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

"No one, and I repeat no one was referring to the Orthodox as heretics." And no one was referring to Protestants as heretics, I was merely saying that heresy is heresy period.
I was not, most certainly referring to Orthodox as embracing heresy, in the words of our Blessed and Glorious Holy Father, the Pope of Rome, even the term Schismatic is too strong to describe our being seperated.
Get a grip on reality Walnut.
Stephanos I

Did not the Supreme Pontiff Pope Eugene IV have a grip on reality or is modernism the only allowable reality in the Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Meshiro O, Zot! This topic sure has strayed from the Moscow Patriachate's increasing power and influence, hasn't it?

First of all, the statment that the MP has more power is very correct. This foster's the EP's concept of ethnic-jurisdictionalism all over the place, or taking in splinter groups from the from the other Orthodox Churches. That is not to say that the EP has not done some very fine work. The reconstitution of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Albania from total destruction is a direct result of his sending in Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos, a true living Saint of Christ. Furthermore, the reestablishment of Full Communion with the Orthodox Ukrainians in the diaspora and assisting in the resolving the dual Bulgarian Patriarchal situation that arose after the fall of Communism are very positive usages of the EP's position as the First Among Equals. This is what being the First Bishop of Honor is all about. But let's face it. The EP needs ethnic-jurisdictionalism to survive. If the Americas and Australia/New Zealand were autocephalous and the Western European diaspora, were allowed to unify, what would the EP have left. The Korean Metropolia is the latest, despite the fact that Orthodoxy was introduced to the non-Christian Koreans by Russia is totally beyond dispute. This Metropolia is being created concurrently with the invitation of the Russian Church to return to the Korean North and the preparing of theological students in Russia. Is this a preventive strike, or has the Korean Church taken over by the Greeks from the Russians suddenly after all these years of Greek administration suddenly reached "The Fullness of Time"? This may very well work out postiviely for the Korean Church, but forgive me for being skeptical about the motivation to establish a Metropolia.

Kosovo (Kosova) and the situation in Bosnia bring out the very worst in Christianity. Among the Slavs of Bosnia, one it Bosniak, Serb or Croat strictly because of religion. There is no ethnographic difference. The creates a problem for a 44% Muslim government, the math doesn't add up! Thus, the Croats had the Federated with them to allow them to come to power. The Croats had to played off against the Serbs and Western Europe to satisfy their pre 9/11 political objectives in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. If Full Communion were reestablished between the Orthodox and Catholics, the Common Cup of Salvation would clearly be a majority in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Thus, we must not work for the will of Christ, but rather for the will of mammon.

In Kosovo, Orthodoxy is sadly (both internally and externally) identified with being Serb. There virtually is no Albanian Orthodoxy there. Thus, the small Catholic minority must be showcased (they politically are no threat like Orthodox are in Albania with the President and Prime Minister)to say that what is happening in Kosovo (a) is not religious and Islamic but rather ethnic. In the Balkans, everyone has an agenda!

Christ Is Among Us. He Is And Ever Shall Be!
Slava Isusu Xristu! Slava Na Viki!
Mirupafshim!

Three Cents!

He sure isn't doing anybody any favors that way. I think he's got a good heart, but by softening the hard truth, he's not saving souls from Hell. Regardless of what Islam gets right, its followers (being unbaptised) still have the stain of Original Sin, and they don't have access to the forgiving grace of confession. AND, most of them can't claim invincible ignorance, being well aware of Christ, and they certainly aren't going to be "baptised in blood" for Christ. And as far as the "baptism of desire" goes, none of us can guarantee how God will react to a person who spent their life praying to a (somewhat reformed) pagan moon god. What we can guarantee is how God views our souls after an honest, open confession.

Thus follows that most Muslims meet their maker with both the Sin of Adam and personal sins still intact. Whether or not they go to Hell is not our call on a person-to-person basis, but wouldn't it show much more love for their souls to tell them the hard truth about baptism, confession, and salvation?

St. Francis of Assisi visited the Sultan and pleaded with him to convert himself and his empire. The saint risked death or worse. That's love for souls.

EDIT: PS: And most of them belong properly in the Eastern Rites. What a boon it would be to Catholicism to have most of the world's one billion Muslims join the Eastern Rites!

Good point. On that matter, I would wonder if his opinion is clouded by Russian jealousy of the EU. No matter what his motives, I agree with him. And how much of Turkey is actually IN Europe? Just that square inch on the other side of the Bosporous?

Russia, as the self identified "Third Rome", has always seen their role as being a "Star in the east" against Islam.

Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Gogol all wrote about the struggle of the Army of Our Lady of Kazan against the Turk.

The secularized Jacobin west in the 19th century betrayed Orthodoxy by taking the side of the Turks in the Crimean War for geo-political reasons. The germ of communism came from the West as well.

Feast of Olga of Kyiv
Our Lady of Vladimir, Pray for Us

Hey Walnut-
We are not in the custom on this forum of calling other posters bold baldfaced liars and ascribing ill will to them. I suggest if you cannot be more courteous you should remove yourself from here.
And certainly the Pope's actions have not resulted in everyone loving him; witness yourself. Have you ever heard of Development of Doctrine? Among other things this means that the One Truth can be expressed in many ways to different cultures and in different eras.
In the Holy Father's estimation in a world gone secular we can make common ground with whoever affirms the existence of the One God. Allah is the God of Abraham, not a "pagan moon god". That is like describing Christ as a pagan fertility god, because of certain antecedents in pagan mythology, what CS Lewis called "good dreams".

Walnut40,

1. Please make every attempt to be courteous. It is not appropriate to call others "liars".

2. If one examines the documents you reference (and others throughout the history of the Church) with the mind of the Church, one can indeed see a change of emphasis. I do. I hope you do not consider me a liar because I agree with the Church.

If you believe the new cathechism saying Muslims are saved is a mere change of emphasis, not a ENTIRELY NEW CONCEPT, I see it as disingenious.

I would not and could not say it is a consistent teaching and a mere change of emphasis being developed and feel clean and to be of integrity of speech. If you can, G-d bless you.

The rich irony of the new lords of tolerance who have tolerance for everything under the sun, but the verbage of the Holy Roman Church from centuries past is interesting.

Development of Doctrine is the clarification of what the Church has always taught, not novelty. A frequent complaint of the Orthodox is Catholics do not take words at face value. To square Pope Eugene IV with the new catechism, I see perhaps the origin of this unfortunate tendency. If the two are consistent, words have no meaning.

I have not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church very recently, and I don't have a copy with me normally on hand.

Can anyone verify Walnut's statement that the Catechism states that Muslims "ARE" saved?

I seem to remember that the Catechism only goes so far as making their salvation a possibility, not a definite reality.

If what I remember is true, Walnut, I must repeat my dislike at basing your judgments on extrapolations and implications as opposed to hard factual evidence.

Marduk

And what, dear Walnut, is John Paul II? Ignorant? Or a liar?
As you are apparently now the arbiter of orthodoxy and the one to pronounce which interpretation of the Church's teaching is authentic I must apologize to you. I was not aware of your elevation. I will henceforth refer to you as "Pope Walnut". Forgive my impudence, Your Holiness.
And as far as I can recall, the Church, at least before Pope Walnut's reign, has not pronounced on any individual's damnation and only on the salvation of the Saints. It does hold that no one is saved outside the Grace of God through Jesus Christ, and it does not exclude the possibility of that salvation occuring outside the visible Church. It does not hold that Islam is salvific, though it does contain elements of revealed truth and certainly Muslims of good will can be saved by Christ.
Someone mentioned St Francis preaching to the Sultan. Though we have no record of his words, we have ample evidence of his charity and his courtesy. Does anyone imagine that Francis marched into the Sultan's presence, announced that Muslims were heretics and hellbound? I'm sure Brother Francis, the troubador of God, witnessed the charity and the courtesy of the gospel.
In truth, there has been, since the days of the apostles, two strategies for communicating the gospel. One of them is confrontational and one is conciliatory. Witness Paul on Athens hill, and then note St Boniface felling the sacred oak. Which strategy to be used is a matter of discernment, and in the wrong hands either of them can be disastrous.
Of course, I yield my judgement to that of Pope Walnut... :p

#841
The Churches relationship with the Muslims.
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims, these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day".

james

Walnut,

Permit you to give concrete examples of Father Stephanos' point of the difference between condemning heresy and calling someone "heretic."

1) Photius (Patriarch of Constantinople) wrote a treatise condemning the Filioque on the understanding that the Son is NOT the origin of the Spirit. He called Catholics "heretics" thereby. But this was a misunderstanding, because Catholics, by using the Filioque, DO NOT profess that the Son is the origin of the Spirit, but only that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son. Indeed, Catholics would agree that the Son is NOT the origin of the Spirit. Thus, to believe that the Son is the origin of the Spirit is indeed heresy; however, to believe that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son (the TRUE intent of the Western Filioque) is NOT a heresy, and Catholics cannot be called "heretics" thereby.

2) One of the anathemas of Trent against the Protestants is a condemnation of the belief that works prompted by God (i.e., "good works") are not necessary for justification. Whether or not Luther actually taught what Trent condemned, Lutherans today do not teach this. Thus, the condemnation remains, but it is no longer applied to Lutherans.

3) The principle of invincible ignorance has always been taught by the Church, especially the Alexandrian fathers. The Church always taught that certain things were heresy. But culpability for that heresy, as with any sin ("mortal" as Latins term it), depends on one's willful acquiesence and full knoweldge of the sin as sin. Thus, a person can believe in "heresy" but not necessarily be a "heretic" by virtue of invincible ignorance.


Today, the Catholic Church seems to be focusing less on the objective matter of the heresy, and more on the subjective culpability for the heresy, as well as the positive aspects of other religions that they share in common with Christianity. So it is indeed a mere shift in focus. It does not seem, to me anyway, that the Catholic Church has stopped regarding a certain heresy for the heresy that it is. What is occurring today is simply that the Catholic Church is less willing to CALL someone a "heretic." Does that explain it to you, Walnut?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Jakub,

So what does that statement from the Catechism imply? I cannot automatically conclude by that statement that Muslims are saved. God's plan of salvation - i.e., how God intends to spread his teaching of salvation - is different from salvation itself. Is it or is it not necessary to believe in "one God" in order to be saved? Is it or is it not necessary to believe in Final Judgment and life hereafter in order to be saved?It seems to be THAT IS ALL the Catechism is saying. I interpret that statement to mean that God's plan of salvation includes Muslims only insofar as they help witness to certain doctrines that Christianity ALSO professes.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm, I greatly appreciate the tone of your post. Jesus said to fear not those who can kill the body, but those who can kill the spirit. If we do not speak to those outside the church in frank terms, would we not perhaps be compliant in the sin of omission in not furthering their conversion ?

We in this forum have different strengths and weaknesses that have been made manifest. Popes have ruled that Anglican orders are invalid. Cardinal Kasper, the friendly ecumenist, says that can change. I, an unworthy servant of Christ, have eyes that see. I admire the Orthodox for avoiding canon lawyer type games of words and speaking plainly as admonished by Christ. Perhaps we need more monastics as bishops and less canon lawyers. So what is the plain meaning of the new catechism towards Muslims? Is the meaning more or less clear than the words of Pope Eugene IV of Blessed Memory?