Moscow, Sep. 14, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II has repeated his insistence that a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) should only take place after adequate preparation-- and after the Vatican has complied with demands from the Moscow patriarchate to curb Catholic "proselytism" in the historically Orthodox countries of eastern Europe.

Speaking in Moscow, the Orthodox prelate charged that Catholic clergy and religious still maintain "an ultimate goal of proselytism among the Orthodox population" in Russia, the Interfax news service reports. Catholic officials have repeatedly denied such a goal.

Before setting up a meeting with the Pope, Patriarch Alexei said, "those difficulties we have faced since the 1990s should be overcome." Since the fall of the Communist regime, the Moscow patriarchate has complained about the activities of Catholic missionaries in the lands of the former Soviet Union.

Catholic Church leaders explain that missionary workers aim not to convert Orthodox believers, but to attract the vast majority of Russian people who are not currently active in any church. But the Moscow patriarchate takes the stand that the Russian people are Orthodox, even if they do not attend any church servives. On the basis of that position, Patriarch Alexei rejected what he saw as the Catholic belief "that Russia is a missionary field for the Roman Catholic Church."

I hate to break it to His Beatitude, but prior to the revolution, when Russian Orthodoxy was the state religion, the Roman Catholics had an established hierarchy - the Russian Orthodox Church didn't seem to have to much of problem with that then or they would of made the government shut them down. And he should also be reminded that the Russian Orthodox Church has parishes in Italy, in particular Rome, and I have no doubt the priests there have no problem converting Roman Catholics. In my opinion he should be more worried about protestant sects like the baptists and evangelicals then the Catholic Church.

To his credit though, he didn't mention anywhere the Ukrainian Catholic Church had no right to exist like he usually dose...

Oh, heres the interfax article:

Moscow, September 14, Interfax - Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II has reiterated that he does not rule out meeting Pope Benedict XVI in the future.

"I am often asked about meeting the Pope. I do not rule out that it might happen. But our meeting must be well prepared, and those difficulties we have faced since the 1990s should be overcome," the Patriarch said at a meeting with the Valday International Discussion Club in Moscow.

"The mission of Roman Catholic priests, monks and nuns in Russia had an ultimate goal of proselytism among the Orthodox population," Alexy II said.

We cannot agree with claims by some Roman Catholic officials "that Russia is a missionary field for the Roman Catholic Church," he said.

The Church must provide a moral assessment as to what is happening in the country and worldwide when it comes to economic issues and politics, "especially, when it comes to its people, the history of which was blessed by the Orthodox Church, matches its pastoral care and moral and spiritual upbringing," the patriarch said.

Before the revolution, the Church was almost a governmental body. After the revolution, the Church seceded from the government, "but the government interfered in the Church's life in the most overt manner," Alexy II recalled.

In the early 1990s, totally new relations were established between the government and the Church, "whereby the Church does not interfere into government's affairs, while the government - and I am saying it responsibly - does not interfere into the life of the Church," he said.

Boooooooooooooring. Get your business out of "traditional Catholic" countries like Mexico or pretty much anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere or western/central Europe. Austria would be a prime example.

How is the hypocrisy not evident to these people? Does anyone have a logical answer?

Alexis

He is your namesake!

Patriarch Alexei's position would only be hypocritical if he believed that the Catholic Church was part of the true Church. Obviously, if he believes that only those Churches with which he is in communion are a part of the one true Church, then he wouldn't believe that Catholics have a right to proselytize in Russia any more than Catholics believe that Pentecostals have a right to proselytize in Mexico.

Perhaps he's not hypocritical, just wrong.

Oh Balderdash!

He either just doesn't get it... or just doens't want to see.

Less than 700K Catholics against the state church that is full of priests, monks & seminarians, has history, state support, and the culture behind it.

You know if JP2 of blessed memory, had designs on a "uniate invasion" of Russia, it certainly could have been started.

From around the world it is easy to imagine 1000s of priests and religous mobilized and sent forth - a few dozen Jesuits here, a few dozen Franciscan there, toss in some Dominicans, some Divine Word missionaries, a cadre of Oratorians, a couple of Missionaries of the Poor, toss in some Opus Dei, add a few Miles Jesu members, grab a handful of Legionairies, relieve the over-flowing Benedictines of France of a few members, and relocate some Norbetines, a few extras from the FSSP, some diocesan priests, and a few busloads of newly ordained, rosy-cheeked 20somethings fresh out of the Ukrainian underground and before you know it, you have the makings of a unia and you could be doing land-office business. 4 Million baptists in Russia, you know... Heck, open up a university, and start opening Catholic schools, and they would have filled.

Hey, we all know that there are convents full of little old Fillipino and Italian nuns that can make rosaries faster than you can tie a shoe! Statues of OL of Fatima and scapulars enough for every man woman and child could have flooded the land. Priories, novitiates, seminaries, and other houses of formation could have been filled up. I truly believe more than a few Orthodox priests could have been entreated to enter a unia.

But we didn't. The Pope didn't direct that. Some of us might even be tempted to say placation was the order of the day. How many Ukrainian Catholics were exiled? How many parishes do they have in Russia?

Inconvienant fact #1: Catholics who were exiled into the depths of Russia are still Catholic, they live there now, they deserve priests and parishes. It isn't a Vatican conspiracy. We didn't plant them there as fifth-columnists. Remember who did.

Inconvienant fact #2: There is no "Orthodox gene" in Russian DNA. Holy Osmosis has not set in. The idea that the whole of Russia is Orthodox is blind hubris. Russia is now one of the main producers of child pornography in the world 6 out of 10 pregnancies in Russia end in abortion The black market is thriving, drugs & HIV infections are worse than ever... This is not a nation that has wholesale turned to Orthodoxy. I wish to God it were, that's for sure. But it isn't.

Inconvienant fact #3: Some Russians - I met two a decade ago in Chicago - have read their way into the Catholic Church. Having access to the world wide web and a command of (in this case Englisyh & German, some Polish) they read about the Catholic Church, and found they agreed with the claims made therein. Some Russians have come to accept the apologia for the Roman Church on their own. Others, not forgetting efforts by the KGB to infiltrate the ROC, do not want to belong to it. We didn't go looking for them, they came looking for us.

Inconvienant fact #4: Islam is gaining ground in a real and serious way in throughout the whole of the Russian Nation. Does the Patriarch prefer to stymie the growth of the Catholic church so he can deal with that? How does "Catholic proselitizing" compare to the Saudi money that is funding the growth of Islam in Russia and the ex-USSR?

From The Wikipedia article, Religion in Russia :

Using these numbers, one attempt to estimate numbers of practicing followers of different religions in Russia arrives at the following results: 3-15 million Russian Orthodox; 2.8 million Muslim; over 1.5 million Protestant (including at least 900 thousand Pentecostals); no more than 500 thousand Buddhists; 300 thousand followers of New religious movements; 60-200 thousand Roman Catholic; 50-80 thousand Old Believers.


Its time to give up the ghost and quit the saber rattling that "The Catholics are coming! The Catholics are Coming! Jesuit uniatizers (I made that one up) have been spotted on the horizon!"

It is old, it is tired, it is false, and his time and efforts to oppose Catholicism would definately be better spent trying to grow and teach his own faithful.

One wonders, what is he really afraid of and why?

In light of Patriarch Alexy's sad remarks, perhaps it would've been better to send in busloads of missionaries, since trying to be "ecumenical" is getting us nowhere with the Orthdox Church of Russia, apparently.

And he's NOT my namesake; my namesake is St. Alexis the Man of God. Both he and I have the honor of sharing that namesake.

Alexis

Balderdash!!!

I really try to avoid these postings as they interfere with things more spiritual, but honesty compels me to step in.

Mr Simple Sinner, I suggest that you take a walk around the streets of any Oh so Holy, supposedly Catholic (at least in name!) Western European city, before you start harping on Russia. Sunday mornings finds Moscow churches packed to overflowing. Can you say the same about Paris, Milan or Madrid. Attend to the beam in your own eye before you attend to the speck in your brothers.

Alexandr

Who said "Oh so holy?" Who?

Mr. Alexander,

No one is attending to any beams, specks, splinters or planks dear brother...

I am pointing out the felatious reasoning of the Patriarch. But this reasoning is convienant when it comes to stopping the discussion - so long as there are problems in the west we can't talk about what is going on there or where Catholics are? Until Milan is a citadel of saints, Catholics in Vladivostock deserve to be excoriated?

Dear Alexandr, I am the FIRST to admit the cultural sickness that plagues the west. You want to talk about it? count me in. I wrote about one of the worst attacks in the west here. I can call out the ills of the west. I am somewhat of an expert on them as for the past decade I was in line participating in them.

But let's turn what you said about Milan and Moscow around a little. Would it not be a blessing and spiritual boon to have Orthodox in Milan, Madrid and Paris decidedly NOT partaking in the waste that fill those cities and cultures? Would it NOT be (or in fact is it NOT) a good thing for the Eastern faithful in the west to be at prayer in those nations? So too for the Catholics of Russia.

But my thesis remains - we aren't invading, we aren't a threat. Russia has nothing to fear from less than a million Catholics being allowed to be what they are - Catholic.

Do you disagree with that?

Simple

Simmple Sinner, I realy do like your posts.


Every Catholic I know freely admits and acknowledges that Western Europe is pagan now, so I don't really know what you mean.. In Russia only 2% of the population fasted for Great Lent so they are not in great shape either.

Alexandr said:

Ummm, check out the capitals of tons of South American countries, like Peru or Ecuador or Paraguay. Check out Warsaw or Krakow. Check out Lisbon. Go to the Philippines.

Anyway, as Simple Sinner said, what's your point? Catholics don't deserve to be treated fairly in Russia until places like Paris are overflowing with saints?

What are the statistics for Church attendance in Russia? Numbers are oft bandied about, but I think it's safe to say it's really no higher than in pagan countries like France. Birth control, abortion, prostitution and the like are OUT OF CONTROL in Russia, and yet no one is saying that in France Russian Orthodox ought not have priests provided to them until every Russian attends Liturgy weekly. Give us a gigantic break, please.

Alexis

I wonder whether Patriarch Alexei believes that Catholics should convert to Orthodoxy?

Maybe he does, we would have to ask him. But it is not exactly a "zero sum game".

I mean it can't be presumed that any or every person who ends up in the Catholic Church or in another faith, would have become Orthodox if the Catholic Church were not an option.

Some folks who for cultural or ethnic or philisophical reasons might not join ANY church BUT the Catholic Church. If my French Canadian maternal grandparents were in a part of the world where there was no Catholic Church, for example, I think they would sit at home on Sunday morning and read from their old 1962 missal. (That is a practice my grandfather picked up in WW2 for sunday mornings when he could not get to the Catholic Chaplain's Mass or there was none available.)

I guess the question then becomes would it be better to have these people be secular (and perhaps then become decidedly anti-Christian in lifestyle, world view, morals etc.) or to allow them to be Catholics?

Does anyone think that if the Greek Orthodox Churches in Italy were shut down everyone would just become Catholic? Does anyone think that if the Ukrainian Catholics working in Greece did not have Catholic services, they would just join the local Greek Orthodox Church?

I went to college with a Bylorussian Orthodox girl who did not go to an Orthodox parish around here because it wasn't Bylorussian. I knew a Ukrainian Catholic who did not go to the Ukrainian Orthodox OR Ruthenian Catholic parish. She either went home (2 hours away) on Sundays, or just didn't go.

Not everyone who would join the Catholic Church in Russia would be "stolen from the Orthodox" or be "Orthodox otherwise." Some are "nothing" and would or will stay that way if Orthodoxy is their only option.

Further, here is a situation which presents itself not all that infrequently:

a group from the village of X (where the Greek-Catholics had no presence in living memory) turns up to meet with the nearest Greek-Catholic bishop, asking for a priest to organize a parish. The Bishop, a bit puzzled and not wanting trouble, explains that he is Greek-Catholic and surely the group wants to approach the Orthodox Bishop.

The group groans, and asks precisely which Orthodox Bishop the Greek-Catholic Bishop would suggest. Before he can answer, he discovers that at one recent time or another, the villagers have tried several of the conflicting Orthodox Bishops, to no useful effect.

The Greek-Catholic Bishop tries again, saying that surely these people are Orthodox, and perhaps they do not fully know what the Greek-Catholic Church is. The people respond that their great-grandparents were presumably Orthodox. They themselves want a priest whom they can trust to baptize them and their children, and to teach them what it means to be believing, practicing Christians. At that point, the Greek-Catholic Bishop, having been through this before, agrees to send a priest to meet with the village.

So what is the Bishop supposed to do - slam the door in the faces of these people?

Fr. Serge

Honestly Father, more and more I think the official answer would be:

"No they should not slam the door... because there should be no door... because they should not exist in the first place so this question should not arise."

This is all a political issue, with a sad veneer of religion as overlay. Both sides have dirty hands.

I disagree. The Catholics want to provide for their faithful both Roman and Greek. That means establishing parishes in regoins where there are Catholics. There is nothing dirty about that.

The current situation is the culmination of a process of political conflict with a religious component to it. Both sides have dirty hands as to the history that led up to all of this, and there remains a political dimension to the issue in both the Russian Federation and the former CIS.

The lack of respect for religious freedom in the Russian Federation is indeed deplorable.

No one - or at least not me - is citing a blameless party.

I am going to repeat that:

I am not saying that the faithful of either or any party has been free from doing wrong.

What I am saying is we don't deserve to be excortiated or accused of being the enemy or adversaary of Orthodoxy on Russian soil.

The people who seek the Catholic Faith in Russia may not have been from Orthodox families to begin with. They may not wish to be Orthodox. They may not have ever been from Christian families.

TO the point? I simply don't buy the idea that "The Catholics have invaded, the Catholics have invaded!" If that had been the goal, busloads of Ukrainian and Polish priests as well as 20-10 priests each from the top 20 largest religous orders/monastic communities, could have already been sent in as a "landing party". We haven't. All indications are, we are not going to.

If anything, in an effort to appease and keep relations strong, to give less excuse and honor demands made, we have left a whole lot of our faithful out in the cold. How many Russian Fed. citizens of (Greek Catholic) Ukrainian descent have their own priests and parishes?

This too shall pass. Alexei shall not be Patriarch forever and the Church can then get on with it.
I've always thought that since they accuse us of prosletyism maybe we should give them something to realy be concerned about.
Stephanos I

I'm afraid the motivating factor behind all this is fear: the ROs are afraid of the RCs, and vice-versa. What I would like to offer as a suggestion, even though I'm aware that such a program would encounter numberous obstacles, is for the Pope to send a team of missionaries to Russia who would be completely subject to Patriarch Alexei, and would work in a collaborative effort with RO missionaries. The program for evangelization would be worked out beforehand and strictly adhered to, so as to avoid any potentially devastating faux pas. Most importantly, the focus would be on getting people to attend RO churches and practice the RO faith.

Not only would this serve to counter suspicions, but it would also bring about a much-needed sense of mutual cooperation. (Naturally, some allowance will need to be made for the few who will want to become Catholic--and are theoretically considered to be Orthodox already, as are all Russian citizens.)


While I agree with this statement, I would like to remind everyone that before Vatican II, it was an acceptable opinion among Catholics that "error has no rights," and that the ideal situation for the Church was always to have the State enforce its discipline--even to the point of persecuting non-catholics and other heretics. Since the ROC regards itself as the One True Church, it should not be surprising that they hold such a position.

Let us remember that trust is something that has to be earned. I may consider myself comlpletely trustworthy, but if you do not, and I still want to gain your trust, I have to be willing to accept being treated as un-trustworthy until I have an opportunity to prove myself.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Surely the Russian Orthodox Church does not regard itself, exclusively, as the "one true Church" - she is, after all, in communion with most of the other Local Orthodox Churches.

The proposal for a group of Catholic missionaries under obedience to Patriarch Alexis II is well-intentioned, but could lead to more trouble.

Fr. Serge

Why would Catholics try to convert the unevangelized to Russian Orthodoxy? Just because they live in a predominantly Russian Orthodox country, or because their grandparents or great-grandparents were Russian Orthodox. How scandalous that would be.

Alexis

Fr. Serge,

Undoubtedly, it could lead to more trouble, but let's consider what the alternatives are:
a.) do nothing at all
b.) send missionaries to Russia without coordinating with the ROC
c.) have some kind of limited cooperative effort (which might actually be more of a problem, due to the RO mistrust of the RCs)

The point of having the missionaries subject to Patriarch Alexei is precisely to deal with the trust issue head on.

If anyone has something better to suggest, that's great. But re-hashing old arguments and whining about the way things are doesn't solve anything, either.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Which one of these 2 news items satisfies any of the options listed above?

I think that the resurgence of the UGCC is becoming the unmentioned purveyor of Catholic "proselytism" in ROC "canonical" jurisdiction(s)?

From our own Byzcath's archived latest news:

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

Orthodox Archbishop Grateful for Aid

2007-08-29

KAZAN, Russia, AUG. 28, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The organization Aid to the Church in Need extended its helping hand during difficult times when our seminary was still in a very pitiable condition, said Orthodox Archbishop Anastazy.

Archbishop Anastazy of Kazan and Tatarstan expressed his thanks to the international Catholic charity, Aid to the Church in Need, for the "selfless help" it has given to the region's Orthodox Church since the end of communism.

Kazan, the capital of the Tatarstan, is some 470 miles east of Moscow; 60% of its population is Muslim, and only 5% are Christians.

Today, thanks to the "invaluable help" of the organization, the seminary has become a "strong spiritual school" with an outstanding academic staff that is technically well equipped, the archbishop said.

Archbishop Anastazy mentioned another sign of Catholic-Orthodox cooperation. He spoke of the icon of Our Lady of Kazan, returned to the Russian Orthodox Church in August 2004, by Pope John Paul II. The icon ended up in the Vatican during the communist era.

Orthodox and Catholic Christians now flock to the image, Archbishop Anastazy said.

He believes the much-revered icon has even greater importance because the late Pope returned it. Indeed, many come to visit it expressly for this reason, the archbishop explained.

ZE07082804 - 2007-08-28

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

Alexy II Honors Vatican Representative

2007-09-05

MOSCOW, SEPT. 4, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II has recognized the Vatican's representative in Russia for his efforts in establishing good relations between the two Churches.

Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia has awarded Archbishop Antonio Mennini the Order of the Holy Prince Daniel of Moscow, third degree, according to Interfax news.

Archbishop Mennini is being awarded "in recognition of his efforts for establishing good relations between the Russian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches and on the occasion of his 60th birthday," the official site of the Moscow Patriarchate reported today.

Monsignor Mennini has served as the Vatican's representative in Russia since November 2002.

ZE07090404 - 2007-09-04

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

OR

d.) drop the term missionary and "missions" and simply identify Catholics who are in the RF, and send them priests. Who goes to them, goes to them.

The distrust of RC by the ROC is sad and unfortunate. But I struggle in my heart with not being left with a lot of love for their ilk and actions during the past 100 years either.

So I respectfully submit and maintain that even we should be allowed to be what we are where we are, with or without his blessing. Even if we grew to 2M or more in the RF, to claim or contend that those hypothetical faithful would have been ripped from the bosom of Orthodoxy is something I can't buy into. As it stands right now, a good deal of them would be ripped from the pit of modernism and disbelief.

If they wish our scholarly assistance or even some financial help in some matters for the ROC, so be it - we have already been doing just that. The idea of sending our priests to be under his direction just gives me a headache.

Russia in in problems with orthodoxy, just as we are in Montenegro.
I deeply respect Greece. Orthodoxy is a state religion, proselytism is forbiden, other faiths cannot do whatever they want. End of story. Everything is given in the Constitution.

Krsto,

Freedom of religion is something to be respected, not deplored.

Is this really the way people think in Montenegro?

Alexis

I suspect the ROs, for the most part, are struggling with their past as well, consciously or unconsciously. However, by opposing them we will be helping to persuade them of their own "rightness" and our "wrongness."


From a standpoint of justice, I agree 100%. However, I believe that as Christians we are called to more than justice, and that only by "going the extra mile" in charity can we actually heal the wounds of the past.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I am not against freedom of religion, but the majority faith should be respected. As far as I am concerned Orthodox Church in my country must have the special status. Roman catholics and Muslims should have the same rights as orthodox people, but all kinds of proselytism should be forbidden.

I appreciate your point of view, Krsto. It is blessedly free of the relativism that stands behind so many arguments to the contrary (except for the bit about "majority religion"). You would feel differently if the majority religion was Islam. Majority is no proof of truth. Islam is a false religion! Error has no rights, though all of us who make errors do.

I am speaking only about Orthodox countries.

I hoped you would say that! Is this because you believe that Orthodoxy alone is the true Church?

Again, I appreciate your refusal of relativism.

Krsto,

Would you then be willing to agree that outside of Orthodox countries, Eastern Orthodox Christians should be forbidden to evangelize and proselytize in any way?

Regards,
Robster

I think I must chime in with a few things.

A fundamental right of every person should be to follow the dictates of their own conscience as they see fit. So not only does error have rights that are enshrined in the Constitution of our country, we all indeed have the right to error (however one wants to judge what error is or isn't). Theocracy has proved itself time and time again to be a fundamentally flawed way to organize societies, and the enforcement of religious edicts and orthodoxies through the combination of church and state has over and over led to massive human tragedies.

Proselytism is in essence a meaningless word now, and is basically used as a blanket phrase to give a negative connotation to evangelism. There is no essential difference between proselytism and evangelism, which means if one opposes proselytism, you essentially stand in opposition to the Christian Gospel narratives which espouse seeking believers wherever they may be found. There is of course the nasty tendency in Orthodox counties to view religion as a matter of national or ethnic association, and to view the government as arbiters of religious authority. This in essence has the double effect of turning Christianity in to a tribal affiliation instead of a supra cultural body of believers, and subverting the church to the state. This will over the long term continue to lead to the slow descent of the Orthodox Church to the status of cultural artifact. Russia is actually a good case in point on both issues, i.e. the suppression of religious freedom and the yoking of religion to nation and race. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/UzzellProselytize.php

It's also worth noting that if the idea that a majority religion has the right to suppress the rights of other faiths to gain adherents, Catholics and Orthodox Christians in the United States today would have no right or ability to grow though anything but reproduction. The fact is Orthodox Christians can freely seek new adherents in the West, but make every attempt to close off the ability of other groups to do the same in their own countries. It's hypocrisy, and rather blatant to boot.

Yes I agree with you.

That which is enshrined in our Constitution is irrelelvant. Americanism is the enemy of Christianity.
Theocracy is flawed as opposed to what? Democracy? Democracy has yielded and continues to yield the worst tragedies of human history. How many murders and rapes take place in Mt. Athos and Vatican City? Some, surely, but here in America we rape and murder our children by the thousands every hour of every day. Again, it is only hypocrisy if they are acting contrary to their own professed beliefs. If they believe that only Orthodoxy has a right to evangelize, they are not being hypocritical (just wrong).

But not the right to convert to whatever religion one wishes in conscience to follow right? This is one of the fundamental rights of the human person. We might not like that they convert but we need to protect their freedom to do so and respect their decision also.
Stephanos I

How can the faithful "respect" apostasy? Are we to respect Judas's exercise of his freedom? Or Solomon's sacrifices to false gods? God certainly wasn't respectful of Solomon's way of "following his conscience." I don't mean to compare this to converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism or vise-versa (I'm not convinced that such is a "conversion" at all), but to "whatever religion one wishes."

We respect/tolerate apostasy & al. for the same reason why God endowed us with free wills, and did not destroy Adam when he ate from the tree, and does not smite us down when we sin. (and all this despite the fact that He knew everything we will do from before eternity).



Mods: if the quote veers too much on the side of copyright infringement, feel free to delete it. Come to think of it, this is definitely thread drift......

MarkosC,

Your references are fine the way you have credited them.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

I would take the term "Americanism" to be as pliable and meaningless in its connotations as the word proselytism.

Christendom is the real enemy of Christianity.

Respect in the sense of toleration I accept and practice. Sometimes, incidentally, God does smite us down when we sin. But judgement and vengence belong to Him alone.

AMM,

As you are Error's ally, I suppose I'll tolerate you. You, but not error. You've rights. Error does not.

You set yourself at odds with the Holy Church, the Bride of Christ and His Mystical Body. Suffer me to simply contradict, in faith and charity.

There is one true Church.
There are good reasons that women cannot be priests.
Christendom is good for Christianity.

God be with you.

I did not say respect their conversion but their person and their freedom.
Stephanos I

You are right.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Do you see?! Krsto is not a hypocrite as AMM accuses. The actions he proposes are in accord with his professed beliefs.

Yes, and by his reasoning then which you agree with, it is completely legitimate to trample on the rights of Catholics in Orthodox countries.

Makes sense to me.

Andrew, we think alike. Maybe we've been reading too much Kierkegaard?

Joe

How has he set himself against Holy Church?

Joe

Frankly, I believe that Christianity's (in whatever guise, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) alliance with the state and identification with culture and society has been the largest source of the corruption of the Church. When the Church sees itself as the official and formal foundation of society, she begins to set her mind on this world; on power, and on trying to create the kingdom of God on earth through coercion. This is the principle disadvantage that came with the legalization of Christianity by Constantine.

Joe

Ha, ha. No comment.

John,

During the "Age of Enlightenment" in the 18th Century, the Pope and all Catholic apologists were up in arms about this new idea of "democracy," which they essentially interpreted as "the inmates running the asylum." One of their great fears was that without the help of the state to enforce Church discipline, Christianity--specifically Roman Catholicism--could not survive.

With the advent of the United States, however, a "funny thing" began happening that went unnoticed by most of Europe until well into the 20th Century--the Catholic Church was doing very well as a minority religion. American Catholics saw themselves as counter-cultural and for the most part understood their being Catholic as something fundamentally spiritual.

Unfortunately, just as she was becoming a force to be reckoned with in the early 1950s, the Catholic Church in the United States began seeking after the same worldly recognition and honors that other (i.e. mainline Protestant) churches enjoyed. Vatican II then was used an "excuse" to accelerate this trend.

What I wish to point out here, though, is that there is nothing inherently wrong with either the United States Constitution or the philosophy behind it, which is really one of "shared" authority. The idea that "all authority flows down from the top" was considered axiomatic until the 17th Century (the Magna Carta notwithstanding). In the late 19th Century John Henry Newman came along and challenged this notion even as regards the Church, and while many questioned his orthodoxy, it was upheld by both Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

If your church claims to be the only true church, you can't deny the same right to me. For me, orthodoxy is the only true and complete expression of christian faith.

Read this article:

http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=24947&section=Cathcom

The things I really don't approve in this article are treatments of catholic clergy and catholic faithfull. They are not registered in Greece, they don't have salaries, health insurance etc. These things must change. But, it is completely normal that orthodoxy must be granted special position in Greece.

Having an established state church, support for restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom, and ethnicity as the defining element of religious affiliation all unfortunately do appear to be quite normal for the Orthodox world.

Christendom as the enemy of Christianity.

And if one looks at history, all these elements were present--to a greater or lesser extent--in pre-Christian, pagan nations. Israel was chosen as a nation right at the time when this idea of "each nation having its own god" was coming to the fore.

The Roman Empire was actually an exception, showing a great deal of religious tolerance. Even when the cult of "emperor worship" was introduced it was considered by most (not the Christians!) to be merely a formality--you could still practice whatever religion you wanted to 364 days a year.

When Constantine first gave legal status to the Christian Church, it caused problems almost immediately for Christians in the Persian Empire, since they were now part of a body that had official standing in a nation that was seen as a potential enemy. When they finally went into schism, it was arguably more for political than theological reasons.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Oh please, give me a break. Why don't you criticize, for example, the Constitution of Malta:

(1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.
(3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.

Or maybe the Constitution of Ireland.
Nationalism is something which is widespread not only among orthodox, but also among roman catholics. I can give you so many examples form Balkans. I am not a montenegrin nationalist. Orthodox faith is the most important thing in my life.

It has been correctly pointed out in this thread that those who err still have rights. I propose that one of those rights is protection from calumny. One error is not another error. Those who oppose Catholic "proselytism" or evangelism are wrong, as I have stated at least twice in this thread, but they are not hypocrites.

I do not agree with his reasoning, I appreciate his consistency. His reasoning is based on the belief that the Catholic Church is in error. I am a Catholic.

Rightly so.

Quite accurately.

This is the direct and inevitable consequence of the Catholic adoption of an American culture based on democratic (speaking of pagan) principles.

The philosophies behind the United States Constitution include Theism, Protestantism, and Pagan Democracy, and are fundamentally opposed to the true authority of the Church. An emperor who has not been crowned by the Church is no emperor at all.

Yes. An idea shared by, of all people, Jesus Christ: "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above" (John 19:11).

I recognize that I probably seem absurd to you. I can live with that. For more on Theocracy, visit Blog of the Dormition.

I don't know if the question is so much being against a State religion. It is about equal freedom and opportunity.
One may have a State religion but that does not give the State the right to oppress and suppress others, unless of course if they are doing something immoral and illegal.
Stephanos I

I remember when I was working within a State that had a Lutheran State supported organization. It took Catholics along time to be given the right to exist and carry on their mission. But still until recently they had to pay state tax to the Lutherans.
Then a parishoner of ours took the case to the European Court and won. Now the State gives a proportion of the tax money to the Catholic Church.

Stephanos,

Well, isn't it immoral to embrace a false religion? And if it's prohibited by State law, isn't it also illegal?

I think the separation of Church and State is a good way to keep the Church leadership humble, and isn't that exactly what they need to be if they're going to work effectively for Christ?

A Roman bishop recently answered a reporter's question, "do you think the Government should listen to the Church?" by saying, "no, I think the Government should listen to the people, and the people should listen to the Church." While I disagree with that ecclesiology (since the people are part of the Church), I think the bishop knew he couldn't give the reporter a lesson in ecclesiology right there, and stated this in a way that would make sense to most people.

Anyway, this is how I think authority should flow. People will listen to you for one of two reasons: love or fear. I don't think Our Lord meant to say, "he who fears you, fears, Me."



Peace,
Deacon Richard

Everyone needs to be humble. Everyone should be working effectively for Christ. Both churchmen and statesmen are meant to serve God.

Who is going to keep the statesmen humble? Clearly, no one has been doing this for quite sometime. King Henry II, on the other hand, after he contributed to the murder of St. Thomas Becket, was made to walk barefoot through the streets of Canterbury wearing sack-cloth while eighty monks flogged him with branches. He then spent the night in the martyr's crypt. The same kind of penance should be recommended to Presidents Clinton and Bush for their crimes against humanity. As the Church and State are separate, who is to recommend it? Together, Church and State could keep each other humble



Should the Government listen to the people if the people hate the Church or Her teachings? If most people favor the legalization of the murder of a certain class of people (which, debatably, they do) shouldn't the Government stand with the Church, rather than the people? The law must not be relative to the whims of the masses. Truly, the people should listen to the Church, but when have they ever done that?

You know what I meant! A person is free to believe or not believe even if it is false belief.
Stephanos I

Leaders in a democracy will always have to have a certain level of humility and accountability to its constituency. That's why despite all it's flaws, a representative government remains the best option for organizing human societies.

The purpose of the state is not to serve God, at least in a direct way. The purpose of the state is in effect to keep order and pave the streets and otherwise stay out of our lives.

The church can't keep secular governments in check or make leaders humble anymore because it has lost credibility to do so, and the current reasons are still in the headlines. The historic reasons are well known.

Thank you, AMM.

I would only add that that "certain level of humility" may not be very big, but at least it's theoretically greater than the humility required of monarchs and autocrats, and has some kind of mechanism in place to enforce it.

I currently work in an environment where employee feedback is routinely sought after and an atmosphere of mutual respect is fostered. The result is much greater job satisfaction, cooperation and productivity than in autocratic environments I have worked in before, where people always smiled and said nice things to the boss' face, while behind his back it was a different story. I think the same principle applies to government.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

A democratic republic cannot be the control rod for every society; the people must be tempered to it or there will be anarchy.

Some parts of the world have a deeper respect for strong leadership, as seen with Putin, than they would with the fragmented power structure in the States.

Terry