www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Very Interesting Statements

Dear Ephraim,

Yes, in actual fact there were many Socialists who were also devoutly Orthodox in faith and practice.

The events of the Russian Revolution were, at one time, almost superceded by the efforts of the populist (Ukrainian, although in the Russian Church) Orthodox cleric, Father Alexander Happon.

Fr. Happon was fiercely loyal to the Tsar and to Orthodoxy and only wanted some simple social reforms on behalf of the people.

The bolsheviks saw in his movement a terrible threat. Fr. Happon led the demonstration on Bloody Sunday and its aftermath defeated his cause.

Many social reformers in Russia were both loyal to the Tsar and to the Orthodox Church, in any event.

Alex

I've always considered Socialism to be a humanist, utopian, athiest philosophy that is incompatable with Christianity.

Just my opinion, though

Columcille

Dear Alex:

Father Happon [Gappon] was also on the payroll of the Russian secret police [Imperial Regime].

He was later defrocked, went completely revolutionary, and was found murdered in an apartment.

People today still don't know on which side he was on.


defreitas

Dear J Thur:

I didn't read the post by "OrthoMan" in the same way you did.

I just found it a little sardonic and not necesarily critical of His Holiness the Pope.

Am I wrong?


defreitas

Dear Jose,

Yes, I am not out to "canonize" Father Happon . . .

He did fall in with the bad crowd later on, as you said.

But I think we can agree that, had he received the support I believe his earlier movement deserved, bolshevism stood a chance of never becoming a reality in Russia.

Happon knew now to manipulate the upper echelons of the Church and society. He actually had no use for them other than as an instrument for his own agenda.

But his public relations skills could have been put to more effective use.

Or so I think . . .

Alex

Dear Columcille,

I'm not a socialist myself, but I don't believe that to be one necessarily means to be an atheist.

When I was in university, a group of us had an outreach mission.

We brought to Christ students and professors, most of whom had a strong socialistic bent, shall we say.

Also, Andre Frossard, a leading Catholic thinker in France, is the son of one of France's socialist party leaders. He organized the "Catholic Socialist" group.

In fact, I have developed friendships with many who are formally members of Socialist parties, 95% of whom are members of Churches. The others are "unchurched believers."

I personally don't believe any political party or social philosophy can transform society.

But Christ can, if we let Him!

Alex

Dear friends,

I am a little concerned that some of you are overeacting to the Cardinal's comments. Yes, they could have been worded far more sensitively. But I would not be too hasty to perceive in them signs of "Vatican aggression." Also, I doubt that these comments were originally made in English, and it is possible that there was a certain subtlety that was lost in the translation.

You should be aware that Cardinal Kasper is not known for being an "ultamontanist" or even necessarily a fan of Vatican centralization. In fact, many of his statements indicate a preference for less centralization. While he is not an expert on Eastern Christianity, he is probably one of the best men possible for the job he has been given.

Finally, I hope that everyone can maintain a tone of civility in this discussion. Also, let's try not to make any exaggerated remarks against the Catholic Church. After all, this IS a Catholic BBS.

Thanks,

Anthony
Moderator

Dear Moderator,

Thank you for your advice.

I would hope that the same courtesy extended to the good Cardinal would be extended to people like myself who take issue with his comments .

I have nothing against him and if I have appeared to overplay "Vatican aggression," then I apologise. Perhaps "Cardinal Error" would have been better . . .

I have the same problem dealing with the Vatican's (good intentioned) refusal to recognize the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate, establish Russian Byzantine Eparchies in Russia, allow married priests for our Churches and some other points.

But I recognize that I am probably overreacting and being overly "Particular."

I will not change my views, but have expressed them as I feel them. But if you wish me to withdraw any specific one, I will.

When I used to tell my grandmother that I was a Catholic, she would correct me to say, "No, you are an Eastern Catholic."

And I think there is a distinction between the two as we have discussed time and again here.

But if being angry with a particular Cardinal's statements, or with a perceived policy of the Vatican toward the Christian East is "disloyal," then there are many Eastern Catholics who would disagree.

Alex

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

My word of caution is not directed at any one person. You are certainly welcome to respectfully disagree with the Cardinal's remarks.


As moderator it is my duty to try and cool things off before they get too hot. Once the discussion ignites, it is too late, the damage has been done. Things haven't gotten too hot yet on this thread, but it appears to me that they may have been heading in that direction. Thus, I am throwing a nice, cool bucket of water on you guys before you reach a full simmer.

Now, may the discussion resume!

Anthony

Dear Anthony,

Yikes, you hit me right in the eyes with that bucket of water, Anthony . . . where is the towel, does anyone have even a Scott Towel, I can't see . . .

Now my glasses are all fogged up.

I think I can borrow a blow-dryer from the tax office.

God bless, Teacher, God bless .

Alex

My friend Ephraim Reynolds makes a valid point about Christian Socialism. He also shows how language is limited. He is right that many socialists are also practicing Christians, I am one myself. My reference I meant to apply to PASOK, the Greek Socialist Party, a particular organization with a particular platform, and a membership with very few church goers.

I think that situation further show my point with my friend Brendan. I think Brendan is incorrectly reading into Cardinal Kaspar's statement things that are not there and then applying an overly rigid view towards that, a rigidity that is harmful rather than helpful to ecumenism.

Rather than Kapser saying a commmunion of churches CAN'T be a church (which I assume Brendan means as the theological proposition), Kapser seems to be speaking not to theology but to methods of ecumenism.

My reading (which maybe is too charitable and should be harsher) of Kasper is that he is making the point similiar to following analogy: A businessman from oen corporation is working on a business relationship with another corporation. At a certain point he notes (maybe frustrated as to his lack of progress on his desired goal, but not blaming anyone for the frustration) that in the other company he has been dealing with corporate officials who's company is structured differently than his own, with the corporate divisions more automomous -- a deal with jet engines doesn't mean you've reached a deal with radar. He is not damning the other company, he just has realized he needs to adjust his method of relating to them.

K.

Dear Kurt,

I didn't know you are a Catholic Socialist! (I knew you were Left of Centre!)

Have you had a chance to read Andre Frossard and his conversion to Catholicism? If so, what did you think?

If things are with the Cardinal, as you say, then fine, I've no problem.

But I am still with Brendan as I believe the jury is out on that one.

I think Brendan and others, including Latin Catholics who disagree with the Cardinal, take his words on their face value.

Besides, what is a Socialist doing defending a Cardinal?

Isn't that like a conflict of "interests?"

Alex

For those who are reading more into this then should probably be -> This was an interview with Cardinal Kasper. Hence, the interviewer might not have captured all of Cardinal Kasper statements accurately. Therefore, I think we owe the Cardinal/RCC the benefit of the doubt...

I must say that I'm a little surprised at the reactions to my post. At first I was going to just let them go without a response in fear that any response would either change the direction of this particular thread or start a heated discussion which I would rather avoid.
But, since I agree with what my priest friend wrote, I feel I owe you all a response.

First of all, regarding kissing the Koran -

There must be a different concept between eastern and western christians regarding the Gospel that I was unaware of. In the Orthodox Church the Gospel is encased in Gold and, when it is carried by either the Bishop, the Priest, the Deacon, or the reader it is always kissed first and carried held high above the head of the person carrying it. This is to remind us that it contains the word of God. And, as such, is above all other books that are available.
On certain Holy Days it is placed on the Tetrapod for the veneration by the people who bow down AND KISS IT. When oaths are taken and marriage ceremonies are performed it is in front of that Gospel. WHY IS IT VENERATED (KISSED) and revered so highly by Orthodox? The people and the clergy kiss it because it proclaims the Divinity of Christ (which the Koran rejects). The people and the clergy kiss it because it is the word of God (which the Koran disputes). The people kiss it because it proclaims the words "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6; Matthew 16:13-17.) It does not say, "I am one alternative among many, and all roads leads to the same God." Nor does it say, "I am whoever you want me to be."
Therefore, to compare the Popes kissing the Koran to his kissing dirt, and indirectly kissing the Gospel, completely shocks me. How does one compare soil to the words of God? The Pope kisses the soil to show love for his sheep and mankind. When the Pope kisses the Koran he is showing his respect for the truths it contains. Most of which are in direct contradiction to what Christians believe. To an eastern christian a kiss is not just a jesture of good will. It is a sign of love and respect. The Pope, as a slav should know that. Does the Pope love and respect this same book that condones the forced conversion of his subjects to Islam? Does the Pope love and respect a book that was written by a man that died and left a harem? Does the Pope love and respect a book that labels even him an infidel?
The Pope could have accepted the Koran with a handshake and a 'thank you'. Did the Moslem Cleric that presented it to him kiss the Gospel in return? I don't thinks so!

As far as Assisi goes. There were and still are many many Roman Catholics that are shocked at what went on. To tear down a Christian Temple so that a Pagan service can be performed is blasphemy pure and simple!

If you read through the last weeks questions and answers of Dr Carrolls Q&A you will find the following question -

Dr Carroll, why are we called 'Roman Catholics'.

Answer: Anyone who accepts Rome as its final authority is a Roman Catholic.

So, in response to your comments on why we Orthodox label those within the eastern rite as 'Roman Catholics' Dr Carroll provides the answer which I agree with. For a Byzantine Catholic to deny they are Roman Catholic and then in the next sentence to complain about how long it is taking for THE POPE IN ROME to pick or approve their new Hierach is laughable to us. Sorry but its a contradiction pure ans simple.

OrthoMan

Bob,

Dr. Carroll has been confronted about that and also about calling us Uniates, and also about calling you Orthodox schismatics many times. As far as I am concerned, if you accept per Dr. Carroll that we are Uniates/Roman Catholics, then you are a schismatic (which of course I don't believe).

Bob, could you PLEASE accord us the same courtesy that we accord you? We don't question your use of the term Orthodox Christian. So please call us Eastern Catholics as that is what we are. It is not fair, nice, accurate, or polite to call us Eastern-Rite Roman Catholics when we ourselves do not use that term. Why is it so hard for you to refer to us as Eastern Catholics?? Repeat: when you all yourself an "Orthodox Catholic" no one says, "whatever, Bob, you are a hereticical 'Eastern Orthodox' and you know it!"

In Christ,

anastasios

PS So when I start calling you an American Russian-Rite Greek Orthodox, you won't complain, right? :-)