www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Moscow Patriarch against Turkey in EU

Dear Walnut40,

Your statements/accusations based NOT on facts, but by extrapolations of the evidence, is exactly what I find worrisome and unacceptable as a Christian. The same goes with your unhealthy propaganda that the Vatican is actually siding with Muslims against the Orthodox. You actually have no hard evidence for these sensationalist statements, only implications and extrapolations from the data, correct?

Blessings,
Marduk

God bestowed upon me a mind capable of drawing inferences. Compare Vatican statements on Kosovo, Rwanda and Iraq and draw your own conclusions. Ask any representative of SCOBA or ROCOR on the Vatican and Kosovo.
How many Popes throughout history would kiss the Koran?
How many Popes thoroughout would pray for the protection of Islam?
Some praise his radical new approach
I dont
I dissent from his dissention from the past
Tradition is the democracy of the dead
Official Vatican statements are written by careerist bureaucrats and do not reflect reality.
The Soviet Union had lovely official statements about freedom of religion.

Inquire of the Diocese of Raska and Prizren for HARD EVIDENCE at www.kosovo.com [kosovo.com]

BETTER HARD EVIDENCE at www.kosovo.net [kosovo.net]

See article The Albanians, Catholicism, Islam and the Serbs.

Has anyone accused the Vatican of siding with their Orthodox brethren against the Muslims? Why?

More than 100 monasteries and churches have been destroyed in Kosovo. Has anyone read the Vatican statement on this? There is none.

Kosovo was bombed the day after Clinton met JPII in St.Louis. Were there anti-war statements like Iraq? no.

Dear Walnut40,

I do understand and sympathize with the Serbian Orthodox and the genocide occuring there. I can also understand (but DO NOT sympathize) why they might give some measure of blame to Rome, because part of the problem is that one of the antagonist parties involved are traditionally Catholics (Croatia, for one). However, I think it is beyond common sense (and I mean that, because in a war-torn country, emotions will more likely be the impetus for any actions rather than reason - and this is wholly understandable) to actually lay any guilt or blame on the Vatican, much less the Pope of Rome.

The emotional expressions of a war-torn people is not "hard evidence." The Vatican and the Pope of Rome have already decried the violence in the Balkans, and has spearheaded peace initiatives even to the United Nations. He has generously provided $50,000 to help refugees from Serbia, which probably includes many Orthodox.

Now, with regards to the link you provided. How do you suppose the interview with the Serbian ambassador to the Vatican possibly in ANY WAY supports your criticism of the Vatican, much less HH Pope John Paul? I do not know if you read the entire interview, for the Serbian ambassador vindicated everything that I have been trying to say - namely, that the Pope and the Vatican have done a lot for the Orthodox Serbs, and that the Pope/Vatican are not responsible for the actions of individual Catholics in Albania. In fact, the ambassador specifically stated more than once that the Albanian Catholics involved in the violence are recognized to be acting more as Albanian nationals, than as Catholic Christians.

I also noticed a stark discrepancy in the article - the interviewer was constantly constructing his questions in such a manner as to lay some blame on the Vatican. Fortunately, the Serbian ambassador, more apprised of ACTUAL HARD EVIDENCE from the Vatican, easily deflected the anti-Roman (?anti-Catholic?) propagandic tenor of the questions posed to him. Indeed, though the Serbian ambassador admitted he did not have the "inside scoop" of the Vatican perspective, we have to admit that he has more know-how than the regular Serb, or you, or me on the Vatican's policies towards the Serbs in general, and the Orthodox in particular.

Thank you for the link. It has certainly made me more appreciative of the genuine Christian character of HH Pope John Paul.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Ambassador speaks of "contradictions" between official policy and actual policy. Sort of like criticizing bishops hiding pedophiles and then promoting them to rector of a Major Basillica in Rome like the infamous Cardinal Law.

I am sure his Eminence Pope Shenouda would sooner suffer martyrdom then kiss a book thats mocks Christ Crucified.

Mardukm
Please do not try to reason with this "type" of individual. It is like wisphering in the wind.
Stephanos I

You are correct. I am not interested in the reason of our de-Christianized New World Order

San Ignacio Loyola called Islam Satanic, his words not mine. Who is correct, Loyola or Wojyta? My father's pre-VaticanII prayer book from the 1950's referred to Islam as such. The new catechism says Muslims are saved. Logically, all can not be correct. I care little one way or the other. But consistant teaching is necessary, is it not?

Were they products of their age? Are we not products of ours? Show me my error, please.

Amen to that! In fact, the next pope should be Pope Don John I!

Co-operating with a false religion is co-operating with the devil, as more people are denied the holy sacraments. And if some Catholics die... what greater honor than to die for Our Lord? Pagan Rome was baptised with blood, why not pagan Mecca?

I was unaware of this. What was their reasoning? Is there somewhere I can find out more about this topic?

Thank you for the question.
Many Italians associated the Catholic Church with the Christian Democratic Party. The Christian Democrats were caught in several corruption scandals and the Vatican thought it best to sever the relationship of Catholicism and Italy.

They threw the baby out with the bath water ending Catholic teaching in public schools, not heeding Pope Pius XI. I couldnt find a great website. Search "1984 Lateran Treaty revision."
G-d bless.

I for one find it refreshing to see an Orthodox defending the Pope against a Catholic! Keep up the good work, Marduk!
There must be a false god somewhere named "Walnut".
Traditionalist Catholics are fond of quoting saints condemning Islam, contrasting their language with the Pope's to "prove" that the Pope has departed from tradition. These are the same folks who love to quote the condemnations of anyone not in union with the Holy See to "prove" that the Orthodox are going to hell...
At one point the Church emphasized what divided us, now, with changed circumstances, She seems to emphasize what unites us. The Pope, in expressing respect for Islam, clearly is expressing respect for what Islam gets right- the transcendence of God, the Virginity of Mary, the coming judgement, and so on- and NOT the errors of Islam. We no longer call the Orthodox and Protestants "heretics" and we no longer call the Muslims "infidels". There is no departure from tradition, only a change of emphasis.

Iconophile,
While I most certainly do not agree with the "strange" ideas expressed by Walnut.
A heretic is a heretic by any other name.
While it is true that they might not be in formal cooperation with heresy, they still do express heretical views.

And many, not only the traditionalist, are very disturbed and upset that the Pope kissed the Koran. While maybe meaning well,and he should as a Christian show respect for others, it was scandalous behavior.

Stephanos I

In the history of the Catholic Church, no one has ever called the Orthodox heretics, because they are not heretics, they are in a state of schism and have valid sacraments and priesthood.

It is an obvious bold bald lie to say it is a mere change of emphasis. Anyone who says this simply has not read anything from more than fifty years ago and is ignorant or is a liar. Read Cantate Domini of Pope Eugene IV and square it with the new catechism. You can not with any degree of integrity or honesty. Try.

I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox Church and have been much more critical in house. The Moldavian Orthodox Church threatened to excommunicate any pro-abortion politicians. Compare that to the response of our famed American bishops.

Were it not for the Immaculate Conception and rejection of abortion in all circumstances, I likely would be Orthodox.

If you reject everything else I said and can admit kissing the Koran was "scandalous" I am at peace. If everyone loves you in this world, your doing something wrong.