www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology PAPISM AS THE...

While suffering the net I stumbled acrossed an article entitled�PAPISM AS THE OLDEST PROTESTANTISM.�

Lines such as:


&


Without trying to quote the whole article I will simply give the site. www.http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/papism.htm [http] The article is fairly convincing. I was hoping that you could read this article and post your thoughts on the matter. I ask you, the Byzantines for the simple reason that you seem to be in the middle of the Latin/Orthodox extremes.

Thank you God Bless,

Odo

[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Odo ]

The wonderful tool of rationalism has a variety of means to explain why this article is "wrong".

The Holy Fathers on the other hand...well, I think they would say "infallibility" comes only to those men who are united to God through a life in Christ. And their kind of infallibility is only because they have "put on Christ", which is a striking comparison to the unthinkable debauchery of cernturies past in Rome.

btw the proper text for the broken link above...

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/papism.htm

and btw (again), I thought this was an intersting qoute...


[ 08-24-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear Friends,

Odo began this thread - "While suffering the net I stumbled . . ." It is of course quite easy to stumble while suffering the net. Sometimes we stumble and sometimes we misunderstand and sometimes we are intentional.

None of this is meant to point at any individual, but for each to consider in their individual places in life.

Some exalt earthly heroes, some exalt celebrities, some exalt ideologies, some exalt dogmas, some exalt ideologies about dogmas, some exalt ideologies against dogmas.

Some believe in the power of men, some in the power of man's institutions, some in the power of ideas, some in the power of Christ.

Some believe in demons and devils, that those who would destroy the Church have power to do so.

I don't. I believe the Lord when He said that the Church would overcome the forces of hell. I believe that what that means is that whatever the sins of Clergy or laity, the power of the Holy Spirit will guide the Church on her path.

The martyrs and confessors of Ukraine, buried at St. George's in Lviv, show us where we need to go. To serve the faith wherever called, to bear witness to the unified Body of Christ, to combat division with love, and with death, if necessary.

How close you are, in your heart, to Andrew Sheptytsky, Josyf Slipyj, and Volodymyr Sterniuk, is how close you are to Jesus.


I do agree with the following quote:



Or anywhere else, inside or outside Christendom.

--------------------------------

I had never seen Protestantism expressed this way:


"Essentially, Protestantism is nothing other than a generally applied papism. For in Protestantism, the fundamental principle of papism is brought to life by each man individually. After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It can be said: Protestantism is a vulgarized papism, only stripped of mystery (i.e., sacramentality), authority and power."

---------------------------

The problem with this is it flies in the face of Christ. He established One Church on One Rock. The Ecumenical Councils agreed. That earthly Hierarchs could not maintain it structurally does not change Christ or His plan for the Church.


The question is, are you working toward Christian brotherhood and unity?

Are you looking for reasons to maintain the concepts of "the Church I go to" and "the Church I don't go to"?

Are you looking for reasons to say "these people of the _______ _______ Church are not Christians, they worship a false God"?

Or, are you looking for justifications for your own personal Papism, because you KNOW you know the Lord's plan, and you are with it? Or your parishes personal Papism? Or your Hierarch's?

Consider the martyrs and confessors as you live your life and travel your path.

What are you trying to do?

What is the Holy Spirit guiding you to do?

Are they the same?

Really?


--------------------------

Have a Blessed Day !!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

I agree with John.

Funny, I was just thinking about something similar this morning. I think it is along the same line as this topic, though I may be way off in my own corner of the planet.

In observing some posts here and other places it appears we often battle out the subject of just 'who's Truth is more correct. Latin vs. Eastern, Orthodox vs. Catholic, even Islam vs. Christianity.

Here's my question: Though God created man in His image and likeness, don't we all really spend our lives molding God into OUR image and likeness, both individually and collectively? (Or is it just me.)

Enlighten me, someone...

Bernadette

The Orthodox Info centre has very interesting articles and texts, but it's good to be discerning with some articles you see there, because they do not represent the views of the majority of the Orthodox Churches.
Some writers there are former protestants who joined a vetero-calendarist group that separated from the ROCOR because they saw a lot of liberalism in the ROCOR (believe it or not!).
Some articles (now it has changed) posted defamatory statements against Orthodox Patriarchs and Metropolitans (The Ecumenical Patriarch, Patriarch Teoctist, Metropolitan Theodosius).

Anyway this article is very interesting because it shows an Orthodox view of the Western Church. I also think that after Vatican II, the Latin Church is closer to protestantism than to Orthodoxy in many issues, specially the Liturgy.
Most of the protestant doctrines such as the Predestination, the nature of the Sin, are nothing but radical and exagerated interpretations that originated in the Catholic Church (St Augustine's original sin, St Thomas Akinas' teachings). That's why the Orthodox Church now see Catholicism and Protestantism as too sides of the same coin.

It�s funny (maybe not funny), that Byzantine Catholic�s still think that they have much in common with Orthodoxy. The Orthodoxy in general see the Byzantine Church as fully Roman Catholic and therefore lacking Orthodoxy. It was explained to me that the Byzantine Rite (and I know you all hate to be known as such but most Roman Catholics see you as nothing more then a Rite) was forced to come under the leadership of Rome by corrupt Church leaders of the time. I don�t know how close this is to the truth, but looking from the outside in it kind of seems like that in a lot of ways. I apologize if I have offend anyone but sometimes you have to ask hard questions to find the truth in the matter.

God bless,

Odo

Dear Friends,

I, for one, don't think I have anything in common with the "Orthodox". I have never thought of myself as anything near "Orthodox". It seems that what "Orthodoxy" is about is devotion to dividing the Body of Christ into chunks and keeping them separated. Fortunately there are Churchmen who do work toward the Lord's plan.

--------

In the words of Patriarch Josyf Slipyj, written in 1976.

"Our Good Lord admonished us: "NO KINGDOM CAN BE AT WAR WITH ITSELF WITHOUT BEING LAID WASTE; NO CITY OR HOUSEHOLD THAT IS AT WAR WITH ITSELF CAN STAND FIRM" (Matthew 12,25).

Therefore, in view of the strong religious convictions of the Ukrainian people, we appeal to you to BEGIN YOUR RECOVERY FORM THE ROOTS OF SPIRITUALITY, FROM YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL AND ITS NEEDS!

All individuals who accept belief in God and Christ, must admit that Christ made Man established ONE FLOCK, ONE CHURCH AND ONE SHEPHERD, and for this unity He prayed fervently during the Last supper: "Holy Father, keep them true to Thy name, Thy gift to me, that they may be one, as we are one" (John 17, 11) "that they too may be one in us" (John 17,21) "and so they may be perfectly made one" (John 17,23).

The majority of our Churches are Orthodox and Catholic, and, impartially peaking, THERE ARE NOT FUNDAMENTAL DOGMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US, as is shown by theological studies and stated in history. To tell the truth, severance and division are supported only from outside, from those who know that by this they will weaken the Ukrainian Nation and Church. The brightest moment in our history was the basic understanding on the question of the Patriarchate between both Churches during the time of Metropolitans Peter Mohyla and Joseph Weliamyn Rutskyj.

Unfortunately, their great concept of agreement did not come to fruition. From another side, the Poles and other neighbors wanted to latinize and polonise Ukrainian Catholics in order to serve their own political motives. Therefore, it is necessary to reflect on such a state of affairs and to give consideration to own Church, and own good, instead of to be the reel in strange hands, who wind and spin cotton for their own clothing. Admittedly, such great steps towards near understanding, in recent times, were made during the lifetime of the late Metropolitan Andrij Szeptyckyj.

Similarly now a cordial meeting took place during the Gathering of Orthodox in Bound Brook with Metropolitan John Teodorowycz. There great words were uttered: WE ORTHODOX, ARE THE SAME AS YOU CATHOLICS: This is true, and conscientious studies reveal that there are no dogmatic or spiritual differences. IT IS NECESSARY FOR US ALL TO STAND ON THE TRADITION OF OUR KIEV FOREFATHERS and not to be subjected to Russian Synodian and likewise influences."

-----------------------------

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

[ 08-25-2002: Message edited by: Two Lungs ]

Dear Odo:

Perhaps you could make it easier for Eastern Catholics to respond to you by providing some detail to your impressions.


Specifically, could you detail some of the "lot of ways" in which it "kind of seems like that".

Does it seem to you that this union, as it exists today in, e.g., Slovakia, Western Ukraine, or, for that matter the US appears forced by corrupt church leaders?

Alternatively, you may like to do a little reading on the subject. Fr. Taft's essay is a good start. http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology/taft-kelly2000.htm

djs

PS
What is the specific menaing of "fully Roman Catholic"?
How does one find the view of "Orthodoxy in general" about this matter?
If you consider the different treatment of Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics by the MP during the Soviet or the Tsarist years, is it not clear that at least the MP sees Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics very differently.

[ 08-25-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Well, now this is just silly. You can think of us what you want, but a group of people cannot be called a "Rite." It just doesn't make sense in the whole spectrum of English usage. A manner of celebrating Liturgy and the Sacraments (even if that is all it is) cannot be equated with people. Call us a Roman Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite (or even the Roman Catholic Religious Organization using the Byzantine Rite) if you must, but people are not a Rite, a community is not a Rite. They may use a Rite, but a Rite is not an animate object, nor a sentient being, nor a group thereof. Capiche?

Hello all once again.

*

Odo it is only so if this is what you decide you want it to be. Do Orthodox worship the Virgin Mary as a god? According to the Islamic Koran - Yes. I suppose to not take Latin Catholic doctrine and dogmas on the grounds from which they understand it... but rather to impose on those people a belief which they don't have, but which really comes from the prejudicial colored glasses from which you look at it from your own cultural bias, and heart steeped in it's own tradition, which it's self is sure it's the rightest of the the right. -- then yes I guess your on the right track.

Having recieved some very good classes in humility. I have been able to look back at my past attitudes on this forum and else where and relize that there was little to "Christianity" in my arrogant attitudes towards others when *I was sure I was right*. The intellect and debate is good. And needed. But I have come to understand - so what if I could be the greatest theological debater on earth, so what if I could win discussion after discussion? The truest and hardest walk in Christianity is to actually walk it out. And it is this lack of walking it out that is perhaps the greatest factor of damnation to men then their lack of theological savvy.

What "Christianity" is in any man if he does not have charity in his heart. How Charitable have I been to Byzantine Catholics as a Roman Catholic? How Charitable have I been to those of the Orthodox faith or Protestant faith on these forums as a Roman Catholic - "Christian".

Perhaps you could ask your self some similar questions.

***

Theologicaly I would have trouble believing that Peter, upon whose Church Christ was built could teach heresy to his Universal Church. Of course the Bible does not come out and blatantly say this in words that would be simple for my ears today. But nor does the Bible come out and blatantly say that the Popes and Patriarchs of today are the officiacl line of the Apostles, or that a Greek Constantinople should have the honor and prestige flowered upon Her that She thinks She should have (Rome either for that matter).

Protestant historicaly means to protest the Roman Catholic Church - Her Patriarch the Pope. It also has historicaly meant to put "Christian" Tradition on the back burner and place the Bible as the foremost or sole teacher of "Christianity". It is unwise and unfair in my opinion to classify the Roman Catholic Church as the "oldest Protestantism".

Roman Catholicism also has it's degree of mysticism - you can check Her record of miricales - if She is worthy enough of Christ that Her Marian Shrines are alloted so many miraculous happenings, then maybe, just maybe.... She might be worthy enough of Odo's charity and OorD's Charity. Something some might want to think about.

***

Perhaps in the end all the baptised are in some smaller or greater degree brothers, just as all of humanity in some smaller or greater degree our brothers.

Maximus, you're back!!

Odo


Well, I agree with much in the text as well. Then again, the author of the article, Justin Popovich, is my patron saint, so maybe I'm slightly biased. For more of Justin Popovich' work, you can go to this webpage: http://www.geocities.com/stainlesskings888/Justin.html

Dear Friends,

It is sad that when we Orthodox and Eastern Catholics talk about our differences, we feel we must reduce the conversation to attacks on each other's Churches and their leadership.

Corrupt leaders existed and exist in both Churches. Corrupt church leaders were definitely involved in the formation of the Unia of 1596. There were others who had the best of intentions regarding union with Rome, however. St Peter Akerovych, Met. of Kyiv, actually attended the Council of Lyons and was, personally at least, in union with Rome, as was St Macarius, Met. of Kyiv and Hieromartyr who wrote a letter to the Pope.

Corrupt church leaders existed in the time of the Soviet Yoke with Orthodox bishops as well, bishops who were obliged to cooperate with the Soviet regime. Other bishops would rather die than do that, but who are we to judge any of those?

Again, I'm sorry . . .

Alex

Dear Friends,

The view taken by this article that the Pope stands over tradition and that Roman Catholicism is therefore a form of Protestantism is a good example of, well, "unecumenical" thinking.

And we cannot blame the author for defending the position of his Church either.

In fact, Roman Catholic authors, including John Hardon, SJ, have also likened Orthodoxy to Protestantism.

They've said that both Orthodoxy and Protestantism have rejected the Papacy and the Magisterium of the Church as an interpretive framework for Scripture and the Fathers.

The implication is that both have been "cut out to sea" in so doing.

The Papacy is not "above" scripture and tradition, but only that, an interpretive venue for the Spirit in bringing the meaning of both to bear in the life of the Church.

The Orthodox Church reserves to herself the right to interpret scripture and the Fathers properly, does it not?

Does that mean it places itself above both?

Or does it mean that people can misinterpret them and lead the Church into heresy as has happened in history before?

Saints are Saints. But they are not infallible and they don't need to be in order to be Saints.

Alex