Catholics?

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Hi!

Sorry to bother you. Hope you don't mind me asking, but I was wondering what your personal opinions were of the Catholic Church and of Catholics? Both those of Eastern Rites and those of the Latin Rite. I ask only because I am aware of a number of reports of extremely negative views of Catholicism from some members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I know that the media tend to report whatever is bad, and I don't state this as though I believe it. That is exactly why I ask-because I seriously doubt the ability of the popular media to provide me with the whole truth.

Thank you! :)

Your brother in Christ :groupray:

Robbie :wave:

[Xpycoctomos]

Evil... pure evil

[Rilian]

I believe Xpycoctomos is kidding Robbie.

I think what's frustrating for Catholics is that there is no consensus view. You get both extremes and a fair amount in between. The different autonomous churches that make up the Orthodox Church can themselves vary. Internally, it can be something of a divisive issue.

[Alexis OCA]

Hi!

Sorry to bother you. Hope you don't mind me asking, but I was wondering what your personal opinions were of the Catholic Church and of Catholics?
Thank you! :)



Lets see...

Catholic Church.....gave me a solid spiritual foundation...but I outgrew it.They do put on great show for papal funerals and elections though. Their pro-life stance is admirable I admit.

Catholics.....that's a tough one....wife's a Catholic, kids are Catholics......ya know, come to think of it, I don't like them at all!:P

[Padraig]

Hi!

Sorry to bother you. Hope you don't mind me asking, but I was wondering what your personal opinions were of the Catholic Church and of Catholics? Both those of Eastern Rites and those of the Latin Rite. I ask only because I am aware of a number of reports of extremely negative views of Catholicism from some members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I know that the media tend to report whatever is bad, and I don't state this as though I believe it. That is exactly why I ask-because I seriously doubt the ability of the popular media to provide me with the whole truth.

Thank you! :)

Your brother in Christ :groupray:

Robbie :wave:

Robbie,
While there are those that would disparage Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, because they are "heterodox," I think most would say that we don't have a negative view of Catholics. How could we? To have a negative view of someone because they're Catholic betrays the call of Christ. For me, I can say there are many Catholics that I find will be standing before the throne of God before me. While there may be some doctrinal issues which separate us, that doesn't mean that we cannot see Christ in every brother or sister. May you be blessed, and may the new Holy Father guide your church aright.

Padraig

[Xpycoctomos]

In case someone didn't catch on.. I was just kidding in my last post.

What you've heard in the Media is probably in reference to the strained relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. A major problem over in the East in Catholic poselytism (Catholics trying to convert orthodox). The Eastern Catholic Church look the same as the Orthodox Churches and there is strong evidence (from Moscow to smaller cities) of active efforts to convert Orthodox to be under the Pope. I personally do not believe that the Vatican in directly behind this, and I don't think that Patriarch Alexy (of the Russian Orthodox Church) believes the Vatican is actively involved in this either, but rather that this effort is on more of a local/regional level. What he (and many Orthodox) are NOT happy about in regards to the Vatican, is that the Vatican has done little (if nothing) to outrightly condemn these actions. Rather they ignore or even deny what is painfully obvious to Orthodox in Russia. Because of this the Russian Patriarch has not allowed the Pope to visit Russia until 1) he were to take more decisive action against this and 2) another problem I heard he had was to come in under the title of "Head of the Church" (which, for us, screams Papal Authority... In an Orthodox Country!).

All of this is fact (although my details are shady) BUT what the media will not report on is that the Patriarch has also expressed respect and admiration for Pope John Paul II. Sent him a congratulatory letter to him on his 25th anniversary as Pope and had or at least allowed the Russian Archbishop of the Russian Church in Europe to go to the funeral. (this may seem odd that he himself didn't go... but it would be kind of a slap in the face to say "You can't come here, but I will go to your own funeral".). In the end what I am trying to say is that Patriarch Alexy and the Russian Church did not have person ill-will to Pope JPII and Im sure that goes the same for Pope Benedict. It is question of politics... and not just petty politics. The proselytism in Russia is a serious problem and must be dealt with and condemned by the Vatican actively and directly.

John

[vanshan]

The Orthodox view is that it was the Roman Catholic Church which departed from the Apostolic faith in the Schism, so while we share much history and even some theology, we see the Catholic Church as separated from the true Church. I think sometimes we may even suspect that the Catholic Church would love for the Orthodox Church to come under the yoke of the Papacy, which we see as a corruption of the position of the Bishop of Rome, who we would only recognize as "first among equals," not a universal authority over the Church.

Welcome to TAW.

Basil

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Thank you all very much! :)

Could anyone tell me exactly what the doctrinal differences are between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? I understand that there is seperation over the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son and the supremacy or not of the Bishop of Rome. Is there anything else?

In Christ,

Robbie :wave: :wave: :wave:

[Rilian]

Could anyone tell me exactly what the doctrinal differences are between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? I understand that there is seperation over the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son and the supremacy or not of the Bishop of Rome. Is there anything else?

The insertion of the Filioque in the creed certainly has been an issue. The nature of the exercise of the Papacy I would say is the chief difference though. You could probably make a list of specific doctrines, but the underlying issue is probably the approach to theology itself and how that differs.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I think sometimes we may even suspect that the Catholic Church would love for the Orthodox Church to come under the yoke of the Papacy, which we see as a corruption of the position of the Bishop of Rome, who would only recognized as "first among equals," not a universal authority over the Church.

As far as his relations to the Patriarchs of other Catholic Rites (being as HH is the Patriarch of the Latin Rite), I thought that Catholics also saw the pope as a "first among equals" as you suggest would be acceptable to you. I'm not trying to convince you or anything, just curious because I've heard this phrase used by Catholics also. I accept, though, that Catholics do still believe he has universal authority and I understand why you find this unacceptable.

If I may be honest, and I have to say I'm not trying to proselytize or anything, I would personally like to see our Churches united. I must admit that, for Catholics, this would have the require recognition of the Pope's supremacy. I hope I've not offended you, but I'm not saying this in order to convert you here nor am I saying I want for "my Church" to have authority over "your Church." Please don't think I'm out to destroy your Church, I'm not. I really would like to see unity, but I must admit in sincerity that for Catholics this would have to entail the acceptance of doctrine of the papacy. I hope you can understand what I'm saying, as I'm certain that, for you, re-unification would entail in an equally necessary way Catholic change on this doctrine.

I'm not going to try and debate this, nor am I trying to now. I'm just trying to explain what Catholics believe about this rather than persuade.

Welcome to TAW.

Thank you very much! :)

While there are those that would disparage Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, because they are "heterodox," I think most would say that we don't have a negative view of Catholics. How could we? To have a negative view of someone because they're Catholic betrays the call of Christ. For me, I can say there are many Catholics that I find will be standing before the throne of God before me. While there may be some doctrinal issues which separate us, that doesn't mean that we cannot see Christ in every brother or sister. May you be blessed, and may the new Holy Father guide your church aright.

Thank you. :)

Xpycoctomos...I see why this issue of proselytizing could cause a great deal of animosity.

I have to say that I have great respect and love for the Orthodox Church, from what I know. I really admire the continued refusal to change on issues of liturgical practice and doctrines. You clearly have great reverence for Apostolic Tradition...and I admire that very much!

God bless you all,

Your brother in Christ, Robbie :wave:

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You could probably make a list of specific doctrines, but the underlying issue is probably the approach to theology itself and how that differs.

Could I ask then what you would consider this difference to be exactly? Please don't think I'm trying to be difficult here!

In Christ :liturgy: ,

Robbie :wave:

[Rilian]

I must admit that, for Catholics, this would have the require recognition of the Pope's supremacy. I hope I've not offended you, but I'm not saying this in order to convert you here nor am I saying I want for "my Church" to have authority over "your Church." Please don't think I'm out to destroy your Church, I'm not. I really would like to see unity, but I must admit in sincerity that for Catholics this would have to entail the acceptance of doctrine of the papacy. I hope you can understand what I'm saying

I'm not offended, I think we understand the issue pretty well actually. I think that's why most Orthodox hierarchs have not come rushing to engage in dialogue, because we think it is highly unlikely that this would or even can be changed. It would have to be for us though, there's no question of that. Universal ordinary jurisdiction would have to go.

[StChristopherofPalestine]

Could I ask then what you would consider this difference to be exactly? Please don't think I'm trying to be difficult here!

I'm not Orthodox (yet), but Protopresbyter John Romanides talks in his book "An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics" about the West's focus on Augustine's thoughts that God could be understood through understaning man and through logic.

I'm sure there is more, but I'm still reading.

Peace,
-Chris

[Rilian]

Could I ask then what you would consider this difference to be exactly? Please don't think I'm trying to be difficult here!

Augustine and Scholasticism. I think most of the differences have their roots in one or both of those.

[Julio]

Augustine [....]

Allow me to groan in frustration.

Holy Father Augustine, pray to God for us!

[Rilian]

Julio, it is not St. Augustine himself really (though he did have some problematic ideas), perhaps I should have said the Augustianian tradition or what people made of him later. Just like saying "Scholasticism" is very broad and general.

Perhaps the main difference is in how doctrine is formulated. In general Catholicism sees this as a process of building in stages. The truth becomes more apparent as we build more to describe it. That's why I think Catholics are not troubled by things like Papal Supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, Mary as Co-Redemptrix and so on. They see these as natural outgrowths of an original deposit of faith.

To us, those are unecessary and divise additions to the truth as we felt was revealed. We don't believe the truth grows or develops, we believe it exists as a single eternal principle and we do the minimum necessary in order to define it.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I'm not offended, I think we understand the issue pretty well actually. I think that's why most Orthodox hierarchs have not come rushing to engage in dialogue, because we think it is highly unlikely that this would or even can be changed. It would have to be for us though, there's no question of that. Universal ordinary jurisdiction would have to go.

:( It really truly saddens me that our Churches cannot come to an agreement on this. I truly repsect, however, your lack of movement on this issue, although I disagree. I still understand how important it is to hold on to Tradition. I just hope that we can trust that all those who sincerely follow their consciences are one in Christ and that we can be united in the Kingdom of Heaven. :)

God bless you all!:thumbsup:

Sincerely in love and in Christ,

Your brother Robbie :wave:

[Robbie_James_Francis]

We don't believe the truth grows or develops, we believe it exists as a single eternal principle and we do the minimum necessary in order to define it.

I hope this is not considered debate on Orthodoxy as I'm not allowed to do that (and I respect that), but can I please clarify something? Certianly from what I know, we Catholics believe that our understanding of the Truth develops, though doesn't contradict. The Truth cannot change. I just wanted to clear that up in a spirit of mutual understanding.


I do respect what you are saying, and I hold in very high regard this attitude in the Orthodox Church.

Can I ask what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches about contraception, just out of curiosity?

Peace be with you all! :crossrc: :crosseo:

Robbie :groupray:

[Rilian]

:( It really truly saddens me that our Churches cannot come to an agreement on this. I truly repsect, however, your lack of movement on this issue, although I disagree.

All I can say is we feel we are where the church was before the schism, and that it is the place we all should be. I think we understand each others positions, and honestly I don't think we feel like there's a lot that can be done.

I still understand how important it is to hold on to Tradition. I just hope that we can trust that all those who sincerely follow their consciences are one in Christ and that we can be united in the Kingdom of Heaven.

I think I know what you're saying, but in truth we each must be obedient to the church and follow the dictates or our conscience second. What happens in heaven, I don't care to speculate on. I believe the Lord is merciful, and yet demands much of us, and I will leave it at that.

[Rilian]

Certianly from what I know, we Catholics believe that our understanding of the Truth develops, though doesn't contradict. The Truth cannot change. I just wanted to clear that up in a spirit of mutual understanding.

Yes, I understand that is the position of the Catholic Church. I think they have contradicted themselves, which is why I'm not a Catholic and I don't buy in to the idea of doctrinal development as it is expressed in Western theology.

Can I ask what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches about contraception, just out of curiosity?

Do you mean NFP or something else?

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Do you mean NFP or something else?

I think NFP stands for natural family planning, right? Sorry. I really ought to be more specific. I meant artificial contraception, like condoms.

I think they have contradicted themselves

Please, feel free to tell me where you think this has ocurred specifically, if you like. Obviously not here if you don't wish, as it is probably not the proper place for a debate.

Oh, I'd like to take this oppurtunity to thank the entire EO Church for the wonderful gifts It has enlightened the whole world with! So much of the theology and wisdom is just amazing and truly touching!

In love and in Christ,

Robbie

Blessed Virgin Mary, Theotokos, pray for us.
Saint Francis, pray for us.
Lord, have mercy on us.

[Rilian]

I think NFP stands for natural family planning, right? Sorry. I really ought to be more specific. I meant artificial contraception, like condoms.

Timing sexual intercourse to occur when your wife is not ovulating is contraception. The artificial/non-artificial distinction is at best a philosophical one.

Please, feel free to tell me where you think this has ocurred specifically, if you like. Obviously not here if you don't wish, as it is probably not the proper place for a debate.

Many things ushered in during the Vatican II era in my opinion flatly contradict earlier teaching. I think it is why there is so much confusion and dissenting in the Catholic Church now.

[Xpycoctomos]

But as to whaat the Orthodox stance is... if it is abortive in any way (like most BC Pills) it is wrong. Otherwise it is matter of conscience and between the couple and their priest/siritual father. There are, however, many Orthodox (and Orhtodox Fathers) who have taken a very Vatican-type POV on contraception.

[Xpycoctomos]

Timing sexual intercourse to occur when your wife is not ovulating is contraception. The artificial/non-artificial distinction is at best a philosophical one.

exactly

[Xpycoctomos]

I would link the Sstephanos Project website (a very Anti-contraception Orthodox movement except in regards to NFP for which it is very "Pro") but the site seems to be down, and for quite a while (months?). Anyone know what happened?

John

[Rilian]

But as to whaat the Orthodox stance is... if it is abortive in any way (like most BC Pills) it is wrong. Otherwise it is matter of conscience and between the couple and their priest/siritual father. There are, however, many Orthodox (and Orhtodox Fathers) who have taken a very Vatican-type POV on contraception.

Yes, I realized I didn't fully answer the question. This is treated as a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue. Your priest would examine your intentions for doing anything before giving you his blessing to do it. The intent more than the mechanism is what is important.

Anything destructive to life would not be accepted.

[Xpycoctomos]

Rilian makes a good point (as usual) in talking about the "intentions". Contraceptions (NFP, condoms, etc) should not be used when it is for reasons of hatred for children or just wanting to live a more comfortable life. This, however, kind of puts humanity in a catch 22 situation. If they despise children and just want a more comfortable life, would we want them to have children? But, of course, the response would be that the Church can then identify that problem and work with the couple to repent of their hatred and move on to accept God's will in their lives.

John

[Maximus]

A major difference between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church is the way we each view ecclesiastical authority.

When Latins speak of "the Church," what they usually have in mind is the Magisterium: the current Church hierarchy in communion with and under the Pope.

That Magisterium is supposed to exercise an infallible teaching office when speaking or writing on faith or morals.

In other words, it is impossible for the Magisterium to err in matters of faith or morals.

If it seems that the current Magisterium is contradicting a past Magisterium or teaching something antithetical to the Apostolic Tradition, that cannot really be the case, because such a thing is simply not possible. Anyone who thinks the current Magisterium is in error and is contradicting past Magisteriums and past popes is simply mistaken, lacks understanding, should pray and study more, simply submit, etc.

Individual Christians should not oppose the Magisterium when it is exercising its infallible office.

Orthodox Christians hold no such doctrine.

We know that hierarchs - even popes - can err and have erred. In fact, there have been times when the vast majority of sitting hierarchs were heretical, as in the mid-4th century, when the Arians were ascendant and even had an Arian "anti-pope", Felix, on the throne of St. Peter.

There have been times when the true Church has been reduced to a pitiful remnant. Another such time may be just around the corner.

We Orthodox believe the Church is the whole people of God. It is that Church that is infallible. It is that Church that is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

We have no magisterial formulas and no neat rules of authority. Yes, we respect, honor, and obey our bishops, but only when they uphold the true faith.

It is the duty of every Orthodox Christian to know what the faith is, to defend it and pass it on intact to the next generation of believers.

St. Paul admonished the Galatians to reject apostles and even angels who came preaching a gospel different from the one they had originally received. Apparently he thought simple believers rational enough and wise enough to be able to tell the difference.


Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


This is not Protestant-style private interpretation or Sola Scriptura.


It is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church employing the people of God to defend the authentic Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I know I have posted something similar before. I just wanted to post it again because I think this is an important distinction between Latins and the Orthodox.

[Xpycoctomos]

Good post Maximus

[Robbie_James_Francis]

A major difference between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church is the way we each view ecclesiastical authority.

Sorry...can I just say that the Latin Rite is not the entire Church. There are non-latin but equally and fully Catholic Rites in full Communion with Rome. I know what you mean, it's just that it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. :sorry:

When Latins speak of "the Church," what they usually have in mind is the Magisterium: the current Church hierarchy in communion with and under the Pope.

Certainly, though I would say the "Church" definitely includes all of the laypeople also.

That Magisterium is supposed to exercise an infallible teaching office when speaking or writing on faith or morals.

In other words, it is impossible for the Magisterium to err in matters of faith or morals.

If it seems that the current Magisterium is contradicting a past Magisterium or teaching something antithetical to the Apostolic Tradition, that cannot really be the case, because such a thing is simply not possible. Anyone who thinks the current Magisterium is in error and is contradicting past Magisteriums and past popes is simply mistaken, lacks understanding, should pray and study more, simply submit, etc.

Individual Christians should not oppose the Magisterium when it is exercising its infallible office.

Certainly

Orthodox Christians hold no such doctrine.

Ah. I see that this is quite different.

We know that hierarchs - even popes - can err and have erred. In fact, there have been times when the vast majority of sitting hierarchs were heretical, as in the mid-4th century, when the Arians were ascendant and even had an Arian "anti-pope", Felix, on the throne of St. Peter.

I fully agree. Popes have held erreonus beliefs in the past. However, we believe that God prevented them from officially and definitively teaching these beliefs. Bishops and priests excercise no form of personal infallibility whatsoever. They must be in Communion as a whole to teach infallibly, either in their ordinary capacity or by Conciliar documents.

There have been times when the true Church has been reduced to a pitiful remnant. Another such time may be just around the corner.

Yes, these have been terrible times for the Church, where Satan has indeed reigned in the hearts of many. I fear that what you say about it's current danger may be true.

We Orthodox believe the Church is the whole people of God. It is that Church that is infallible. It is that Church that is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

I see.

We have no magisterial formulas and no neat rules of authority. Yes, we respect, honor, and obey our bishops, but only when they uphold the true faith.

It is the duty of every Orthodox Christian to know what the faith is, to defend it and pass it on intact to the next generation of believers.

That is very admirable.

Thank you all very much for informing me about Orthodoxy. :) :thumbsup:

A major problem over in the East in Catholic poselytism (Catholics trying to convert orthodox). The Eastern Catholic Church look the same as the Orthodox Churches and there is strong evidence (from Moscow to smaller cities) of active efforts to convert Orthodox to be under the Pope.

Can I ask if this involves any sort of deceit or underhanded tactics?

Thanks again! :)

In Christ,

Robbie :wave:

[Xpycoctomos]

Can I ask if this involves any sort of deceit or underhanded tactics?

Yeah. This is the problem. We consider purposefully targeting Orthodox to become catholic a problem and dishonest of the Church. It's one thing if this happens on a decidedly individual basis (like, you or some OBOBer had a dialogue with me and wished for muy conversion) but as a policy, or at least an action coming from the heirarchys (On Orthodox soil), this is a problem and it is first of all essential that the Vatican acknowledge this, apologize for this (even if they aren't behind it at all, which I don't believe they are) and openly condemn it. And second of all, the Catholic Churhc in the Slavic countries needs to do all it can to stop this and condemn this.

[Rilian]

I have seen and heard in person and in many Catholic periodicals, postings and so on a deep Russophobia. This is something that goes beyond the issue of proselytism.

We have reason to be wary.

[Maximus]

Sorry...can I just say that the Latin Rite is not the entire Church. There are non-latin but equally and fully Catholic Rites in full Communion with Rome. I know what you mean, it's just that it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. :sorry:

I am not unfamiliar with the Eastern Catholic churches. I used to attend one and liked it, too (confession time).

I refer to the RCC as "the Latin Church" mainly because I do not like to surrender to it the honorable name of Catholic.

Sorry if that offends anyone.

Certainly, though I would say the "Church" definitely includes all of the laypeople also.

Yes, and that is Latin doctrine. But, as a practical matter, when the average Latin refers to "the Church," nine times out of ten he is talking about the Magisterium.

I fully agree. Popes have held erreonus beliefs in the past. However, we believe that God prevented them from officially and definitively teaching these beliefs. Bishops and priests excercise no form of personal infallibility whatsoever. They must be in Communion as a whole to teach infallibly, either in their ordinary capacity or by Conciliar documents.

How could anyone living during those times tell that the current Pope was not teaching "officially and definitively"?

When the vast majority of the sitting hierarchs, together with their own pet pope, were preaching Arianism, how could the average Christian tell the true Magisterium from the false?

Would he not have to judge between them using his own understanding of the faith?

The average Christian of the mid-4th century would not have had the benefit of historical hindsight and analysis.

Yes, these have been terrible times for the Church, where Satan has indeed reigned in the hearts of many. I fear that what you say about it's current danger may be true.


I think we are nearing the time of the end. I am afraid that the current mania for ecumenism will usher in a great evil.

I know some will think I am like a Protestant fundamentalist for saying these things, but I am not the only Orthodox Christian who believes this. St. John Maximovitch, Fr. Seraphim Rose, and Dr. Alexander Kalomiros, among others, said the same thing.

[Xpycoctomos]

I know some will think I am like a Protestant fundamentalist for saying these things, but I am not the only Orthodox Christian who believes this. St. John Maximovitch, Fr. Seraphim Rose, and Dr. Alexander Kalomiros, among others, said the same thing.
I used to think you were Maximus and although I still think some of the things you say are bit harsh and even undeserved, it is obvious that you speak out of sincere conviction, true concern and certainly NOT out of ignorance.

John

[Rilian]

I know some will think I am like a Protestant fundamentalist for saying these things

Have you been hanging out at Rapture Ready again?

It's possible the end is nigh, it's also possible the icebergs all may melt and make it a moot point. I think we came to the brink in the 20th century, and if we could survive Communism, Nazism and the Turks there is some hope for the future.

I also think ecumenism is something of a side show. The real danger to me is the conlict between western secularism and Islam.

[Maximus]

Have you been hanging out at Rapture Ready again?

It's possible the end is nigh, it's also possible the icebergs all may melt and make it a moot point. I think we came to the brink in the 20th century, and if we could survive Communism, Nazism and the Turks there is some hope for the future.

I also think ecumenism is something of a side show. The real danger to me is the conlict between western secularism and Islam.

Ecumenism is just the religious expression of secularism: relativism in a clerical collar.

The ecumenists fancy a detente with the Muslims. In that they are much deceived. They think everyone is as gutless as they are, but they greatly misunderstand the Muslims.

Communism, Nazism, and the Turks were external dangers. Secular relativism and its step-child, ecumenism, are internal threats. Look at the moral malaise of the industrialized and post-industrial world. Even the commies had a sense of sexual decency (my wife was raised a Young Pioneer prude). The "free world" knows no such limitations on individual gratification.

I could be wrong, but I think we are on the threshhold of the Apocalypse.

[Highway of Life]

The real danger to me is the conlict between western secularism and Islam. Hello Brothers! :wave:

I'm just curious, what did you mean by a danger in the conflict?

Thanks!
Highway

[Vasya Davidovich]

Ecumenism is just the religious expression of secularism: relativism in a clerical collar.

The ecumenists fancy a detente with the Muslims. In that they are much deceived. They think everyone is as gutless as they are, but they greatly misunderstand the Muslims.

Communism, Nazism, and the Turks were external dangers. Secular relativism and its ******* child, ecumenism, are internal threats. Look at the moral malaise of the industrialized and post-industrial world. Even the commies had a sense of sexual decency (my wife was raised a Young Pioneer prude). The "free world" knows no such limitations on individual gratification.

I could be wrong, but I think we are on the threshhold of the Apocalypse."You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Maximus again."

:sigh:

[Kolya]

I could be wrong, but I think we are on the threshhold of the Apocalypse.

I don't shout it from the rooftops, but I think in the same vein. There are certain non christian websites I read to keep up to date with what is the current mindset, and I see a pattern emerging that is heading in one direction.

[Vasya Davidovich]

At the very least a Western apocalypse.

We certainly deserve it.

[Kolya]

At the very least a Western apocalypse.

We certainly deserve it.

You're on the money! and don't we just:crosseo:

[Rilian]

The ecumenists fancy a detente with the Muslims. In that they are much deceived. They think everyone is as gutless as they are, but they greatly misunderstand the Muslims.

I just don't see this the way you do. I think western secularism is every bit as ideologically motivated and intransigent as any religious dogma. It is not some kind of touchy, feely, let’s all get along, Michael row your boat ashore, massive group hug. It's hostile to all religioius belief systems. I think the people you are talking about are a tiny and ineffectual minority.

I'm just curious, what did you mean by a danger in the conflict?

That there will increasingly become two dominant world views - Western materialism and militant Islam. The greatest danger we face is the interaction of these two. I don’t put any stock in the ravings of Protestant end times prognosticators, although I do worry about they things they have done to materially exacerbate the conflict I’m talking about.

[Maximus]

I just don't see this the way you do. I think western secularism is every bit as ideologically motivated and intransigent as any religious dogma. It is not some kind of touchy, feely, let’s all get along, Michael row your boat ashore, massive group hug. It's hostile to all religioius belief systems. I think the people you are talking about are a tiny and ineffectual minority.

I don't disagree with that, but man will have his religion.

Actual atheists are a really tiny minority.

People want a religion about which everyone agrees. They want a religion in which everyone is free to believe what he or she wishes to believe, in which each one can borrow bits and pieces from whatever he or she finds appealing.

That's basically the kind of religion the Romans had when Christianity arrived on the scene.

The early Christians were not persecuted for believing in Jesus. They were persecuted for their attitude toward everyone else's religion and their refusal to worship the Emperor.

That there will increasingly become two dominant world views - Western materialism and militant Islam. The greatest danger we face is the interaction of these two. I don’t put any stock in the ravings of Protestant end times prognosticators, although I do worry about they things they have done to materially exacerbate the conflict I’m talking about.

Western secularism will produce its own secular religion. That's what ecumenism is about. As I said, it's relativism in a clerical collar. It will be all about "social justice" and individual freedom (at first, anyway).

What do "the ravings of Protestant end times prognosticators" have to do with what we are discussing?

I didn't make this stuff up. Plenty of Orthodox saints have said the same.

[Rilian]

What do "the ravings of Protestant end times prognosticators" have to do with what we are discussing?

It was in answer to Highway of Life's question. I don't take seriously the prophecy mongering of Dispensationalism, but I do take seriously the effects that belief system has on the geo-political dynamics in the Middle East.

[Highway of Life]

It was in answer to Highway of Life's question. I don't take seriously the prophecy mongering of Dispensationalism, but I do take seriously the effects that belief system has on the geo-political dynamics in the Middle East.
Thanks for the answer Rilian.

Highway