Rorate Caeli

Meeting possible between Pope and Moscow Patriarch


From Interfax:

Moscow, November 12, Interfax - Relations between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are improving and a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and the Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, may be on the cards, a Russian Orthodox bishop said.

"Today it can be said that we are moving to a moment when it becomes possible to prepare a meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow," Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, the head of the Department for External Church Relations, told reporters in Moscow.

"There are no specific plans for the venue or timing of such a meeting but on both sides there is a desire to prepare it," the Archbishop said.

63 comments:

Peter said...

Take part in the SSPX Rosary Crusade for the consecration of Russia and triumph of the Immaculate Heart!

Anonymous said...

That's nice.

I have been pleading/praying for such a meeting since 1997, when I was much younger.

Now, finally, we can get to the bottom of this ''ecumenism'' thing.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, Robert Moynihan (Inside the Vatican)has posted a Newsflash, Letter #47, November 12th, on this very same subject.

Anonymous said...

It is no coincidence that Anglicanorum Coetibus was released by a German pope on the anniversary of the destruction of the wall between the East and the West. I think some form of unity is imminent.

Anonymous said...

++Hepworth, TAC, made this prediction (or something like it) just after the October 20, 2009 announcement of Ordinariates for Anglicans. He seems to have pretty good contacts.

Anonymous said...

On the feast of St. Josaphat...

Dan Hunter said...

I see that the Holy Father is moving yet closer to fulfilling Our Ladys direct request in Consecrating Russia, by name, to Her Immaculate Heart.
Wonderful news!

Vox Cantoris said...

Society of St. Pius X;
Anglican Catholics;
The Orthodox!

All praises be to the FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRT FOR for Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope of Christian Unity!!!

Crouchback said...

I wonder if Ben will show the Ruskies exactly how many divisions we have, explain where we are in the War against Relativism, and invite them to the Party. They'd be fools not to pull up a pew, after all Russia is a complete toilet, what have they to loose..???

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Interesting.

BXVI- The "Glory of the Olive?"

And I remember that the German author Albrecht Weber mentioned in one of his books on Garabandal - "The pope will go to Russia, to Moscow. As soon as he returns to the Vatican, hostilities will break out in different parts of Europe." (supposedly on November 14,1965). Apparently this was part of some discussion about the influence of communism and it's apparent rising again.

Niccolo said...

Great, great news! The closer we come to mending the wounds between East and Western Catholics the better.

Anonymous said...

PArdon me for raining on most of y'all's parade ...

So what if the Pope and the Russian Patriarch are "meeting"?

The Pope has met with Barack Obama, and numerous Rabbis, Ayatollahs and even Ahmadinejad of Iran.

TAC's Hepworth was quoted as saying a "reunion" was imminent, but the Russians themselves pointed out that there are many doctrinal and theological divides between Rome and Moscow and any such talk is rootless.

I can only second Peter's admonition to pray the Rosary and join in the 12 million Rosary Crusade. Until that Collegial Consecration takes place my friends, Moscow and Rome will never unite in a true, traditional, orthodox Catholic sense.

I just dont see why everyone is so excited by a "meeting" of all things, and one which according to Russians would likely only be on the level of how can we join forces against Islamic and Secular Christophobia, and not at all about conversion and the salvation of souls.

Moreover, if the past 30-40 years is any indication, this is typically a signal that the Pope and Roman Catholics will become even more marginalized within the borders of mother Russia. I mean, we can't even have a diocese in Russia, much less a bishop in the entire country!

Clearly we need to get our excitement pill somewhere else.

May Our Lady of the Rosary help us complete those 12 million Rosaries faithfully, with profound spiritual attention, and keep us all grounded until that Consecration does take place. Then I'll get truly excited!

Sincerely in JMJ,
A Maltese Knight in Canada

Anonymous said...

Sorry to pour water on these hopes but, ladies and gentlemen, this is just a meeting. Saying, 'hello, how are you' is a far cry from saying 'I hereby accept that every creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff'. It will take a miracle to bring these two together. At any rate, the Orthodox will want to know why the Pope still tolerates a junk Mass, not to mention massive sexual perversion in the priesthood.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Honestly I have to laugh at latins and their fantasies. The meeting is a negotiation, and bears no more fruits than a civilized discussion regarding the battle for some jurisdictions. Beyond that, there is not a single coma in our desire to get closer with Rome.
But we appreciate your efforts, brothers and sisters!
God Bless!

Christopher Sarsfield said...

I also have to be pessimistic. Is this the same Bishop Hilarion that said that hell in Orthodoxy is more analogous to the Catholic purgatory. The theological divide between the SSPX and the Vatican is nothing compared to "Orthodoxy." That said, I will pray and hope, but also remember that real conversion is necessary for the Orthodox.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

I will strongly second PKTP's comment as also JMJ's (with respect to their skepticism). The Russian Church has been calling for an alliance with Rome for many years in areas where we have common interests. This is a logical step in that direction. To read anything more into it than that is wishful thinking.

There is not a single area of the many substantive theological and doctrinal differences dividing Rome from Orthodoxy which have been resolved or that I could in honesty say have even seen any significant progress towards resolution. Not one. Lets keep our feet firmly grounded in the real world please.

I am all for cooperation where our interests permit it. And there are many such areas. But I see absolutely no hope for restoration of communion. Such could not occur without one or the other ceasing to exist. And that is not going to happen. It might have been possible 800 years ago. It is not today.

So lets work together where we can in charity and go our separate ways when it is time to commune the Holy Mysteries of the altar.

In ICXC
John

Anonymous said...

I thought that they were all KGB?

Anonymous said...

"I thought that they were all KGB?"

Patriarch Cyril was a staunch communist in his youth. When asked about that in a TV show he replied "Yes. So what?"

Anonymous said...

For the time being, there is no possible (humanly) way that the Roman Church and our Orthodox Church can be one. That is not going to happen, and the only possibility is a type of peaceful coexistence, with mutual respect and tolerance.
I agree with some of the comments here. Union is simply not in the horizon, and there is no will in our Orthodox Sobors, people and clergy in this direction.
Christopher, you point out conversion. I would suggest that conversion is needed in ALL churches and communities, not just the Orthodox. Suggesting otherwise is offensive and childish.
Stefan

Steve said...

Don't anyone forget that the Orthodox and Catholic ecumenical dialouge has already released a joint document about authority and concilliarity in the first millenium. They have recognized the Roman Pontiff as protos among all the Patriarchs in the undivided Church, and are now in discussions about his office.

Anonymous said...

To our Maltese knight who said we cannot have a Bishop in Russia I give the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Moscow

As to the theological differences, both parties have made statements that the reasons behind the schism were political. There are no real barriers to intercommunion (cf. the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches).

Also, Russia has been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Give it up.

Anonymous said...

If this is a ''Catholic'' forum , why does it keep attracting Eastern Orthodoxists ?

This isn't the only Catholic forum where this phenomenon occurs, by the way.

If there were no desire for union at all, then I presume that the orthodox would not visit forums such as this one.

Jay said...

...Sorry to pour water on these hopes but, ladies and gentlemen, this is just a meeting. Saying, 'hello, how are you' is a far cry from saying 'I hereby accept that every creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff'. It will take a miracle to bring these two together. At any rate, the Orthodox will want to know why the Pope still tolerates a junk Mass, not to mention massive sexual perversion in the priesthood....

Dear PKTP, I visit this blog almost solely to read your comments and this time you have disappointed me! The Pope does not have to go in person to Moscow to say 'hello' to the patriarch there! He might use Skype for this reason! It is certainly more than that...

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon 12:22

You stated: "Russia has been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Give it up."

Who are you? Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone? What Consecration are you talking about? The one in which Russia was specifically not mentioned lest consecrating Russia upset the Russians?

The Consecration I am referring to is that one that the Fatima visionary communicated a number of times to the Popes: A *collegial* (read worldwide) consecration by the Pope and all the bishops of the world of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I hate to shock you my friend, but, no, au contraire, Russia has not been consecrated. And no, I for one won't give it up, and neither should you.

Sincerely in JMJ,
The Maltese Knight in Canada

Anonymous said...

Dear Stefan,

You are certainly accurate in stating that many, many souls among both Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics are in need of a moral conversion. To agree with you further, many Catholic souls today operate as material heretics, having been dumbed down and not fed the Truth.

However, to clarify what is meant by the "Conversion of Russia" with respect to promise of Our Lady of Fatima, She specifically means the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith. However, it can also be inferred to mean also a moral conversion.

TO put some context to that, Our Lady prophesied in the 5 months preceding the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917, and sealing that prophecy as it were with a great miracle witnessed by 70000 Portuguese observers, many of whom were there with a skeptical view to disparaging the rumours of heavenly visions (you can search in google under Wikipedia on "Miracle of the Sun" for some good detail on this), that Russia was God's chosen instrument in these latter days.

Notably, that Russia was destined to lead the world, either in holiness or in wickedness, depending on the action of the Pope and the bishops to Consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. Without the consecration Russia would lead the world into errors ... with the consecration Russia would lead the world to sanctity and true peace.

So, please do not read into this conversion business any offense at all. Even if you (obviously) disagree with Russia becoming Catholic (submitting to the Roman Pontiff and agreeing to all the Catholic articles of Faith), clearly this apparition is one of great love for Russia and Her peoples, and highlights Russia's critical role in God's plans for the world.

YOu and yours will certainly be in my prayers.

Sincerely in Christ and His Mother,
A Maltese Knight in Canada

Anonymous said...

Yes, this is a Roman Catholic blog. We have also Roman Catholics visiting some of ours too. To me, it is because I am always interested in news, events, and opinion not only in our Church, but also in the Roman Catholic side. I am also favourable of the Traditional form for the Latins, as a way to return to the Apostolic tradition.
But my personal interest has nothing to do with doubts about my faith, or a hidden interest in joining the Latins.
If we learn more from each other, we could become a bit more understanding and tolerant. And I say this for both sides.
Stefan

Anonymous said...

Dear brother (A Maltese Knight in Canada):

Thank you for your very respectful words. And yes, you are right, it probably meant "conversion to the Roman Catholic faith", which even though I disagree with, I try my best to respect.

Thank you for your prayers.
Stefan

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Anonymous 22:15
You wrote...
There are no real barriers to intercommunion (cf. the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches).

Are you joking? We don't even recite the same Creed. Communio in sacris is absolutely impossible. While I readily concur that politics played a heavy role in the origins of the schism Rome has been adding to the Deposit of the Faith for the last thousand years. That's an insurmountable no no for us.

It is ironic that most of the followers of this blog are so concerned with the modernism rampant in the Roman Church. We Orthodox share that concern. We just date the problem a little farther back than you guys typically do.

You think 1960's. We think 900's.

In ICXC
John

Anonymous said...

Anon. wrote:

'As to the theological differences, both parties have made statements that the reasons behind the schism were political. There are no real barriers to intercommunion (cf. the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches)."

I'd put it a different way: the differences between us and the Orthodox are few and the issues are not monumental. However, the question is how much progress has been made in resolving them. I see only a little. The largest problem for which I see no resolution is the papal dogma on papal primacy. Note me well here: infallibility is not the major problem here but the quesion of the nature and extent of papal authority.

I can at least imagine resolutions on some of the other issues but we must keep in mind that the Orthodox don't just have different positions on some theological matters; they even have a different approach and perspective. You can't just ignore that.

With God, all things are possible, and we should pray for unity. But we should not hang on it, for it has eluded us for 900 years and more.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jay wrote:

"Dear PKTP, I visit this blog almost solely to read your comments and this time you have disappointed me! The Pope does not have to go in person to Moscow to say 'hello' to the patriarch there! He might use Skype for this reason! It is certainly more than that..."

Yes, it is more than a call from a callbox. Much more. It is an important gesture. But what it can hope to achieve might be joint action on fighting secularism, particuarly in Europe. That's a far cry from a restoration of communion (note that I don't mention, 'partial communion', since there's no such thing!).

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

This might be the worst set of comments I've ever read on this blog. First of all, most of the commentators are too obtuse to acknowledge that any sort of reunion between East and West will be the result of a process. Having the Holy Father and the Patriarch meet is a necessary step in that process.

Second, even if the meeting is to be held merely to discuss how Christians should deal with the growth of secularism and Islam, that would be something to get excited about. All the internet popes complain about secularism and then complain even more when something is done to address the problem.

So many self-styled traditionalists make the perfect the enemy of the good, indicating a lack of charity and a disconnect from the reality of a fallen world.

Zakhur said...

I seriously doubt the Pope will bring up Fatima to the Patriarch. If he does, and the Patriarch says "Sure, what the heck?" that will qualify as a miracle.

Anonymous said...

"Don't anyone forget that the Orthodox and Catholic ecumenical dialouge has already released a joint document about authority and concilliarity in the first millenium."

...the Orthodox?

Who speaks for the Orthodox?

Millions of Orthodox refuse to recognize the validity any "joint document" signed by Catholics and particular Orthodox.

Tim

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Don't anyone forget that the Orthodox and Catholic ecumenical dialouge has already released a joint document about authority and concilliarity in the first millenium. They have recognized the Roman Pontiff as protos among all the Patriarchs in the undivided Church, and are now in discussions about his office."

A declaration that the Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches have rejected, and that no other Orthodox Church has formally accepted on a Synodal level.

I think all of you already know what I think of all this talk about "imminent reunion". The same Hilarion who made this announcement has made it clear time and again that the Russians are NOT going to restore communion in the foreseeable future.

Of course, a miracle can change that... but who among us can predict miracles?

As for the folks saying that this must be about reunion because the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow are meeting and they couldn't be meeting if it isn't about reunion -- well, the Popes have met with all the Patriarchs of Constantinople who have reigned since the 1960's and yet, has Constantinople reunited with us?

Last but not the least: Moscow has said time and again that it will not set a Patriarchal meeting with the Pope unless the "Uniate problem" is solved. We know that Hilarion's last meeting was partly devoted to that topic. Which makes me wonder -- what "solution" has suddenly been applied to the so-called "problem"? Lest it be forgotten, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are OUR fellow Catholics.

If this meeting takes place, it will be about the proposed alliance versus secularism -- which, of course, would already be a great advance.

Dan Hunter said...

"Also, Russia has been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Give it up."
Anon:
No it hasn't.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the Ukrainians in that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is uncanonical, that is not recognized by other Orthodox Churches.

The Orthodox like to perceive their faith as ancient and unchanging, while this is simply not true. The traditions of liturgical languages (even at the time of St. John Chrysosthom vernacular Greek was different), celibacy of the priesthood (married men ordained to priesthood were required to separate from their wives, that's why wife's consent is required) and many others that the Roman Church follows are more ancient.

See for example the second-millenium Orthodox innovation of perceiving second and third marriage, while the real spouse is still alive, as a sacrament. It gradually came to the Orthodox minds that they are blessing fornication, so they started to believe that they're administering real sacrament of marriage for the second or third time.

This is an Orthodox novelty.

What's more, the Roman Church considers the Greek version of Nicene Creed as the only binding creed, and no other creeds may contradict it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031013051015/www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve.cfm?recnum=1176

The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church.

Anonymous said...

It would be better for the Pope to engage 100% in ecumenical dialog ( and not appeasment/capitulation/accomodation) with the Orthodox Church (Greek Orthodox, Russian, Rumanian etc.) rather than with the Anglicans and the rest of those various Protestant groups and so-called "churches" such as the Lutherans, Presbyterians and especially those of the Baptist/Evangelical/Pentecostalist variety...with whom we share nothing in common.

Except with the Orthodox (which are true and real Churches worthy of total respect and esteem), it has been a waste of time engaging in dialog with Protestant groups. The only advantage has been for the Protestants, for they have see our Catholic Church become more and more like their own Protestant vision....which is a tragedy for all Catholics!!

The results of the Novus Ordo, and 40+ years of ecumenism with Protestants speaks of the disaster all to clearly.

Jordanes said...

the Anglicans and the rest of those various Protestant groups and so-called "churches" such as the Lutherans, Presbyterians and especially those of the Baptist/Evangelical/Pentecostalist variety...with whom we share nothing in common.

"Nothing" in common? So you deny the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the virginal conception, the Messiahship of Jesus and His descent from David, Baptism, and the inspiration and inerrancy of the New Testament?

Jordanes said...

What's more, the Roman Church considers the Greek version of Nicene Creed as the only binding creed, and no other creeds may contradict it.

Not exactly. Yes, binding, but NOT the "only" binding creed -- also, no other Catholic creeds "can" contradict, not "may."

Anonymous said...

" So you deny the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the virginal conception, the Messiahship of Jesus and His descent from David, Baptism, and the inspiration and inerrancy of the New Testament?"

Do you really believe this has any relevance for the protestant mainstream sects??

Jordanes said...

Of course it has relevance.

You made the ridiculously erroneous claim that the Catholic Church shares absolutely nothing in common with Protestant sects, and yet most of the members of the sects you mention hold at least one, and some of them hold all, of the Catholic beliefs that I listed.

If your statement is true, we have only two possible conclusions: either the Protestants don't hold a single Christian doctrine, or the Catholic Church is not who She says She is.

Anonymous said...

Different creed? We added filioque to our liturgy to prevent a denial of Christ's divinity in an extraordinary circumstance and retain the same ecumenical creed of elsewhere.

No communio in sacris? Some of you make it sound like there are no differences of opinion with you, and so I must think that you are outside of mainstream orthodox theology. For example:

http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/

Anonymous said...

Dear John (Ad Orientem):

You stated:
"Rome has been adding to the Deposit of the Faith for the last thousand years. That's an insurmountable no no for us...

It is ironic that most of the followers of this blog are so concerned with the modernism rampant in the Roman Church...
You think 1960's. We think 900's."

A few points that I state with the utmost respect:

What modernism was the "Roman" Church guilty of in the "900s"?

Even assuming that the charge is accurate, when was it ever according to Catholic Tradition prior to the 900s for a Patriarch to pronounce a sentence of *excommunication* on a Pope? The history of the Donatian schism should be sufficient in establishing the primacy of the Roman Pope and the absolute unheardof-ness of anyone beneath the Pope passing sentence of excommunication.

Remember that the Greek and Roman Churches did agree theologically and doctrinally at Lyons II (1274) and Florence (1439). Had the Turks not crushed Constantinoples just 14 years later there is every reason to believe, that although time would have been required to heal the many cultural wounds exacerbated by the Doge's sack, that the Council of Florence could have had some very lasting fruits.

The Greeks participating with authority in that council retracted all such unfounded calumnies (such as calling us modernists) against the Pope and the Roman Church. That was 580 years ago.

Some other points to consider:

- The Filioque was in use in the Latin Church since the 500s. If it was modernistic to use it, then why do the Greeks acknowledge that the Greek Church fell into schism with Rome between the 500s and 1054?

- The Roman practice of celibacy was more strictly enforced around the time of the Great Schism, but this more as a discipline against rampant concubinage among the clergy

- The use of unleavened bread in the Sacrifice is not an innovation as the Orthodox themselves have some national churches who likewise use unleavened versus leavened bread

- The doctrine of purgation of holy souls destined for heaven is established very early on in the first centuries of the Church and was formulated in a mutually agreeable way at the Council of Florence. There should be question about that.

- Someone else here raised the modernistic innovation of the Greeks in allowing 3 sacramental marriages, in essence allowing divorce against the Savior's commands and against the Tradition of the first Seven Councils.

- Which leaves the question of Papal infallibility and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, both of which were defined (not invented) in the past 150 years (not in the 900s). Although I realize that these dogmas are contested by the Orthodox, I respectfully submit that an honest and respectful assessment of the history of these articles of faith that there is very solid Tradition even among the Eastern Fathers for these beliefs, and it is certainly not prudent for Eastern Orthodox to dismiss them as "modernism" or "innovation".

Finally, do note that while Traditional Roman Catholics do often cite much of the modernism that overtook much the Church in the 1960s, the real champion against Modernism was Pope St Pius X who issued the great Oath against Modernism almost exactly 100 years ago.

So at least dear John Ad Orientem, if you suspect the Roman Church of modernism please look closely between 150 years ago (the definition of the Immaculate Conception) to 100 years ago (Pope St Pius X) to examine closely (a) whether Rome was at given to modernism at all and (b) what were the SCriptural and Patristic roots cited in the definitions that give you cause to think such a thing.

I believe firmly that you will see that Rome and the Pontiffs of the 19th century were frankly stalwarts against modernism, and suffered greatly for their witness against it, and additionally, may come to realize that most of the patristics in support of the Immaculate Conception were Eastern in origin.

Respectfully and Sincerely in the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary

A Maltese Knight in Canada

Anonymous said...

Anon 00:41

Let me tell you something. I left the SSPX for exactly that reason: lack of charity.

Guess what? I found even less charity in the novus ordo combined with a profound apathy and ignorance and wide-spread sacrilege (and I'm talking about people old enouigh to know better).

Retire the "no-charity-in-traditional-circles" card. It's widespread. Look around you. No one group has a carte blanche on it.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

joyfully the Russians cut connexions with the german protestants who have recently elected a divorced woman as their head.

Anonymous said...

Delphina,

I've run with the Novus Ordo crowd as well and I must disagree with you, at least when speaking of ordinary Catholics. Liberals are another matter.

Anonymous said...

""Nothing" in common? So you deny the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the virginal conception, the Messiahship of Jesus and His descent from David, Baptism, and the inspiration and inerrancy of the New Testament?"

No, but I do deny these groups having any legitimacy whatsoever, regardless of their intrepretation of the above.

The Anglican Church was founded by a debauched king who was denied permission to act as he chose by the Pope, who upheld morals at a time when in royal houses morality was almost totally lacking.

The Lutheran Church was founded by a lunatic, who entered a monastery not with a vocation, but because he thought God had saved his life during a thunderstorm. Having no vocation, he tormented himself in an attempt to live up to monastic life and disipline and practically drove himself insane until he turned against the Church . He was also a violent anti-Semite whose writings about Jews should be developed into a book so the world can see how the "noble Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism" really thought.

Calvinism (Presbyterianism) was founded by John Calvin, a man so neurotic and filled with such virulent hate towards the Catholic Church that he worked himself up into a stroke during one of his loud-mouthed sermons in Geneva and died shortly thereafter. LOL!!

These groups, and hundreds of other Protestant groups should be treated by the Catholic Church the way one threats against a influenza outbreak...plenty of strong doses of an antibiotic (in the case Catholic tradition and the Tridentine Latin Mass), to eliminate ecumenism with Protestants for the good of the whole.

lexetlibertas said...

So when the Orthodox schismatics reunite with Rome, should we require them to abandon all liturgical development post-1054?

Secondly, the tradition of allowing "innocent" spouses to divorce and remarry goes back to the late fourth century, I believe. Rome never allowed it, but several of the Eastern Fathers did.

Anonymous said...

Hello fellow bloggers

This is "A Maltese Knight"

In my last post I wrote to John Ad Orientem "*excommunication* on a Pope? The history of the Donatian schism should be sufficient in establishing the primacy of the Roman Pope and the absolute unheardof-ness of anyone beneath the Pope passing sentence of excommunication"

I apologize. I intended to mean "the Novatian Schism".

In JMJ

MKC

Jordanes said...

No, but I do deny these groups having any legitimacy whatsoever, regardless of their intrepretation of the above.

Ah, well that's very different. Yes, Protestant sects certainly have no legitimacy.

Jordanes said...

Calvinism (Presbyterianism) was founded by John Calvin, a man so neurotic and filled with such virulent hate towards the Catholic Church that he worked himself up into a stroke during one of his loud-mouthed sermons in Geneva and died shortly thereafter. LOL!!

Odd sense of humor you've got there.

Solomon instructed us not to rejoice when our enemies fall, lest something worse happen to us.

Anonymous said...

Fall of a heresiarch is to be rejoiced upon, as a manifestation of Gods mercy.

LeonG said...

Rather, according to Psalm 31 we should rejoice in The Lord and trust in Him Who has delivered us from the hands of our enemies!

LeonG said...

Claims that Rome and Moscow are going to talk are always amusing. From conversations with orthodox priests and reading their posts it is evident that the Russian orthodox Church disapproves of modernist Rome as She is at present. However, the implicit hope is detectable in one of the previous statements made by late Patriarch Alexy II (RIP) "The recovery and valuing of the ancient liturgical tradition is a fact that we greet positively," Alexy II told the Italian daily Il Giornale [Aug 29, 2007).......We hold very strongly to tradition. Without the faithful guardianship of liturgical tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church would not have been able to resist the period of persecution."

Thus, there are some positive signs for the future. The restoration of The Latin Mass symbolises a stepin the right direction but, like it or not, Our Blessed Lady has a special part to play in this process and She awaits a very important invitation.

Jordanes said...

Fall of a heresiarch is to be rejoiced upon, as a manifestation of Gods mercy.

The death of a heresiarch without repentance is not a cause of rejoicing, nor is it right to chuckle and guffaw at our anti-Protestant interlocutor's imaginary scene of Calvin's death.

Rather, according to Psalm 31 we should rejoice in The Lord and trust in Him Who has delivered us from the hands of our enemies!

Yes, rejoice in the Lord, not in the downfall of God's creatures.

LeonG said...

Yes, that is what the psalmist states - you have understood correctly - that way we do not gloat.

Jordanes said...

BXVI- The "Glory of the Olive?"

Certainly not -- but then no one will be the "Glory of the Olive," since the Prophecies of St. Malachy are late forgeries that even classify an antipope as a legitimate pope. Don't waste you time with the St. Malarkey Prophecies.

GandhianCatholic said...

I've always found it fascinating that during Kirill's election, the Icon of Our Lady, "softener of hard hearts" started weeping myrrh. Will the Orthodox come back into Communion? Maybe under the leadership of this relatively young, dynamic Patriarch and after the old guard dies off, just maybe, we'll see some kind of progress. Until then, I doubt it. And don't even get me started on Athos.

Anonymous said...

Anon :018

I can say the same about the SSPX...I've found charitable people there as well.

In any event, let's just chalk it up to ORIGINAL SIN and call it a day.

There is no perfect place in this valley of tears.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

Do you have proof they are a forgery?

Jordanes said...

The "proof," if you want to call it that, is:

1) Nobody had ever heard of St. Malachy uttering these prophecies for 400 years prior to their publication in 1590.

2) The symbolic names of the Popes prior to 1590 are all easily interpreted: their connection to each pontiff is immediately obvious. But the symbolic names of the Popes after 1590 -- i.e., the Popes who were elected after the author of these "prophecies" wrote them -- are not obvious: you have to do a lot of thinking and research to find something that would fit, or seems like it might fit, the symbolic names. That is a strong sign of vaticinium ex evento.

3) The prophecies include not just one antipope (as I'd misremembered), but 10 antipopes. Surely if these prophecies were genuine, God would have enabled St. Malachy to tell which of the various rival claimants to the papacy (whose claims were still being disputed by historians and canonists circa 1590) were the legitimate pontiffs.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Jordanes.

According to the book published by TAN in 1973, there seems to be divided opinions as to the authencity.

You may be right.

You may be wrong.

We'll find out when it won't matter much anymore.

Anonymous said...

Great article as for me. It would be great to read something more concerning that matter. The only thing that blog misses is some photos of some gizmos.
Alex Flouee
Cell phone blocker