this so I don't feel the need to add anything, except to say that for the most part we do accept a Trinitarian baptism done outside the Orthodox Church, and we don't believe heterodox Christians are devoid of grace.

MariaRegina

20th April 2005, 12:29 AM

Always willing to read, so long as it's not revisionist history or third-party views. Meaning, at least 1/3 of the text of the book should be primary-source material... that is, the actual (or translated into English, hopefully) words of those who originally recorded the facts. I am happy to read others conclusions, but only when I have the ability to also have access th the material from which their conclusions were derived. That's why I recommended that specific book, because it does this pretty concisely (in a single volume).

If these books meet my historical qualifications, I will look up the books you listed on amazon and add them to my long list of books I need to read :)

On a relatively unrelated question (not debate) for the EO's: What exactly should Roman Catholics in the West have done in order to remain in Christ's Church following the Great Schism?... Forget that it's 2005... let's go back a thousand years. There's no internet, phone, cars.... and the church in town is a Roman Catholic church... as is every church for 2,000 miles... now what? Stop attending church? Declare your local Catholic church heterodox?... Wait a few hundred years until a few Eastern Church missionaries finally come by?... Honest questions, as the view seems to be that the Western Church was heterodox from the Great Schism onward (perhaps you feel even earlier).... So what of these Christians? What of their immortal souls? What of their salvation? What of their sacraments?.... What is the Eastern view on this?... I've never understood (from these forums) how the Orthodox-as-the-only-true-Church view reconciles with the "leftover" majority of Christendom that became instantly heterodox.

-Michael

Dear Michael:

You will probably enjoy the scholarly book written by His Grace Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) The Orthodox Church which is available through www.amazon.com. This bishop is from Britain and in the process of writing this book which is used in some colleges as a text book, he converted to Orthodoxy.

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

Rilian

20th April 2005, 12:42 AM

I've never understood (from these forums) how the Orthodox-as-the-only-true-Church view reconciles with the "leftover" majority of Christendom that became instantly heterodox.

Quite often I see Protestants posting similar sentiments in OBOB. They seem as bewildered to be told they are not part of the body of Christ, at least as you see it. There was a time when the CC was pretty clear about where salvation was to be found, though that has changed.

You have accused us, gently, of borderline pomposity. Perhaps this is true, and we (especially me) are not always the best stewards of our faith. You have been talking about a study of history, and I would suggest that is how this subject should be approached. Judge what caused the schism, who acted with pomposity, and what the lasting effects are. In the East, there was no Reformation, no Englightenment, no great internal reforming councils that followed the schism. We have not through internal or external forces felt the need to reasses our faith. The same things that we believed in 1054, we believe now. Although certainly we are not without culpability for the tragic sundering of Christendom, we still believe we have preserved the fullness of the faith held at that time without significant alteration. It is simply not possible that both sides were wrong.

I can only say the approach of the Western church to the East after the schism and up until the mid 20th century was not good. In the latter half of the 20th century the Western Church reassessed its approach to the East. What this doesn't wipe out is nearly ten centuries of bad feelings though, nor does it do away with the things we feel were unnecessarily added to the faith in the intervening period. I think Catholics feel frustration that they've thrown the doors open and we haven't come running. Perhaps this translates in to feelings that the Orthdox are obstinate, unreasonable or pompous. We don't see it that way though, we think the West has changed in ways that make it nearly impossible to be reintegrated in to the church as we know it. This is not a matter of pride, it is a matter of fidelity to the past and to the faith that has been handed down to us. His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, said in a speech the East and West have grown to be ontologically different. We have two different modes of existence. I think it is this sobering assessment that makes us all realize that dialog is going to produce little, it will be a true conversion on one side or the other. That is why we haven't come running.

Vasya Davidovich

20th April 2005, 02:37 AM

Right.

Well, it appears I missed the fun. And the not-so-fun.

In any case, I wish to congratulate my Roman Catholic friends on the election of their new pope. May you truly be blessed (benedictus) through the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI. And may he be a balm and a solace as you continue to grieve the beloved JPII. May your grief be light and of short duration, and your joy everlasting!

Oh, and in passing... I am particularly delighted to hear that it was Cardinal Ratzinger who was elevated to the papacy. Not so much because of his theological conversatism (which I do like), but because I won a beer for predicting the correct outcome.

So, in the spirit (lol) of the thing, I drink to you, and to the health of your pope.

Dominus Fidelis

20th April 2005, 04:17 AM

If you want to be allowed to partake of the mysteries at a parish of the Church founded by Christ Himself, you must adhere absolutely to her teachings

Agreed...I guess its just a matter of who is in charge after all.

Monica, child of God

20th April 2005, 06:14 AM

I'm also wondering why non-Orthodox members are continuing to be allowed to debate here. The Orthodox position is clear, yet people keep trying to push us to say "Let's unite!" I value Holy Truth above unity with others who do not hold to these Truths. That is the Orthodox position. Please accept it and stop trying to downplay our differences. I love my Catholic friends, and I love you enough to tell the Truth, and not just encourage us all to have a big happy Kum Bah Yah lovefest, when we are emphatically NOT the same Church. That would not be love, but cowardice.

Wait, the kum bah yah lovefest is cancelled...dang!

:)

Alexis OCA

20th April 2005, 06:17 AM

I going out on a limb here.....may I assume the moratorium on discussing the papacy has ended?^_^

Alexis OCA

20th April 2005, 06:19 AM

Wait, the kum bah yah lovefest is cancelled...dang!

:)

I grew up singing that infernal song! I'm getting ill on the memory of it...:sick:

Michael the Iconographer

20th April 2005, 08:02 AM

I going out on a limb here.....may I assume the moratorium on discussing the papacy has ended?^_^

Yes, I ended my moratorium on Papal discussion after the bombarding of TAW yesterday with Roman Catholics who wanted to do nothing more than pick fights with us. I have no need for this nonsense. If I wanted to deal with that I would go over to OBOB and I tend to stay out of there anymore. Oh well. It is about time the Roman Catholic Church starts to treat Orthodoxy with some respect and not just like we are Eastern Christians with a different liturgy, smells and bells and icons. Rant over.

vanshan

20th April 2005, 08:09 AM

Per the news yesterday, the period of mourning for JP II is over, so I guess it's open game on pointing out the evils of the papacy again.

Basil

Prawnik

20th April 2005, 08:12 AM

On the one hand, I am glad that the Roman Catholics selected Benedict XVI/Ratzinger, as he is not one to sell out to the modernists. If nothing else, he will hold the line on RC Tradition, which is what he was elected to do.

At the same time, I think he is a doubtful choice as far as those who hope for any East-West reunification is concerned. From what I can tell, Benedict XVI is rather unyielding and authoritarian in character - any "interchurch dialogue" will persumably mean "He talks - we listen, we agree, or we go home." No touchyness or feelyness involved. We repent on our knees and he decides whether or not he will absolve us.

This is not a bad thing, as under such circumstances no Orthodox Patriarch is likely to enter into any false union such as at Florence.

Oblio

20th April 2005, 10:04 AM

Cardinals — also clad in gold — solemnly chanted the "Kyrie Eleison" hymn, Greek for "Lord have mercy."

In a message read in Latin at the end of the service, the pontiff pledged to continue the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council (search) and to work to unify all Christians, as he outlined goals following an election that sent a signal the church was intent on sticking to tradition as it confronts 21st-century problems.

He said his "primary task" would be to work without fail to reunify all Christians and that sentiment alone was not enough.

"Concrete acts that enter souls and move consciences are needed," he said.

The message was clearly designed to show that Benedict was intent on following many of the groundbreaking paths charted by John Paul II (search), who had made reaching out to other religions and trying to heal the 1,000-year-old schism between Eastern and Western Christianity a hallmark of his pontificate.

From here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153995,00.html)

Rilian

20th April 2005, 10:10 AM

At the same time, I think he is a doubtful choice as far as those who hope for any East-West reunification is concerned. From what I can tell, Benedict XVI is rather unyielding and authoritarian in character - any "interchurch dialogue" will persumably mean "He talks - we listen, we agree, or we go home." No touchyness or feelyness involved. We repent on our knees and he decides whether or not he will absolve us.

Based on what I've read by him, I don't get that impression. I think he's very much in the mold of JP II.

Maximus

20th April 2005, 10:16 AM

It seems to me that the kind of unity sought by the Vatican is not something to which we could ever agree. To get an idea of what it is like, one has merely to look to the Eastern Catholics and to the Vatican dialogues with the Nestorians and Non-Chalcedonians.

The latter are especially informative. From what little I know of these dialogues, it seems the Vatican has offered to let the Nestorians (the Assyrian Church of the East) and the Non-Chalcedonians keep their liturgical traditions and their heretical "saints" and "fathers," as long as they will agree to a Christological statement broad enough to be interpreted to the satisfaction of all the parties involved and - this is the most important part - agree to submit to papal authority.

That last part seems to be all that really matters, since neither the Nestorians nor the Non-Chalcedonians - as I understand it - would be required to accept those ecumenical councils (3-21 for the Nestorians, 4-21 for the Non-Chalcedonians) which they presently find objectionable.

The standard of Vatican ecumenical efforts - like all ecumenical efforts - is not truth.

It's power.

Vasya Davidovich

20th April 2005, 10:18 AM

That's chilling, Maximus.

Matrona

20th April 2005, 10:36 AM

Vasya Davidovich

20th April 2005, 10:39 AM

When I was inquiring into the RC Church, the priest that was talking to me said that all I needed to believe in was papal infallibility. Everything else sprung from that.

And that if I couldn't believe that, nothing else mattered.

Alexis OCA

20th April 2005, 12:15 PM

Interesting quote fom Pope Benedict XVI in his Sistine Chapel Address to the Cardinals:

"You are Christ! You are Peter! It seems I am reliving this very Gospel scene; I, the Successor of Peter, repeat with trepidation the anxious words of the fisherman from Galilee and I listen again with intimate emotion to the reassuring promise of the divine Master. If the weight of the responsibility that now lies on my poor shoulders is enormous, the divine power on which I can count is surely immeasurable: 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church'. Electing me as the Bishop of Rome, the Lord wanted me as his Vicar, he wished me to be the 'rock' upon which everyone may rest with confidence. I ask him to make up for the poverty of my strength, that I may be a courageous and faithful pastor of His flock, always docile to the inspirations of His Spirit."

This does not give me too much hope for unity. Am I being too pessimistic? Maybe I am misunderstanding his meaning?

Oblio

20th April 2005, 12:22 PM

he wished me to be the 'rock' upon which everyone may rest with confidence.

Yeah, right :doh:

This does not give me too much hope for unity.

Me either, and if that is his attitude, lack of hope is a good thing.

Am I being too pessimistic?

No.

Maybe I am misunderstanding his meaning?

I don't think so.

Rilian

20th April 2005, 12:27 PM

This does not give me too much hope for unity. Am I being too pessimistic? Maybe I am misunderstanding his meaning?

It might depend on who you think he's talking to. Overall, I would say we should be no less or more pessimistic/optimistic than we were with John Paul II.

Matrona

20th April 2005, 12:30 PM

Yeah, right :doh:

Me either, and if that is his attitude, lack of hope is a good thing.

Lord forgive me, but he really sounds full of himself. :(

Christ is my rock... not this guy.

Julio

20th April 2005, 12:49 PM

Cardinals — also clad in gold — solemnly chanted the "Kyrie Eleison" hymn, Greek for "Lord have mercy."

The ancient Latin Church, and the Roman-Latin confession by extension, has never once sung "Domine, miserere", but has always sung "Kyrie, eleison", as the Liturgy was served in Greek in Rome itself up to the second century. No big ecumenical move there.

Christ is my rock... not this guy.

Amen. This is Matrona's deeply felt Orthodox intuition at work, which was exactingly articulated by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna in a recent public letter:

We, as Orthodox, define our Faith a principio and a priori in contradistinction to Papism (Roman Catholicism). Whereas the Papists believe that the Pope is the head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on Earth, we believe that Christ is the Head of the Church: the Divine Archetype of Man's restored Divinity, the Theanthropos, or Perfect God and Perfect Man, Who, according to an ancient formula, "became man that men might become gods," the latter partaking, by Grace, in the Divine. For us Orthodox, the idea of Papism is, first and foremost, an assault against our Christological beliefs; moreover, in the second place, it violates the very practice of our Faith, which gathers us as One People, the New Israel, within the Flock of our One Shepherd, Christ, the power of Whom is recapitulated in the charismatic gifts of our Bishops, who, in turn, as Icons of Christ, are one, equal, and of the same Grace. To do violence to the structure of the Mystical Body of Christ is to render the spiritual content and the ontological dimensions of our Church mundane, worldly, personal, and merely human.

vanshan

20th April 2005, 12:49 PM

Maybe it's just semantics? He doesn't literally mean he's our rock? That would be ludicrous, right?

Like many of us here, the RC was my first or second stop while looking for the historic Church, and certainly it upholds some principles that are honorable, but if any institution claims that it is the universal Church, but isn't, then it's in opposition to Christ. What good are honorable principles, or any other work, if Christ is not the foundation? All is in vain. I cannot see the RC church as neutral.

Basil

Matrona

20th April 2005, 12:58 PM

I've heard pro-RC apologetics that claim that the keys were handed to Peter, that the doorkeeper was as good as the master until his return. I wasn't aware Christ had left us. In fact I distinctly remember he said just the opposite.

"Lo, my doorkeeper is with you always..."

Rilian

20th April 2005, 01:00 PM

What good are honorable principles, or any other work, if Christ is not the foundation? All is in vain. I cannot see the RC church as neutral.

I guess I see this as more of a mixed bag. They've got some doctrine wrong, but the fact is they do things right as well. Who is talking about the culture of death, who is most visible in opposition to abortion, killing the crippled and helpless? Who do the rabid secularists hat? It's not the Orthodox Church.

Did you read what the new GOA archbishop of San Francisco said about gay marriage? We should all be hanging our heads in shame for that one.

Konstantinos

20th April 2005, 01:05 PM

No what did they say??

Matrona

20th April 2005, 01:09 PM

Did you read what the new GOA archbishop of San Francisco said about gay marriage? We should all be hanging our heads in shame for that one.

No, but considering what he said about Terri Schiavo's parents, I can guess.

My concern about gay marriage is not that it could be allowed by the civil authorities, but that one of the rotten fruits [ha, ha] of legalizing it could one day be, churches being forced to perform them or losing their tax exempt status, or (the way things are going) their right to exist.

Rilian

20th April 2005, 01:09 PM

Here's the whole interview (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/02/BAG2TC1OMD1.DTL) with Bishop Gerasimos Michaleas. Here's the quote in question.

Gerasimos also had an opinion about the debate raging over whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

"They should have the benefits and civil rights of the state, but this is not a sacramental union our church will ever sanctify,'' he said. "But civil marriage, in the spirit of American democracy, they have the right to ask for that.''

This type of thing is tearing at the fabric of our society, and here's a hierarch saying it's fine with him as long as it happens outside of the church.

His comments on the Schiavo case are real gems too.

We should be sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

vanshan

20th April 2005, 01:09 PM

Did you read what the new GOA archbishop of San Francisco said about gay marriage? We should all be hanging our heads in shame for that one.

EEeeek. No, I hadn't heard about that? I don't really know if I want details, but I hope any wrong has been admonished.

We can analyze the postitions and actions of the Roman church, but ultimately any group who sets itself up in oppostion to Christ is anti-Christ, right? We know God's mercy is at work throughout the world and surely we know His blessings fall on the just and unjust, but as an institution the Roman Catholic Church is contrary to Christ, which is not good.

Basil

Rilian

20th April 2005, 01:18 PM

I hope any wrong has been admonished.

Keep hoping.

We can analyze the postitions and actions of the Roman church, but ultimately any group who sets itself up in oppostion to Christ is anti-Christ, right? We know God's mercy is at work throughout the world and surely we know His blessings fall on the just and unjust, but as an institution the Roman Catholic Church is contrary to Christ, which is not good.

In my understanding we regard some groups as in error, but that does not necessarily put them in opposition to Christ. Historically for instance Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians have been received by confession only in many cases going by what Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovistky says. I think that is an ackowledgement of error, but still a fundamental attachment to the base of the church.

Maximus

20th April 2005, 01:35 PM

Did you read what the new GOA archbishop of San Francisco said about gay marriage? We should all be hanging our heads in shame for that one.

I have not heard or read about this.

Can you post a link or an article?

Since I currently attend a GOA church, this concerns me greatly.

I don't want to be associated with abomination and/or the sanctioning of it.

Konstantinos

20th April 2005, 01:41 PM

:blush: Excuse me what does GOA mean:Embarresed:

Highway of Life

20th April 2005, 01:43 PM

This does not give me too much hope for unity. Am I being too pessimistic? Maybe I am misunderstanding his meaning?He is talking about Catholics. Catholics are the sheep of his flock.

In the quote from the Gospel. Jesus calles Peter, and every successor, 'rock' on whom Jesus built his church. That is what Benedict XVI was talking about.

Highway

vanshan

20th April 2005, 01:43 PM

I just read the article and don't think it sounds that bad. It sounds like a bit of politicking, but he did clearly state that the Church would not bless such unions, just that from a worldly political fairness view gays have the right to ask for the same rights. It sounds too much like hedging, but he's in a tough position. God help him.

As far as his comments about Terri, he did affirm life belongs to God and that we shouldn't do too much to prolong it unaturally, which I interpret as other life support, not feeding tubes, or do anything to hasten its taking.

Basil

Highway of Life

20th April 2005, 01:45 PM

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/happybirthday.gif Happy birth-week Konstantinos!

Konstantinos

20th April 2005, 01:46 PM

Thank you Evreyone!! :D GOA means Greek orthodox America?????

Rilian

20th April 2005, 02:13 PM

Can you post a link or an article?

I did on the last page.

It sounds like a bit of politicking

Do we want our bishops to politic, or tell the truth to a world that needs to hear it? The "it's okay but the church won't bless it" just doesn't fly. The Catholic bishops are calling it what it is - evil.

Maximus

20th April 2005, 02:21 PM

I did on the last page.

Do we want our bishops to politic, or tell the truth to a world that needs to hear it? The "it's okay but the church won't bless it" just doesn't fly. The Catholic bishops are calling it what it is - evil.

Got it.

Disgusting.

His comments on the Schiavo case were just as bad if not worse.

Michaleas, who after his enthronement will take the name His Eminence Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco, said he was troubled by the recent media circus around Terry Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died Thursday, two weeks after the removal of her feeding tube.

"It became a political turf war. That's what frustrates me," he said. "Both her parents' and her husband's attitude was despicable. Both the husband and the parents had this posture that they know what is right. They totally politicized it. "Seen in a different light, this is about quality of life and about who life belongs to. Life is a gift from God. I would not condone taking the tube out just because you are suffering. Then I become God. But to prolong life for 300 years is not right either. It is not our life.''

I've been thinking that the GOA is too liberal for me.

Guess I was right.

This probably means I'll be making the long drive to the ROCOR parish starting this Sunday.

countrymouse33ad

20th April 2005, 02:23 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't sound to me as though the bishop approves of it. It sounds as though he believes that the Constitution gives the right in the context of U.S. human rights. Now, if it were certain that homosexual preference is not a choice, that would likely be true. However, there are plenty examples (one of which I can think of immediately) of people whose behavior switched from homosexual to heterosexual. So I don't agree with the bishop but I do see where he's coming from. Here, the Church does not determine civil law, and, in fact, has very little influence on it.

(And no, this does not mean that you could argue the same for abortion rights. Homosexual "marriage" involves two consenting adults. Abortion involves one human being taking away another's Constitutional right to live.)

Matrona

20th April 2005, 02:27 PM

Do we want our bishops to politic, or tell the truth to a world that needs to hear it? The "it's okay but the church won't bless it" just doesn't fly. The Catholic bishops are calling it what it is - evil.

They are, but no one here is advocating gay marriage. Whether or not it is allowed by the civil authorities is not nearly as relevant as whether or not they allow abortion.

The world will never love us Orthodox--if it does, we have erred gravely.

Xpycoctomos

20th April 2005, 02:30 PM

What, am I supposed to fall all over myself for 'reunion'? Roman Catholics left the Church, so they are the ones who have to come back home. The prodigal son came home... his father stood watch at the door, but didn't come looking for him.

True, but he did make a fool of himself (according to the customs of the son) by running to his son and kissing him. So, I think anytime the West makes some kind of move to come back (even if it's just a very small move) we should fall over ourselves to welcome such an attitude, even if this doesn't mean reunification, yet.

I agree though, I think it's obvious to anyone that until the VCC revokes Papal Infallibility and redefines Universal Jurisdiction, it is difficult to see how reconciliation could ever be possible. But we have to start somewhere, so yes, let's all fall over ourselves (East and West) for reunification. We can make fools of ourselves (ie, be humbled) while staying true to... well... truth. Falling over ourselves doesn't mean saying how we understand the filioque isn't important. It just means running to our neighbor (however undignified it may look) every time they make any sign of wanting to talk.

countrymouse33ad

20th April 2005, 02:44 PM

True, but he did make a fool of himself (according to the customs of the son) by running to his son and kissing him. So, I think anytime the West makes some kind of move to come back (even if it's just a very small move) we should fall over ourselves to welcome such an attitude, even if this doesn't mean reunification, yet.

I agree though, I think it's obvious to anyone that until the VCC revokes Papal Infallibility and redefines Universal Jurisdiction, it is difficult to see how reconciliation could ever be possible. But we have to start somewhere, so yes, let's all fall over ourselves (East and West) for reunification. We can make fools of ourselves (ie, be humbled) while staying true to... well... truth. Falling over ourselves doesn't mean saying how we understand the filioque isn't important. It just means running to our neighbor (however undignified it may look) every time they make any sign of wanting to talk.

I rep you, Chrysostomos. Well said.

vanshan

20th April 2005, 02:45 PM

Xpycoctomos

20th April 2005, 02:52 PM

Gerasimos also had an opinion about the debate raging over whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

"They should have the benefits and civil rights of the state, but this is not a sacramental union our church will ever sanctify,'' he said. "But civil marriage, in the spirit of American democracy, they have the right to ask for that.''

While I don't agree with that statement, I don't think it is heterodox to suggest that what the state will do, the state will do; what the Church will do is completely different question. The reason I don't agree with the Archbishop is better expressed by Matrona:

My concern about gay marriage is not that it could be allowed by the civil authorities, but that one of the rotten fruits [ha, ha] of legalizing it could one day be, churches being forced to perform them or losing their tax exempt status, or (the way things are going) their right to exist.

I don't want to see this become legalized... but from a secular view point (which our government is, thank goodness... I certainly do not want to see something like Constantinople again) I think that such a request is logical and I say justified. We cannot hope fro the gov't to uphold the faith. if it does in some way... that's nice. If not... any surprise? Where do I lay my faith in the first place.. on Uncle Sam or Mother Church?

Rilian

20th April 2005, 03:02 PM

What the bishop should say is it is immoral and wrong and if the laws protect this sort of thing, the laws should be changed.

There are many things we don't allow two consenting adults to do, because as a society we say they are immoral.

The bishop shouldn't hide behind the law. He should defy it when it is wrong.

Alexis OCA

20th April 2005, 03:03 PM

Congrats to Catholics for getting a pope. Even if he is Bavarian!

Some of my people are from Osterholz-Scharmbeck in Lower Saxony where they make real beer.;)

German Bock beer originated in the historic town of Einbeck, a small town of only 30,000 people near the old Saxon cities of Hanover and Brunswick, in northern Germany. This town almost certainly gave its second syllable to describe one of the great beer styles, bocks, and its traditional sub-styles (helles bock, maibock, doppelbock and eisbock). The beers that made Einbeck famous were first produced in the 14th and 15th centuries. Traditionally, these beers were very strong, because they were sent long distances, with fermentation continuing during transport. The most famous long-distance carrier of bock beers was Napoleon Bonaparte, who provided them to his armies across the continent.

World Class Examples of Bocks

Einbecker Maibock, Einbecker Brauhaus, Einbeck, Lower Saxony, Germany
This one's on me Michael!!!:wave:

Michael,

I expected a pithy response to my post. Well? :D

Xpycoctomos

20th April 2005, 03:04 PM

We must be innocent as lambs, yet as wise as serpents. The Catholic Church historically has done many under-handed, scandalous things to further its agenda and increase its power. We must use discernment and pray our leaders will protect Christ's flock from the dangers of the enemy. We would go and seek that sheep whch is missing, but must beware of the wolves who would love to devour us.

Basil

If we believe we are the Church, then God will protect us. Let us trust the RCC in their intentions (shich are good) even if we don;'t agree with Her conclusions. I think they have earned that respect. Yes, there are questionable things that have happened in Russia... but that doesn't make them completely untrustworthy. We all know that the Orthodox Church has done shady stuff.

Or... we could just plug our ears and make SURE that the RCC never comes home. Well, we're doing a pretty good job of that today and if this is truly the Will of the Father than He must be VERY pleased with us.