www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Patriarch Alexy II sets conditions for Popes visit to Russia

First you state that you do not like his sarcastic comments. Then you MAKE a sarcastic comment. Do I hear hypocrisy here?

Jason

SPDundas,

I do not intend to seem as if I authoritatively speak for anyone but myself. I do, however, have thoughts on this subject and am an authority for myself and have therefore chosen to share these views, especially in view of your condescending attitude towards Mike.

Talks like what? Why are you still insinuating that the right to share my thoughts on this Forum are directly proportional to my age? I, for one, thought your initial post to Mike was very rude, but I'm still showing the respect rightly given to every human person.

Why do you continue to misconstrue facts- - -"merely" what you said? So you didn't say "I wouldn't worry about what this kid "Mike" has to say...he was born in 1985...so he's considered a "kid" to us...a kid that thinks he knows everything and that nobody else does."

Anyway, my point is that just because you went through a change in outlook doesn't mean everyone else will, and that therefore we should brush off their comments and substitute intillegent and engaging responses for "he'll change when he gets over - - - he'll believe like I do." So, I guess Feeney was just a teenager during his heyday?

I don't know how you can say that I have a "HUGE ego" when all I have done is defend the rights of a nineteen or twenty year-old to speak his mind! You must be equating ego with outspokenness. Yes, I am outspoken...even with older people (gasp)...because I believe the opinions of all people (including myself) are important. Maybe it's egoism to think that only people your age really "get it."

I'm not trying to cause a fight, SPDundas, but look at your posts. Can you not see the ill will? Can you not see the condescension? I know this isn't your intent, but it's very off-putting.

Logos Teen

I think that Mike was, using a Southern expression, working himself up into a state. was he speaking ironically, or what. give him the benefit of a doubt, and if I missed a reply by this gentleman, then he if wishes to explain himself, by all means. I'm listening.
Much Love,
Jonn

SPDundas,

I agree tha Mike has a extremist point of view, one that is not nesicarrily that of the church...however you are being arogant and unnesicarrily sarcastic in your post.
That one was just RUDE and should require an apolpgy. Honestly, how many young adults have posted or said things that are correct, maybe Mike is not saying correct things, but to discount all younger people and their ideas for the reason that they are young, that is wrong.
How can you discount a well respected member of this forum just because he also happens to be younger? That statemet was hurtful and purposfully so. I could very well ask the same statement of your views "Whoa SPDundas, you speak as if you are in authority." In this case some of your stated views even go against the stated real authority.

I happen to agree with your theological views in this case, but your tone and thought pattern are uncalled for.
Because you should repect everyone, even if you are TOTALY against their views. There is much difference between respect and dissagreement, to know that difference is maturity.
People do not always or even usually grow out of this stage. Have you? Have I? I would say no. Our views can change, as yours did, but you and I will still say "I am right and you are not" after all, isn't that what you are doing to Mike?
Mike is a Latin exremist, and like most extemists, there will always be poeple that disagree with them, no matter which side of Rome they are on. In your age you should have realsized that you will not always like what people have to say.

I agree with you, sarcasm hurts, and it has no place on a board like this, but why do you also pulmigate it when you make a statement of not likeing it?

So, please give Mike a break.

In His Name,
Stephen,proudly born in 1982; who knows that I do not know everything (and never will) but still knows when someone is being rude.

djs, I don't think it is overstated by your own comments. "Insisted" and "quite strongly" aren't that far apart.

That is, of course, minutia and tangential to the overall end point. He simply did not hold a view of the Immaculate Conception as we have it today, and actually held a position opposed to that.

By some current ultramontanist standards of strict acceptance of the Immaculate Conception the Angelic Doctor just wouldn't make it through the gauntlet. If using these arguments, i.e. if not accepting the IC, and opposing it by opinion or statement, are indeed heresy as has been posited...

There is already canonical intercommunion (such as Chaldeans and Assyrians) between churches who do and do not hold the IC as a dogmatic definition as written in Rome.

Why are you attacking me for speaking out about Mike's rudeness? Why are you picking on me rather than Mike for being rude?

I really took Mike's comments as rude and arrogant.

I was saying to the folks to not worry about Mike's comments because the folks were beginning to get uptight about the things he was saying and that his extreme views were stirring up something which isn't worth debating over...and that was saying he'd grow out of it.

Truly, why aren't you rebuking him for his arrogance and for his extreme views that are not in line with the Church's teachings? But instead, you attack me simply because I said not to worry about Mike because of his youthful arrogance.

His views are: LATIN, EXTREMIST and ARROGANT. (Latin as thinking Latin is better than Byzantine). He's simply shoving his Latin views up to our faces and calling names to the Orthodox as heretics (which I didn't appreciate hearing).

From my experience, I've encountered MANY youths who were extreme on many things...have eventually grown out of it...because of growing life's experiences as they age (meaning the longer you live, the more exposure you have on life).

But then again, most comments towards me were from Latins and teens.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
EX-Teen

SPDundas,

You are right, his comments were rude and arrogant, I for one am not defending his comments. What made me (and others) angry was the way that you lumped younger people together as arogant due to age. This is not the case, surely there are many young people that are arrogant, but it is not just because of their age. How many older people that you have heard from are arrogant? I have met many, indeed, there have been many that have been on this site.

I guess what bothered me the most is that you completely discounted his arguements because of his age, and then combined that with an assault on younger people by saying that with age arrogance disapears, which is surely not the case most of the time. If you had defeated his comments by logic and the facts then I could be in agreement with you, but you just discounted any arguement because of age. Surely you know how it feels to be taken not as serriously due to your age, after all, you are not old at all at only 32.

Perhaps that makes things a little more clear?

In His Name,
Stephen, who is neither a teenager nor a Latin Extremist.

PS
I am sorry if I hurt or offended you in any way in my first post, for that I ask your forgiveness.

I think it matters not what Mike's actual views are. Whether or not one would call them wrong or extreme or radical, is an issue for that individual to work out on their own or to discuss with Mike in a respectfull manner. There are many on this Forum whose views are, to me, quite extreme and maybe even heretical. I learned many many months ago that attacking these views from a "personal viewpoint" approach is just simply divisive. Now, I pretty much stick to offering my personal opinion on the different discussions which abound here; I'm sure there are those who think my views are heretical or extreme...and honestly, I couldn't care less. That's their issue, and I have my own issues with some comments here. But I truly believe that everyone here is entitled to share his views, and I always try to respect those views, even if I don't agree with them. There's a fine line, and I've learned that, and still trying to perfect its execution.

Logos Teen

I don't want to get into the subjects of rudeness and arrogance, since we have all seen far too much of them in too many places. I am just pointing out that Mike is repeating traditional Latin Catholic teaching on the subject. Granted, the current Pope thinks differently, but centuries of Latin thought disagrees, so the argument is more with that than with Mike's repetition of it. I have no personal stake in this since I am Byzantine, and think the Latins rage furiously about too much anyway. I am not a teenager, but am not in the nursing home yet either. So consider me as one who is old enough to know better, but too young to care.

TN wrote.

I am not a teenager but not in the nursing home either.

Me, too. Somewhere between not very young and not too old. Age can be a state of mind I think. Some younger folks are wiser than some older people. And the opposite rings true..some older people are wiser than some younger people.

I won't get into the discussion about who was and who wasn't rude either.

Mary Jo...remembering lessons she learned from her children...and am still learning..ouch![they are all adults now]

To get back to the original subject; the problem with Patriarch Alexy is that he is not a saint. As such, he can not separate his cultural religious identity, with Christianity. Something so many of us do.

We have to remember that Russia finds that evangelizing by other Christians, is threatening to her Orthodox identity, as well as insulting to her Orthodox heritage. That's understandable.

The only problem is that the Russian people have had years of athiesm, and do need to be evangelized. For the RCC not to evangelize and do good works, (and the same holds for the Evangelicals), would be showing a lack of concern towards the souls of the Russian people.

To me the pity is, that we cannot find a way to re-unite with the RC, for if we did, then we might be able to reunite with some more orthodox Evangelical movements and bring them into the universal Christian Church. That way their abundant organizational gifts, as well as those of the RCC, can be used for the glory of our Lord. No ones toes would be stepped, for each nation and people would know, that they are not succumbing to the traditions of others, and betraying their heritage.

I believe the Pope, as a Saint, is aware of these problems. He knows that only he, as the spiritual leader of the Christian world, can bring this about...and it is for this reason that he is willing, and able to humble himself to the Orthodox. The Pope realizes, (even though others don't), that he is the only one in a position lofty enough to do so.

Should the Pope be successful, (and we must remember that the greatest miracles of saints were not when they were alive, but rather after they died), then a united Christian church may not only be in a position to evangelize the Muslim world, but even Western Europe.

Zenovia

I believe Saint Katherine of Sienna didn't accept the Immaculate Conception either, while some Orthodox theologians did. Later on, it was another Saint Katherine that stated it as being true, and it was then verified by the on going miracles of Lourdes and Saint Bernadette.

So, we can only come to two conclusions..that some saints were not truly saints; which I highly doubt, or that our Lord works in mysterious way. Ways that are way beyond our comprehension.

My conclusion is that our Lord certainly knew that it would be a means of dispute between the East and West, but it was immaterial to Him. Although the dogma, or lack of it, was not necessary during the Middle Ages, it became necessary during the 19th century.

It appears to me that the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the Pope made the Immaculate Conception a dogma in order to reaffirm certain positions of Christian beliefs. They must have been fighting some Protestant thoughts that were creeping into the Church.

Zenovia

I don't agree. And see also the link. What he insisted on is still insisted on today, namely, that Mary is redeemed. What he objected to was any idea on the IC that would have Mary as not in need redemption. As we have it today. It is, as pointed out on the link I gave, very difficult in light of the totality of his writings to assert that he would have any trouble at all with the ultimate dogmatic formulation of the IC in CC. ISTM that a foundation for asserting that he would oppose this dogma is lacking. So, although I am sympathetic with opposition to ultramontanists, I don't think that this point about Aquinas is well taken.

This is a much better point, IMO - although it won't do much for the sedevacantists.

I am not trying to be rude. I do apologize if I came across that way. I just get a little steamed when I am attacked and I do apologize completely for being sarcastic. And I do appreciate you Charles for letting people know that my view are not wierd extremists views but merely what is the traditional Latin Catholic understanding.
It is dogmatic truth that Rome holds primacy over all Churches. I don't get it at all when you say valid is valid so therefore Catholic is Orthodox and Orthodox is Catholic. That makes no sense whatsoever. The Polish National Catholic Church has valid sacraments as well. So what about it. Orthodox is not Catholic because Orthodox reject the very rock that Christ built his Church on. If Rome sees it that way than God does as well. Christ said to Peter whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. I am not saying that Rome can't make mistakes when it comes to matters of Church law. I personally think Communion on the hand is a wretched practice and have never once done it. I also think that allowing the norm in the U.S. to just nod your head instead of genuflecting or kneeling to receive is stupid. But just because I think that Communion on the hand is stupid doesn't mean that I would ever deny that right while it exist to anyone. Hence if Rome says that going to an Orthodox liturgy does not fulfill one's obligation then IT DOESN'T. I'm sorry. But that is just how it is. Peter has spoken.

Dominus vobiscum,
Michael

Are you claiming that there is such a direct declaration in effect? Source?