The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
bluedawg, AndrewGre12, miloslav_jc, King Iyk, BlindEyes
6,136 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 274 guests, and 67 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,493
Posts417,361
Members6,136
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Preaching to others the Ture Faith is never wrong! In fact it is the duty of the Christian to lead others out of darkness into the light. Wether they be unbaptized pagans or christians of other denominations. Always in a loving and respectful way.What parent that truly loved their children would never correct their faults? It is the command of our Saviour to go out and Baptize the whole world in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all things I have commaned you.
We live in an age of relativism, especially spiritual relativism, where people have lost the sense that their is such a thing as objective truth. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life.
Stephanos I
PS Lest someone should read into this post something that it is NOT saying, I want to clarify that it is only an oportunity to discuss these matters in a deepening and ongoing way of Christian love and charity. It is only by seeking the truth that Christ came to bring us that we can truly experience the freedom he offers us as the sons and daughters of God. Real charity as was in the reading today does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices in the truth.

Last edited by Stephanos I; 01/28/07 04:48 PM.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
I for one am very thankful that my Protestant grandparents (my father's parents were Pentecostal and my mother's parents were Southern Baptist and they were neither hateful nor arrogant) loved me enough to pass their faith along to me. And by the way, I am quite aware of how nasty many Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians can be-just as I am aware of how nasty and hateful many Catholic and Orthodox Christians can be as well. I would also add that while the efforts of many Evangelical Christians to convert Catholic and Orthodox may indeed be misguided, they are the fruit of the belief of certain Evangelicals that the teachings of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are insufficient. While I disagree with that, it's not so different from the teachings of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy that they are the one true Church and that all other "ecclesial communities" are less than the Church and are not in possession of the fullness of the Christian faith. Another thing I would point out is that for most of the history of the USA, this was an overwhelmingly Protestant nation. Would that make it right for Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be banned from seeking converts? The Protestant majority could have continued to claim that they were not going to allow Catholicism and Orthodoxy to exist because their families woul be torn apart when some chose to become either Catholic or Orthodox. I am glad that this is not the case, for if it were, it is most likely that I never would have been brought to the Catholic faith.
Sincerely,
Ryan (who still honors and treasures the memory of his Pentecostal and Evangelical grandparents)

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Z
Member
Member
Z Offline
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Quote
Ryan (who still honors and treasures the memory of his Pentecostal and Evangelical grandparents)

Dear Ryan,

I hope I didn't offend you, and if I did I apologize. blush

Zenovia

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
L
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
The title of this thread was so...pointed, shall we say, that my first reaction (tongue firmly in cheek was): burn 'em at the stake? wink

Logos - Alexis

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
The title of this thread was so...pointed, shall we say, that my first reaction (tongue firmly in cheek was): burn 'em at the stake? wink

Logos - Alexis

That was my reaction as well Alexis. And, in fact, until the 20th century, imprisonment and execution would have likely been the route that Church authorities would have taken (or rather the State would have taken that route with the Church's blessings).

The wars of religion, especially in the renaissance and reformation, were just ugly. We don't need to revive them. We don't need the Churches returning to the murderous ways of the world. Why don't we focus on today's Gospel reading instead? Think of the two who went up to pray, the pharisee and the publican. Which one was justified? God bless.

Joe

Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 01/28/07 11:10 PM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Lest one think I was kidding, I point out that there was a time in Church history when secular authorities received indulgences for burning people at the stake.

From Lateran Council IV:

3. On Heretics

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith -- saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.

Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses.

"There are some who holding to the form of religion but denying its power (as the Apostle says) , claim for themselves the authority to preach, whereas the same Apostle says, How shall they preach unless they are sent? Let therefore all those who have been forbidden or not sent to preach, and yet dare publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching without having received the authority of the apostolic see or the catholic bishop of the place", be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, be punished by another suitable penalty. We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics. We therefore will and command and, in virtue of obedience, strictly command that bishops see carefully to the effective execution of these things throughout their dioceses, if they wish to avoid canonical penalties. If any bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heresy, then when this shows itself by unmistakeable signs he shall be deposed from his office as bishop and there shall be put in his place a suitable person who both wishes and is able to overthrow the evil of heresy.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512
Likes: 1
Member
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Altar Boy
One of the worst things about them, and what I saw in Mexican's post that you guys seemed to miss, is that they regard all Catholic and Orthodox countries as a "mission field" and it is their job to come into other countries and make converts. In doing so, they fracture families, cause strife and unrest, and destroy the culture. They teach falsehoods regarding the Church, justification, sanctification, the Sacraments, and our Blessed Lady.

A Presbyterian missionary I knew when I was in the PCA confided to me one day that the greatest challenge to mission work was to find missionaries who respected the native culture. To the Eastern Indians with whom he worked, there was an intrenched idea that to become a Christian meant to get a western three piece suit and cut your hair in a western style. That is not Christianity, but more often than not, that is the kind of conversion you see taking place in countries outside of America.

And finally, does untruth have a right to the marketplace and to the dissemination of its false ideas? Why is there so much respect given to people who handle the Christian Faith in such a sloppy, lackadaisical, and patently dishonest manner? Words mean things, and words have a great effect upon how we live. The teaching of "faith alone" by Luther in Germany resulted in Germany becoming a moral cesspool within 40 years of his inventing that idea. I have to wonder how many souls are in hell tonight cursing Luther because they trusted him and thought that their deeds didn't matter because they were justified by "faith alone".

It is one thing to be charitable in ordinary life to those who are outside the Truth. Thank God that folks were with me when I was an arrogant, know-it-all Protestant with a bad attitude towards the Faith. It is quite another to be chummy with folks whose sole motive is to come in and teach untruth, disrupt your families, mess up your theology, put you under bondage of false ideas, and generally make a train wreck of your community.

I think Brother Ed brought out some good points, especially in these paragraphs. They get to the crux of the problem.

If I lived in a predominantly Catholic/Orthodox country, where the local church is reeling from indifference and the assaults of secularism/communism/whatever, I really don't know what I'd think on this matter. I wouldn't support burning them at the stake, and I have no problem with Billy Graham or most of the people I read about in Christianity Today.

But there are some groups which are really pernicious the way Brother Ed described. I can't say I'd necessarily object to laws against such groups.

Markos


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord although I desired to blot out
With my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please thee through sincere repentance;
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
Against my soul with his cunning.
Oh Lord before I utterly perish do thou save me!


Last edited by MarkosC; 01/28/07 11:37 PM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
I realize that I have complained about the missionary tactics of some evangelicals and pentecostals. But what really concerns me is this notion of "eradication" and government involvement in repressing freedom of religion and speech. I just have a difficult time reconciling that with the Gospel. I understand the arguments from Aquinas and others that heresy is a cancer that must be cut out of the body. But, I can't help but wonder whether the Church has really lost her way when she is so anxious about her status in society that she will condone and bless torture and execution to preserve her power. Such was the case in the middle ages and during the reformation/counter-reformation. Protestants and Catholics were guilty. And in the name of "saving souls" all kinds of horrible things were promoted by the churches. Perhaps, this is also part of what caused the secularization of society. When the Church was running things, the world wasn't so great either. God bless.

Joe

Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 01/29/07 12:04 AM.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 392
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 392
Joe --

Banning Protestant heretics from coming into your country and spreading lies, falsehoods, and general trouble is hardly the same as torture. I am for the first. I do not espouse the second.

I think there is a direct correlation between the religion of a people and their society, wouldn't you agree? Where do you think all these social ills we are suffering from in America come from? Yes, sin, but a lot of them come from the idea of "private interpretation of the Scriptures" and the consequent behavior that results from the thought that because I have the "right" to such private interpretation, NO ONE can tell me what is right or wrong. It is not all that large a leap from doctrine to morality, hence, no one can tell me that abortion is wrong. No one can tell me that "playing house" with my girlfriend is sin. No one can tell me that God condemns "gay marriage".

Again, I don't wish to discount the role of sin and our broken natures in this, but this idea of our "right" to listen to the "god" between our ears rather than the Church encourages this sort of behavior.

And it is all traceable back to the Protestant Rebellion.

Just my .02.

Brother Ed

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Originally Posted by Altar Boy
Joe --

Banning Protestant heretics from coming into your country and spreading lies, falsehoods, and general trouble is hardly the same as torture. I am for the first. I do not espouse the second.

I think there is a direct correlation between the religion of a people and their society, wouldn't you agree? Where do you think all these social ills we are suffering from in America come from? Yes, sin, but a lot of them come from the idea of "private interpretation of the Scriptures" and the consequent behavior that results from the thought that because I have the "right" to such private interpretation, NO ONE can tell me what is right or wrong. It is not all that large a leap from doctrine to morality, hence, no one can tell me that abortion is wrong. No one can tell me that "playing house" with my girlfriend is sin. No one can tell me that God condemns "gay marriage".

Again, I don't wish to discount the role of sin and our broken natures in this, but this idea of our "right" to listen to the "god" between our ears rather than the Church encourages this sort of behavior.

And it is all traceable back to the Protestant Rebellion.

Just my .02.

Brother Ed

Brother Ed,

How do we distinguish between proselytization and religious minorities living out their faith publicly with a free conscience? I am sympathetic with the situation in Russia, Mexico, etc. Certainly, individual nation states have a right to control their borders and to limit foreign activity (including missionary activity). But, do people have a natural right to freedom of conscience? freedom of assembly? and, freedom of speech? or do they not? I know that the Roman Catholic Church, prior to Vatican II, taught that people do not have any such rights. What does the Church teach now?

The sins that you speak of (abortion, advocating for gay marriage, etc.) are just as prevalent in European countries that once used the sword to enforce Catholic belief. My understanding is that throughout much of Church history, society has been immoral and corrupt, even with the Church in power. In fact, having the Church in power, seemed to have a corrupting effect on the leaders of the Church. The Church has not always spoken the truth. Certainly, on doctrinal matters it has (in the Ecumenical Councils and creeds of the Church). But, on many social issues and practices, the Church has promoted the very things she condemns today. We must be careful about using language like "eradicate." The Church has too often used such terms to exstinguish human life. In fact, I believe that the loss of power and prestige in the world is what finally caused the Church to rethink her views on natural rights. Once one is deprived of an army, then one must learn to get along with those of different faiths. And yes, I believe that people have the right to listen to all opinions and to choose that, which in conscience, convicts them. Of course, they also have a moral duty to pursue truth with sincerity. But, if Christianity is the truth, then what do Christians have to be afraid of? God bless.

Joe

Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 01/29/07 09:34 AM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
FYI, From the documents of Vatican II:

"The Synod (of Vatican II) further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right. �� Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it. Nor is the exercise of this right to be impeded, provided that the just requirements of public order are observed."

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Z
Member
Member
Z Offline
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Dear Joe,

I think we should get at the crux of the problem. Who is a heretic? confused Today we can surely say that the main stream Protestant churches have fallen into heresy by accepting homosexuality and their blatant relativism. We know that Islam is a heresy... and that is an example of what can happen when someone reels from the 'truth'. As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, they are a Jewish faith not a Christian one, although they profess a belief in Christ, and the Mormons are who knows what. They are so far from the Truth that they can't even be considered a heresy. crazy

What we can not say for sure is if the Evangelicals are in heresy. Some might be, and others might not be. That their practices are different, does not a heretic make. Or so I think! I know that the Orthodox Church belongs to the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. That means that as yet, they are not considered heretical..but they are surely getting there. shocked

As for cults, I can say that any cleric that draws people to himself rather than to Christ, is a cult leader. Now in that sense, I'm sure that many in the established Churches can be considered cult leaders. I heard that beautiful discription of a cult leader by an Evangelical leader....and I find it so true! wink

Zenovia

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
There are basically two types of heretics! #1 A Formal heretic.( That is some one who positively denies some aspect of Apostolic Catholic Faith. ( So this in itself excludes Orthodox Christians)
#2 Informal heretics, those who deny the faith by simply being born in an Non Catholic Faith the are not guilty of formal heresy. ( This is the bulk of most Non Catholic Christians.) (This again excludes Orthodox Christians)
Then there is the whole idea of Schism or seperation from the Church for non theological reasons. For example the Donatist of the 3rd Century. While not denying Apostolic Faith, they did seperate themselves from the Church, believing it was too lenient on sinners.
Care to add any other points of view or comments are welcome.
Stephanos I

Last edited by Stephanos I; 01/30/07 12:04 AM.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,667
Likes: 7
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,667
Likes: 7
Such was the case in the middle ages and during the reformation/counter-reformation. Protestants and Catholics were guilty. And in the name of "saving souls" all kinds of horrible things were promoted by the churches.

Joe,

I think this maybe a case of Byzantine amnesia, since the imperial Eastern & Roman Orthodox-Catholic pre-Schism Church persecuted the Orientals to no end. Why are those Byzantine Orthodox guilts forgotten when mentioning Rome's abuses?

An entry from the Oriental perspective called After Chalcedon [orthodoxwiki.org] shows how abuses were committed by nearly all sides at one time or another.
Quote
On July 1st, 518 AD , Anastasius died and almost overnight the situation changed. The opponents of Chalcedon now found themselves the opponents of the emperor. The new emperor, Justin, demanded strict uniformity throughout his empire, and he had determined that as far as the Church was concerned that would be a Chalcedonian uniformity. He entered into discussions with Rome about a re-union of East and West and within a year Rome had gained everything it asked for, Acacius was condemned and most of the non-Chalcedonian bishops had been deposed and exiled. Severus fled into Egypt where he spent the rest of his life supporting the non-Chalcedonian faithful and moving from monastery to monastery. Many other resisting bishops also found sanctuary in Egypt and it was at this time and under an increasingly severe persecution that the opponents of Chalcedon and its supporters found themselves becoming distinct Churches, though both still described themselves as Orthodox.

By 525 AD the imperial policy was that all resisting monks should be driven out of their monasteries. All over Arabia and Palestine the monks had to leave their monasteries, were robbed, put in irons and subjected to various tortures. Those faithful who gave them shelter were treated in the same way, and it seemed as if a great wave of persecution swept over all those who opposed Chalcedon . The monasteries of Syria broke off communion with the Chalcedonian bishops and all of them signed an anathema against Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. In response the Imperial soldiers were sent to expel the monks. It was Winter, just two days before Christmas, and many of the faithful went out into the wilderness with the monks to accompany them some of the way in their journey. The old and sick were forced out and were borne along by the healthy on litters. These persecutions continued for many years until the godly empress Theodora was able to prevail on her husband to allow the monks to return to their monasteries.

In Egypt the Popes found themselves persecuted and imperial appointees imposed on the throne of St Mark. One such was Paul of Tinnis who arrived in Alexandria at the head of a body of soldiers. During his year in Alexandria no-one would communicate with him except the Imperial troops and provincial government. The emperor responded to these actions, which he viewed as a personal insult, by closing the Egyptian churches and setting a guard on them. Yet through this, and worse persecution, the people of Egypt refused to submit to the imperial policy of Chalcedonianism and felt themselves growing further apart from their Byzantine brethren.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Michael,

I'm sure there were many abuses in the early Church of the Byzantine empire. If I don't mention them, it is only because I am not as schooled in Byzantine history. I'm not meaning to pick out the medieval west as if it were worse. It is just more familiar and so easier to find examples. God bless.

Joe

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0