www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Pope?

Humble Servant of God(?) and Martyr(?), Theodosy: Your confrere, Dozier, draws an analogy between the Orthodox Church and abortion and not a word of criticism from our future saint and martyr(in your own mind). Your false piety and arrogance are unseemly. I am thankful to the Good Lord that you have decided to serve your "lord" as a Greek Catholic priest. There is enough not so subtle hatred within you, disguised(?) as piety, to eventually qualify you for high position within the Roman Curia. Rome's "loss" is our "gain." PS-My mother is Jewish! Don't you ever refer to me as a Nazi, you filthy- minded neurotic.(I suppose it is all right for papists to label Orthodox as "Nazis" on this Web Site?)

[This message has been edited by Vasili (edited 05-25-2000).]

XPNCTOC BOCKPECE!

Dear Fr Kyrill and friends,

Father, bless. Keep the faith, Feodosij. I'm curious to hear how your Orthodox faith and practice will be received at a Greek Catholic seminary, as many in the Greek Catholic churches partly imitate the post-V2 Romans and have a lingering fear of things Orthodox (backwash from the Chornock schism). It's too bad Fordham doesn't have its Russian Center anymore because you would have fit in well there. Maybe Fr Ioann or others could help you get into the Russicum in Rome (or is that a graduate school?).

Robert's posts aren't the most vicious here. He doesn't really ad-hominem; he just bashes Catholicism over and over and over again.

Nobody was comparing Orthodoxy per se to abortion. The analogy is this: to a Catholic, someone leaving the Catholic Church for anywhere else and having an abortion are both mortal sins that might make a former Catholic feel guilty. The perception that one Catholic-bashes on a Catholic forum perhaps because one feels guilty about leaving the Catholic Church is a valid one. The Russians I know, who love the rite and know the minutiae of the services, don't obsess about or bash Catholicism like some people online do.

Father, I ask that Micah and Vasili be 'moderated'. Thank you.

http://oldworldrus.com

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 05-25-2000).]

Vasili,

Did you even READ my post?

I thought I made it very clear that I was referring to Robert's conscience, and NOT to the Orthodox Church. The analogy I made had more to do with the idea of how those with guilty consciences oftentimes become overzealous advocates for what THEY BELIEVE in their heart of hearts to be wrong - not Orthodoxy, of course, but breaking communion with Rome. Because of his behavior on his posts, I was questioning Robert's level of comfort with his membership in the Orthodox Church. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one if you are trying to read posts thoughtfully.

I apologize if abortion was the wrong analogy to choose, and I did not intend to malign yours or anyone else's Church. (I believe I said as much in my post.)


Peace,

Gordo, sfo

Ad hominem? Calling someone a Nazi, that isn't ad hominem? A nice bit of sophistry all around,but you will never oonvince me of your innocence. Both of you suffer from a serious case of tunnel vision as well as a pre-disposition for anti-semitism, a strong Catholic trait well recorded in the miserable history of Catholicism, a history so many of you are proud of, including the sometime Orthodox, sometime Catholic, Rusnak. As a Jew and a former Catholic, now Orthodox, the mission is clear. Catholicism must be exposed for what it is, the darling of the darker forces of evil.

Dear Vasili,
I did not call you a "Nazi". I only stated that you are like Nazis because of your hatred for other people (namely, Catholics). I have not judged you and my piety is not false. I am a sinful servant of the Lord, yes, but I trust in His mercy and I try to do my best. Your hatred is no credit to Jesus or your church.

In Christ,
Feodosij, rab' Bozhij.

Dear Dozier,
Here you again & again playing God and moderator! Who are you to judge my conscius Mr. so-called Peacemaker? Arrogancy is an attribute of the Latin church which you and Theodosy belong to. You have brainwashed Theodosy with Latin spiritual poison. This child of yours keeps refering to a hatred not found in Orthodoxy. This is truly sad! The thing I keep discovering time and time again is how evasive and deceptive you Latins are. You look so-well dressed in a Eastern outfit and speak with such authority that I can't hardly wait for Byzantine Catholics to return to the Orthodox Church. Many will see right through your deceptions and wonder about their communion with Rome.

To Theodosy,
Grow up child! Has your priest or family taughtyou no manners? You don't pray for me with the thoughts of Judas. Your accusations of me stem from a misguided childish mindset. You have a long way before becoming some sort of priest. The priesthood is a calling and I doubt you would have the social skills to confront the theological, historical, and spiritual issues which I have brought up on this forum. If you were bright enough you would have stayed on the topic and challenged my statements word for word. However, it is easier for you to evade the topic by focusing on me with your hatred. I don't plan to give up on you and the like. I will continue to try my best to focus on the topic of this forum. I would ask of you to do the same in charity and refrain from making false judgements about me since you don't know me. The practice of arrogancy needs to stop.

Let us return to the statement I first made about your remarks. Why is it that every Roman Catholic I have ever met believes that the Pope is the head of the Catholic church? Where on earth did they learn this? Do you recall your post on 5-19-2000 at 10:57 AM on page 1? Why are you the only Roman Catholic that does not believe that the Pope is not the head over the entire Church? Today, the Pope does not hold Primacy as known and believed in the early Church. It's called Papacy. Primacy and Papacy are not the same regardless of what you want to believe. Semantic play on words and meanings are the attributes of the Latins. Therefore, avoid this tactic and answer with sincerity. That's if you are capable and will not revert to childish games such as evasion.

Robert,

Let me answer your question directly. The pope is the visible head of the Church but Christ is the head! This is standard Catholic teaching. It may be that in discussion the word "visible" gets omitted -- just as will sometimes happen with the Orthodox when they refer to a pastor, Metropolitan or Patriarch as the "head of the Church." It should be understood that we are referring to a temporal head and not the ultimate head. That is, was, and always will be Jesus who is the Christ.

Fr. Deacon Edward

! "Satan lurks behind the smile of St.Francis."
This statement is reprehensible! Not content to disparage catholics, now they stoop to disparaging God's holy ones. I second the motion of rusnak to have vasili "moderated" or banned. Pleople who show themselves as vasili has shown himself should not be provided a forum to disparage catholics and blaspheme the saints.

Dear Fr. Deacon Edward,
I would like to thank you for directly providing an answer even though it was not directed to you. If only intelligent people other than yourself would answer my questions rather than respond to me with personal insults this would be an enlightening forum. Again, thank you. Now to your response as the pope being the visible head of the Church does this make Christ the invisible head of the Church?! Ephesians 1:22 says that God the Father(who is invisible) gave Christ(visible) to be the head over all things to the Church. Ephesians 5:23 states "Christ is head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body." Does this mean He was not visible but invisible? Help me out here. Colosians 1:15 states Christ is the image of the invisible God. This means that Christ is visible. Therefore being visible He is the Head of the Church. I cannot find in Scriptures where a Patriarch or Pope become the visible image, the Head of the Church. A case of usurption? I understand bishops, Patriarchs, and Popes to be successors of the Head of the Church but not the Head as Christ is. They are to be icons or images of Christ but not the Christ. What is theosis all about if one can make remarks about a Pope being the Head of the Church? The understanding of theosis has in one way or another been omitted or forgotten in the West as to make the Pope the Head of the Church. It is bothersome to me because over a period of time as recorded in Catholic history the accusations were real concerns to believers. This has been an annoying issue for Orthodoxy and problematic for Protestant understanding. Christ is the Head with a capital H and not with a small h. The small h could be reserved for bishops without too much emphasis. However, for simplicity I will not cross that line and call any bishop(s) the Head of the Church. Scripture is quite clear that Christ is the Head and not ordinary human beings. A person may be ordained into the priesthood, a partaking of grace and mystery but does not become automatically Christ. One may say that he is growing Christ-like but is not Christ. Bishops are to act and live Christ-like and lead Christ-like but never becoming Christ. I believe you will agree with me. When issues and questions arise by Roman Catholics on the issue of headship the Pope and Christ become synonmyous without clarification. It's best to be on the safe side and declare that Christ is the Head of the Church and the bishop is a steward and a spiritual follower as well as leader of Christ leading Christians of true belief into Christ our Lord and our God.

Reverend Moderator,
I think that Robert and Vasili should be moderated or banned. I am sick and tired of their constant hatred and personal attacks. Please moderate or ban them as soon as possible.
Thank you very much.

Feodosij, rab' Bozhij.

Reverand Moderator,

I agree with the call for banning against Robert and Vasili. I appreciate your patience but they have stomped over the line. It is not simply that they are rude and crude but they are liars as well.

Either ban them or I shall ban myself.

Dan Lauffer

Christos Anesti!

Dear Robert:

I'm glad you are asking questions from Scripture as it makes it much easier to respond! Let me lay some groundwork for my reply. In our Eastern Tradition we can create (paint/write) an icon of Christ because he is fully human and fully divine. We cannot create (paint/write) an icon of the Father because he has no physical representation.

Thus, we could speak of Christ as being "visible" when he walked on earth. After his Ascension, however, we have the invisible Christ present in the Church. We no longer see Christ physically (except, perhaps, for some mystics who are granted this exceptional blessing).

Just as Christ left behind a visible Church we also know there is an invisible component of the Church which we express in the Creed as the "communion of saints." This invisible component is made up of all the faithful in the presence of God who "see him as he is."

Christ was an is the head of the Church. Yet, since his Ascension we cannot see him with our physical eyes, only with our eyes of faith. In line with the idea of a "visible head" St. Ignatius of Antioch tells us that where the Bishop is there is the Church. Why does he do this? Clearly because the bishop is visible -- one can point to the bishop and know that one is pointing accurately.

Is this a case of usurpation? No more so than the selection of Mathias to replace Judas was a case of usurping the position of an Apostle. Jesus left behind a Church that he promised to be with. Yet he also left behind those who were to "run" the Church -- viz the Apostles.

Also, your question: suggests an understanding of "head" that is quite different from that of the Catholic Church. Theosis (called sanctification in the West) is the process of becoming configured more and more in the image and likeness of God. We are to participate in His divine life. The Pope, and indeed all bishops, are called to help us to accomplish this task by providing a continuity in the chain of faith.

I suspect, based upon what appears to underly you question, that the problem lies not in the Catholics you question, but in the fact that it appears two different meanings are being employed yet both parties are not privy to the definitions. This, of course, leads to miscommunication.

Fr. Deacon Edward

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 05-25-2000).]

Dear in Christ,

I believe that there is no one who is seriously posting to this topic, so I have closed this topic. I invite anyone who "seriously" wishes to discuss this subject to open another topic for it.

unworthy servant,

Father Kyrill