www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Patriarch Alexei renews complaint on Catholic "proselytism"

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.