AN EXCHANGE WITH AN ORTHODOX DEACON, Part 3

St. Peter statue standing tall over Vatican City

Thursday, March 11, 2010 5:08:42 PM

From: Rodney

The Western Church is always a Triumphant Church....The Orthodox Church is a defeated Church it fell to the hands of Islam.

Ah, so I see more truimphalistic notions here; or would that be more like Catholic arrogance?

while in the West they are free to establish any mission that they want.

Not necessarily; the Orthodox Church has been free in Protestant dominated countries, but not exactly in Catholic ones. Rome had an agreement with Constantinople limiting the proselytizing of both Churches in those dominated by either Orthodox or Catholic; the Orthodox Church upheld that. Rome kept on violating that. This finally exasperated Moscow, most especially.

Who cares if they do not recognize it.

If the Catholic Church would be true to its claim of being the universal Church, then it should care. Otherwise, all this talk of the East as being the other lung is just that--talk. In truth, Rome doesn't care about the East. Not to the Orthodox, nor even to Eastern Catholics.

If the Orthodox truly upholds that until now how come they have epharchies and metropolinate in the United States, in Italy, in France, etc.

It is because there are people who asked them to come. It is as simple as that.

Our territories spread because our Missionaries went to the furthest end of the world to India, Japan and China while the Orthodox remained stagnant in their territorial dreamland.

Yes, forced to do so since Protestantism has practically almost wiped out Catholicism in Europe, and if not for the New World Catholicism would most likely die off there. Rome needed to regain its numbers, and the New World was the answer to that.

Similar in doctrines but administratively non united. How touching. It is but natural because you do not have a single Universal Shepherd to unite all of you.

Studying early Christianity, one would realize that the Church then didn't have a universal authority to look to. It would be foolish to think Rome filled this role before Constantine, the Church almost always under threat of persecution and was outlawed. That is why, you will notice, no Ecumenical Synod existed prior to Constantine; it was not feasible. So too would a central administration would actually be a death sentence to Christianity then, since Roman authorities would easily spot it and just as easily put it away. In short, again it was simply not feasible. The Church operated more as semi-independent Sees, sometimes working together but more often developing independently from one another. You can always go and recheck early Christianity and you will be amazed how little, to almost, no mention of Rome being central.

Bond of unity refers to the administrative aspect.

Ah, I see now you changed your tone when you realized you cannot blame Orthodoxy for a lack of unity in faith. Most amusing.

If there is no organizational unity then the calling of Councils will be hard or impossible.

Yet the early Church hardly had a centralized leadership; did it find it impossible to call Synods then?

We also consider the East as important in our life.

That is funny, because majority of Catholics are not even aware of your Eastern brethren, let alone your very own Eastern Catholics.

Rome has decided to excommunite and Rome has decided to remove the excommunications of those Bishops.

Have you read exactly what I posted? I did say Rome cannot even begin to decide about it--first excommunicating them, then deciding they are not excommunicated after all. So what basis was the excommunication if it would be removed?

How about the schismatic moves of the Orthodox in Kiev that brought tension for Constantinople and Moscow?

As with the early Church, such things happen. I would not know how this would play out, but at the most a Synod would be needed to decide this if not resolved.

We don't need the approval of the Protestant Church for our faith and for our ecclesial life.

If you do not need the Protestants, then why still go after them?

Is it our fault?

If Rome wishes to see itself as the universal Church, then it should do all it can to make Latin rite Catholics realize that you have Eastern brethren. And we are not talking about the Orthodox here, but of the Eastern Catholics. It is not enough to say, "No, there are no Easterners here". Then what kind of a universal Church are you talking about if majority do not even know the Eastern Catholics?

Our Councils come from the whole Church.

Now that is surprising, as in Trent there were practically no Eastern presence. Do you consider it then representative of the whole Church when it was composed mostly of Westerners?

That is why the Orthodox cannot call for a Council. It is incomplete on its own.

The Orthodox Church recognizes a simple truth: that unity had been sundered. That is why it does not call for an Ecumenical Synod since the Church is not complete. It is simply being honest. The Catholic Church calls its Synods as Ecumenical even if only part of the Church is present; would you say that is being honest, then?

The Orthodox decided to be stagnant and look at the effects on them.

Yes, we held on to the Faith much better. We're spared of the horrors and abuses in the Latin Mass, such as that horrific Barney Mass done in California a few years back. If stagnation should mean holding on to orthodox faith, then so be it. Rather than innovations that would run the Church to the ground.

I have seen Orthodox celebrations not in Greek but in English already. So they are using vernacular also.

Because Orthodox Divine Liturgy isn't confined solely in Greek; did Moscow celebrate its Divine Liturgy in Greek? It never did; it used Slavonic. While the Western Church insisted on Latin, Russia and Eastern Europe were using Slavonic, not Greek. So Orthodoxy, unlike Catholicism, never confined its worship to one language. It used the vernacular early on.

Then, they have simplified the Holy Mass.

Orthodox does the Mass? The horror of it! No Orthodox would celebrate the Latin Mass. You must mean the Divine Liturgy; but are you even familiar with it to say it is simplified?

Then, when I've met a Greek Orthodox priest here in the Philippines he was in Roman Collar not in complete black cossack.

And what has this to do with Faith then? It is an adaptation, since the climate here is hot. The rassa would be hot to wear here. Faith is not the issue here then.

The Church of Rome has members who succumbed to heresies but the See of Rome has neither taught nor uphold a heresy. Never ever!

Again, according to Rome. The Orthodox Church begs differently. For Orthodoxy, Rome is not merely in schism, but in heresy.

That is not an argument at all. Because almost the entire world followed the Pope including the Protestants so that now the whole Christendom follows the Easter dates set by the Holy See while only a pittance of the Eastern Churches disoboyed.

What has numbers got to do with the truth? Is truth now relative to how many adherents one has?

The Pope respected the immovable Bishops in their stubbornness but the Pope went on with the date that he set and OBVIOUSLY THE WHOLE WORLD OBEYED THE POPE not your Bishops.

And what again has this to do with the truth? Ah nothing--it is simply Catholic triumphalism all over again.

The 3 others are almost non existent now.

Non-existent? Heaven forbid that you say that; not even the bishop of Rome would say something like that. Again, Catholic triumphalism?

Who cares if he left the place?

Well, according to another member here: The Bishop of Rome never leaves his see for another see for the 1st 1000 years as per part of the tradition of the western church. I'm merely pointing out to him that the bishop of Rome did leave his See and resided in Avignon.

Rome didn't separate itself from the Church. She is the Church.

Again, according to Rome, of course.

How much more it is hallucinatory to think that the leader of the Church to replace the see of Peter is the one of Constantinople and Moscow.

Where did I even mention that?

More honourable than the Cherubim, and far glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim. Without defilement, you gave birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify you.

Thursday, March 11, 2010 5:32:38 PM

From: Abe Arganiosa

Both Catholics and Orthodox admit the primacy of the Church of Rome during the First Century. The See of Rome is called "The one presiding in charity". That is why the Church of Rome is the First Patriarchal See in the Pentarchy. Definitely, Constantinople and Moscow were never equal to the Church of Rome.

[It should be noted, first of all, that the Orthodox Church sees the bishop of Rome as first along equals. This does not construe that Rome as universal jurisdiction or supremacy over others.]

If I will follow that reasoning then it will appear that there is no Universal Authority in the Church. Each local churches are independent and so what is our difference from the Protestants? Nothing. The Protestants are divided by denominations, the Orthodox by national groupings.

But both Catholics and Orthodox theologians admit that there is a universal authority in the Church. The unity of the Church during the first millennia is complete: doctrinal, pastoral and sacramental. It is never a mere faith unity. It is a total unity. The Church is one Family, one organization even though composed of local churches.

[The superlative praises of the early Fathers to Rome was testament to Rome then being orthodox in faith; so long as Rome held that orthodoxy in faith then she was worthy of those.]

They praise the Church of Rome not because they judge her as such but because she is the See of Peter. They recognize her authority to be the final judge on disputes. How can the See of Peter succumbed to heresy when it is the head Church and the one promised to strenthened the brethren.

On the contrary, Constantinople committed a sin of pride by claiming to be equal with the See of Peter. The Patriarch was envious of the authority of the Popes. But no matter what the Patriarch of Constantinople whether in the past or at present is never an equal of the Pope. O no. No match.

[But what was true then does not necessarily mean it is true now, is it?]

WHO WILL DECIDE THAT? YOU? CONSTANTINOPLE? MOSCOW? They are not competent to judge The See of Peter. What is inferior cannot judge what is superior!

[Since Rome separated itself from the Church, it gradually fell into error, so much so that now it sees itself as supreme over the other Churches.]

It never fell into error but it is the other way around. The greatest of heresies came from the East right at the See of Constantinople and Alexandria.. . right on the ones sitting on their bishopric.

[That was never the thinking of the Fathers in the first 400 years of Christianity. ]

The Fathers never even contemplated that the See of Peter shall succumbed to heresy. Instead, it is proclaimed to high heavens not for its mere actions but for its nature and distinction of being the SEE OF PETER and also of Paul.

[They spoke of superlatives to Rome, but not to the point of giving up their own jurisdictions to Rome.]

But they never gave that superlatives to Constantinople and to Moscow. How can I trust more the Sees whom the Fathers never praised.

The Pope do not desire the jurisdictions of the East. The jurisdictions of the Archbishop of Manila is never given to the Pope, the same to the Archbishop of Tokyo. They keep their jurisdiction but they are in communion with the See of Peter. Instead, your churches preferred the less qualified Constantinople and Moscow. Sorry, but I do not buy that. I prefer the See of Peter and Paul.

[This problem of Rome can be seen even today among the Eastern Catholics, where they decry of Latinization and more than once have threatened (especially the Melkites) to simply go back to Orthodoxy rather than put up with Rome's interference. ]

I have seen Masses of the Orthodox here in the Philippines and it is in English. What is that? Americanization!

Don't speak as if your churches are not suffering from quarrels, squabbles, misunderstanding and abandonment of followers.

[That is why Eastern Catholics feel they are second class citizens within the Catholic Church.]

They are numerically a minority. Every minority feels that way. But it does not mean that they are really treated as second class citizens. Kievs are feeling the same way with the Russian Orthodox.

Synods and Councils do not depend on one See but they are the gatherings and collective works of several Sees and Bishops.

[See, you keep contradicting yourself with statements like this; if you will notice, this is exactly how the Orthodox Church operates.]

Where is the contradiction there? A Council is like a Congress of Representatives each has authority by itself but they are united by one authority. They have one President or Prime Minister leading them. The Orthodox Churches are like leaderless Congress. That is why a Council is impossible for them. Ha, ha, ha...

They are in the road to nowhere. That is why they are stagnant to decisions made when they are still in union with the Catholic Church. Ironic, isn't it?

As for how it is in the Catholic Church, refer again above in its relations with the Eastern Catholics.

It is in Nicaea that Rome is declared as the First of the Patriarchal Sees, ahead of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

[And who decided it? Was it Rome? Of course not; this was the decision of all the bishops. This was then a testament to Rome's orthodoxy then. Sadly, that is not true now.]

The Bishops decided in union with Rome. It was with the See of Peter and never without the See of Peter. Now that you are separated from the See of Peter you are Conciliarly BARREN... frozen as Frogurt...

Happily the Church of Rome is as splendid as before. She is shining more than any churches in the world like the Bride of Christ that she is. She is under attacks and has problems but never defeated: THE GATE OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. Constantinople is destroyed defeated by heresies and by Islam... It is gone... what remains is but a shadow of its past. Moscow bowed to the Communist Soviets to whom it became a stooge. It was also the West that defeated the Soviet Empire: The military might of Ronald Reagan and the spiritual might of someone called JOHN PAUL THE GREAT. The Patriarch of Moscow and Constantinople were useless then.

It speaks of the authority of the Pope because despite his physical absence his legates were given prominent status and were given authority to speak on behalf of the Western Church.

[Actually his legates weren't of much note in Nicaea.]

Ha, ha,ha... The fact that Constantinople failed to be an equal See with Rome in Nicaea shows that our representation was more honored. Ha, ha, ha... Imagine, our Pope was absent then. How much more if he was present.

The decision of St. Cyril was not enough to make Ephesus an Ecumenical Council. It became as such because the Pope accepted, upheld and made it obligatory for the universal Church.

[By itself, of course it was not; Cyril is just one person. It needed the ratification of the whole Church (not just of Rome) for it to be upheld as an Ecumenical Synod. Rome being then part of the Church would of course matter. But does that mean Rome is supreme? Of course not.]

Ha, ha, ha... So why don't you call a Synod without us? Ha, ha, ha... YOU CANNOT BECAUSE YOU ARE BARREN WITHOUT US. Without Peter the bond of unity of the Church will fail. The Pope of Rome can decide with or without the Council for the Universal Church but the Sees of Constantinople and Moscow cannot. They don't have the power and the authority. Ha, ha,ha...

Then it proves that the ultimate authority in the Church is not Constantinople or Moscow but Rome.

[This only shows that Rome has the honor of being first; note that this is an honor, not a privilege nor even something that should be construed as Rome being supreme over the other Sees.]

Of course it is supreme. It is the first and the highest. The ultimate arbiter as you have said... what is that Supreme Court! That of Constantinople and Moscow are nothing in comparison.

The Western Church is always a Triumphant Church....The Orthodox Church is a defeated Church it fell to the hands of Islam.

[Ah, so I see more truimphalistic notions here;]

C'mmon. What do you want do see? Catholic Defeatistism. It is Jesus that proclaimed the Triumph of the Church. YOu have to question yourself why Jerusalem fell, Alexandria fell, Antioch fell and CONSTANTINOPLE FELL. But, the See of Peter ROME IS STILL ROME, THE ETERNAL CITY RESPLENDENT AS A BRIDE SHINING WITH THE SPLENDOR OF GOD.

[or would that be more like Catholic arrogance?]

The Catholic Church is also a humble Church. It is the Church that takes care of the lepers on the streets of Calcutta, the Church that takes care of the Orphans in Bogota, it is the Church that takes care of the AIDS victims in Africa. Not even the United Nations can equal the charitable institutions of the Catholic Church. What you are doing is presenting the ORTHODOX POOR ME ATTITUDE.

Now, if you want to talk about the humility of the Church fine. But if you want to downplay the Catholic Church to uplift the Orthodox Church, excuse me. This is Defensores! NOT AT OUR EXPENSE, IF YOU WANT TO UPLIFT YOUR CHURCH. Because if we compare our Churches yours is nothing in comparison. I am defending my Church because you are accusing it of something that she is not and you are presenting your churches as something that they are not.

while in the West they are free to establish any mission that they want.

[Not necessarily; the Orthodox Church has been free in Protestant dominated countries, but not exactly in Catholic ones.]

Really how come you have established centers in Italy, France, etc.?

[Rome had an agreement with Constantinople limiting the proselytizing of both Churches in those dominated by either Orthodox or Catholic; the Orthodox Church upheld that. Rome kept on violating that.]

THAT IS NOT TRUE. HOW COME THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE IS HERE IN SORSOGON PROVINCE AND IN METRO MANILA. ISN'T THAT VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT THAT THE TERRITORY OF THE OTHER WILL NOT BE PROSELYTIZED BY ANOTHER? So, it is not true that you are faithful to the agreement. You are violating. But every parish we have in Russia was established with the prior noticed of the Russian Orthodox Church.

[This finally exasperated Moscow, most especially.]

Moscow is exasperated even with Constantinople. Isn't it?

Who cares if they do not recognize it.

[If the Catholic Church would be true to its claim of being the universal Church, then it should care. Otherwise, all this talk of the East as being the other lung is just that--talk. In truth, Rome doesn't care about the East. Not to the Orthodox, nor even to Eastern Catholics.]

The statement above is mine which is directed to you. Of course our Pope and our Church cares. You keep on asking us to care for you. How about you are you caring of us Catholics? Did you make us feel as if we are equal? NO. YOU EVEN DARE TO CALL OUR CHURCH HAVING FALLEN INTO HERESY. EXCUSE ME. Arius and Nestorius are Easterners.. . while Luther and Calvin were excommunicated by the Catholic Church. If you will speak of heresy look first at your patriarch who sits in the office once occupied by Nestorius. Before you point your finger on our Pope look who's talking.

If the Orthodox truly upholds that until now how come they have epharchies and metropolinate in the United States, in Italy, in France, etc.

[It is because there are people who asked them to come. It is as simple as that.]

A very beautiful alibi. That you cannot give the same reasons for our Catholics entering Moscow to serve our local parishes. IN FACT UNTIL NOW MANY OF OUR CATHOLIC PARISHES CONFISCATED BY COMMUNISTS AND GIVEN TO THE ORTHODOX HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED YET.

Our territories spread because our Missionaries went to the furthest end of the world to India, Japan and China while the Orthodox remained stagnant in their territorial dreamland.

[Yes, forced to do so since Protestantism has practically almost wiped out Catholicism in Europe, and if not for the New World Catholicism would most likely die off there.]

Excuse me. We regained Europe. Our saints defeated them until they are relegated to the minority. When the East was affected by heresies Western Saints and Doctors helped in combatting the heresies. When we confronted the Protestants where were you? NOWHERE!!! We fought the Protestant heretics by our lonesome self. You are only good if you want help from us but you never help us whether in battles or in combatting heresies.

[Rome needed to regain its numbers, and the New World was the answer to that.]

We are not after numbers. We were willing to loose the entire England and its empire for our doctrine. But the Orthodox were willing to submit to the Soviets just to save their necks.

The Roman Church fought the Roman pagans, the barbarians and opposed the kings as well as the mighty of these world. They were not afraid to die and loose their necks but the Orthodox connived with the Moslems and the Communists just to get hold on power. That is why there are more Roman martyrs and Western Martyrs than Eastern martyrs.

Similar in doctrines but administratively non united. How touching. It is but natural because you do not have a single Universal Shepherd to unite all of you.

[Studying early Christianity, one would realize that the Church then didn't have a universal authority to look to.]

That is just your own opinion. It is already officially recognized by the Orthodox Church that there is a universal authority in the Church during the first millennia.

[It would be foolish to think Rome filled this role before Constantine, the Church almost always under threat of persecution and was outlawed.]

IT IS ALL THE MORE FOOLISH TO THINK THAT THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH DURING THE EARLY CHRISTIANITY. You are only depending your self-syled divisions. Ha, ha, ha...

The Church of Rome was outlawed but it was still the supreme authority in the Church. St. Peter was also outlawed then but he was making decisions for the whole Church as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. By being the Church of the Martyrs the more the See of Rome proved that it cannot be defeated by heresy.

[That is why, you will notice, no Ecumenical Synod existed prior to Constantine; it was not feasible.]

But the See of Rome was already mentioned as the See of Peter. If you will reject Rome because of her predicament how about the Church of Constantinople then? She was not under threat of knife but she was rarely mentioned as leading the Church. She was nothing then, much more Moscow.

[So too would a central administration would actually be a death sentence to Christianity then, since Roman authorities would easily spot it and just as easily put it away.]

That is the reason why the first 40 of our Popes died of Martyrdom. Because being the leader they were the targets. And the Christians rallied around the Bishop of Rome, not with Constantinople. THE BLOOD OF MARTYRS IS THE SEED OF CHRISTIANS.. . THAT BLOOD IS PRIMARILY ROMAN BLOOD WITH MANY OF OUR POPES INCLUDED. NOW HOW MANY PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW DIED FOR THE FAITH? Let me see if they are SEEDS or BARREN!!!

[In short, again it was simply not feasible.]

That is a cheap shot. During the Apostolic times they were also under persecution but Peter leading them and making decisions singlehandedly for the whole Church. Being in persecutions make the exercise of authority difficult but not impossible.

[The Church operated more as semi-independent Sees,]

This is just the product of your hallucinations. The writings of the Fathers prove otherwise. They are united and the Church is One.

[sometimes working together but more often developing independently from one another.]

THERE IS UNITY IN DIVERSITY and That unity is greater than the unity showed by the Orthodox Churches today. There is no massive persecutions but they cannot summon a Council. Ha, ha, ha...

[You can always go and recheck early Christianity and you will be amazed how little, to almost, no mention of Rome being central.]

What is repeatedly stated is that it is the See of Peter. That is greater than being called 'Central'. That is proper more for Iglesia ni Cristo than the early Christianity. To be called the See of Peter means the Church is founded on it and it is the one that will strengthened the brethren.

Bond of unity refers to the administrative aspect.

[Ah, I see now you changed your tone when you realized you cannot blame Orthodoxy for a lack of unity in faith. Most amusing.]

Don't rejoice prematurely. He, he, he...

If there is no organizational unity then the calling of Councils will be hard or impossible.

[Yet the early Church hardly had a centralized leadership; did it find it impossible to call Synods then?]

THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS THE BIBLICAL CHURCH IS CENTRALIZED. If the Apostolic Church is centralized of course the succeeding generations were also centralized. The fact that you are not centralized now speaks low of your nature as a church.

We also consider the East as important in our life.

[That is funny, because majority of Catholics are not even aware of your Eastern brethren, let alone your very own Eastern Catholics.]

Ha, ha, ha... is it a sin not to know them. If they want to be known make themselves known. How can the catholics now a group as small as the population of Timbuktu.

Rome has decided to excommunite and Rome has decided to remove the excommunications of those Bishops.

[Have you read exactly what I posted? I did say Rome cannot even begin to decide about it--first excommunicating them, then deciding they are not excommunicated after all.]

Ha, ha, ha... you looked so pathetic. You are trying to be our spokesman but sorry you are not competent. When the prelate disobeyed the Pope by ordaining some as Bishops without permission of the Holy See the Excommunication was ipso facto. It was AUTOMATIC and IMMEDIATE. That is very fast. Then now you are pretending to be so knowledgeable as if Rome "cannot even begin to decide about it--first". EXCUSE ME. THAT IS WRONG AND THAT IS A LIE. ROME KNEW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO.

[So what basis was the excommunication if it would be removed?]

HA, HA,HA... First you are pretending to be knowledgeable know your lack of knowledge of the matter is very obvious. OF COURSE THE CONCERNED PERSONS REQUESTED THE POPE TO REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION. The Pope of course granted it. Ha, ha, ha...

How about the schismatic moves of the Orthodox in Kiev that brought tension for Constantinople and Moscow?

[As with the early Church, such things happen. I would not know how this would play out, but at the most a Synod would be needed to decide this if not resolved.]

HA, HA, HA... SYNOD? WHAT IF BOTH PATRIARCHS REFUSED TO BUDGE FROM THEIR POSITION? WHO WILL CALL A SYNOD? WHO WILL PRESIDE? WILL THE BISHOP OF SYRO-MALABAR IN INDIA GIVE JUDGMENT TO SETTLE THE DIFFERENCES OF MOSCOW AND CONSTANTINOPLE? HA, HA, HA... OR MAY BE THE PATRIARCH OF ROMANIA OR BULGARIA WILL BE THE FINAL ARBITER... HA, HA, HA... HOW EXCITING.

We don't need the approval of the Protestant Church for our faith and for our ecclesial life.

[If you do not need the Protestants, then why still go after them?]

Ha, ha, ha... Approval. Not persons. As humans we need them of course. But we don't need their approval or authority for our decisions in the Universal Church.

Is it our fault?

[If Rome wishes to see itself as the universal Church, then it should do all it can to make Latin rite Catholics realize that you have Eastern brethren.]

IT MUST BE VICE-VERSA. THE ORTHODOX MUST ALSO DO ITS PART. YOU KEEP ON BLAMING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR ALL YOUR PREDICAMENTS INCLUDING THOSE THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT UPON YOURSELVES. THE CATHOLICS SOLVED OUR PROBLEM ON OUR OWN. STOP BEING CRYING BABIES.

[And we are not talking about the Orthodox here, but of the Eastern Catholics. It is not enough to say, "No, there are no Easterners here".]

YOU ARE VERY VAGUE HERE. WHEN DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OFFICIALLY SAID THAT "THERE IS NO EASTERNERS HERE"? I think this is more a product of your own hallucinations rather than a presentation of our positions.

[Then what kind of a universal Church are you talking about if majority do not even know the Eastern Catholics?]

Why is it a sin on our part not to know about Eastern Catholics? In the United States where there are Ukrainian and Greek Catholics they are well-taken cared of. They have their own Bishops and priests and were part of the Diocesan life. There is a regular Synods in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholics are always represented. They have their own Oriental Code of Canon Law. Their Patriarchs are made cardinals and are respected in the Catholic Church. They are free to use their own liturgy and they have their own jurisdiction. The Pope even established departments in the HOly See to see the situations and needs of the Oriental Churches.

However, a minority group that is not visible in the local area is by nature not automatically known to the local population. But to those who are educated like the members of this group of course they are aware of the Eastern Catholics. How about the Orthodox in Bulgaria, do they know that there are Sorsogon Catholics? How about you, do you know that there are Catholics in Putiao? Do you know their pains and struggles? So, go to the Orthodox in Bulgaria and tell them that there are poor Catholics in Putiao and blame them for their ignorance of their flight!!!

Our Councils come from the whole Church.

[Now that is surprising, as in Trent there were practically no Eastern presence. Do you consider it then representative of the whole Church when it was composed mostly of Westerners?]

What is wrong with that? The early Councils were mostly composed of Eastern Bishops because the site was near them. This time it was held in the West of course the nearby Bishops were able to come and those from afar were not. Still it is an Ecumenical Council because it is binding for the entire Church. It was the See of Peter that says so. Why? Do you want to agree with the position of Luther instead?

That is why the Orthodox cannot call for a Council. It is incomplete on its own.

[The Orthodox Church recognizes a simple truth: that unity had been sundered.]

You've stated that we are in heresy. Now why do you need us? Do you need heretics to be complete? The Church is whole and is always whole apart from heretics. When we excommunicated the Protestants we want them still to be united with us but we have to accept the fact that they severed themselves from us and therefore they are not part of our Ecclesial Unity. Thus, we can act and decide without them. Also we can act and decide without the Orthodox as long as we are one and united with the See of Peter.

[That is why it does not call for an Ecumenical Synod since the Church is not complete.]

Ha, ha, ha... IF I WILL FOLLOW YOUR REASONING THEN THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS IS INVALID BECAUSE THE ARIANS WERE NOT YET UNITED TO THE CHURCH THEN. AND THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON IS INVALID BECAUSE THE ARIANS AND THE NESTORIANS WERE NOT YET UNITED WITH THE CHURCH THEN. HA, HA, HA...

SO, THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH WAS SUNDERED. THE ARIANS ARE HERETICS, THE NESTORIANS HERETICS, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS IN HERESY SO WHY DO YOU NEED OUR HERESY TO POISON YOUR COUNCIL? HA, HA, HA... NAKAKATAWA KA.

[It is simply being honest.]

That is not honesty that is a very pathetic alibi.

[The Catholic Church calls its Synods as Ecumenical even if only part of the Church is present; would you say that is being honest, then?]

THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH US ARE NOT PART OF US SO WE ARE NOT NECESSITATED BY THEIR PRESENCE. IN VATICAN I THE POPE SENT A LETTER ASKING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE ORTHODOX BUT THEY REFUSED. FINE WITH US. IN VATICAN II, THEY CAME AS GUESTS. FINE WITH US. With or without you we can summon a Council.

OUR ECUMENICAL COUNCILS ARE TRULY ECUMENICAL BECAUSE IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH. WHOLE MEANS THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EXCLUDING THE HERETICS AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH THE SEE OF PETER.

The Orthodox decided to be stagnant and look at the effects on them.

[Yes, we held on to the Faith much better.]

You are only playing safe because you know you lack authority to define things.

[We're spared of the horrors and abuses in the Latin Mass, such as that horrific Barney Mass done in California a few years back.]

That is not a Catholic Mass and definitely it is not approve by our legitimate authority.

[If stagnation should mean holding on to orthodox faith, then so be it. Rather than innovations that would run the Church to the ground.]

Wether you remain stagnant or proceed with the use of full authority temptations and sins and the danger of heresies are still real. Being stagnant is not a sure safety.

I have seen Orthodox celebrations not in Greek but in English already. So they are using vernacular also.

[Because Orthodox Divine Liturgy isn't confined solely in Greek; did Moscow celebrate its Divine Liturgy in Greek? It never did; it used Slavonic. While the Western Church insisted on Latin, Russia and Eastern Europe were using Slavonic, not Greek. So Orthodoxy, unlike Catholicism, never confined its worship to one language. It used the vernacular early on.]

The Catholic Church is NOT confined to one language. We have the Latin, the Greek, Maronite, Ukrainian, Syro-Malabar, the Coptic, etc for the Liturgy.

Then, they have simplified the Holy Mass.

[Orthodox does the Mass? The horror of it! No Orthodox would celebrate the Latin Mass. You must mean the Divine Liturgy; but are you even familiar with it to say it is simplified?]

Don't be too hypocritical in terminology. Our Mass is called THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. We call it the Mass but it is our Divine Liturgy.

Then, when I've met a Greek Orthodox priest here in the Philippines he was in Roman Collar not in complete black cossack.

[And what has this to do with Faith then? It is an adaptation, since the climate here is hot. The rassa would be hot to wear here. Faith is not the issue here then.]

So, you admit of innovations. Now that you are going out of your territories and are experiencing what our missionaries have experienced now you know that their decisions for pastoral innovations are understandable and correct. So you are swallowing your claim about innovations. It is nice if your Patriarch is only living in Phanar. He wants to be wearing his Black Cossack only. Let him stay in tropical country during summer and let us see if he will hate reforms.

The Church of Rome has members who succumbed to heresies but the See of Rome has neither taught nor uphold a heresy. Never ever!

[Again, according to Rome. The Orthodox Church begs differently. For Orthodoxy, Rome is not merely in schism, but in heresy.]

SORRY FOR YOU BUT IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE SEE OF PETER IS THE LAST BULWARK OF TRUE TEACHINGS. BY DEFYING THE SEE OF PETER CONSTANTINOPLE FELL LIKE JERUSALEM WHILE ROME IS THE MOTHER OF ALL CHURCHES.

That is not an argument at all. Because almost the entire world followed the Pope including the Protestants so that now the whole Christendom follows the Easter dates set by the Holy See while only a pittance of the Eastern Churches disoboyed.

[What has numbers got to do with the truth? Is truth now relative to how many adherents one has?]

The issue here is Obedience to the decision of the Successor of Peter concerning the Date of Easter. Almost all Bishops obeyed the Pope so that the very dissenters made a fool of themselves and are relegated to the dustbin of history. Now they are celebrating Easter at the time when the rest of the world is doing it some other day. It shows that your beloved disobedient bishops made themselves the laughing stock in history. The Universal Church upheld the Authority of Peter. Even the pagans and the secular states were forced to consider the decision of the Bishop of Rome and not those of the disobedient bishops.

If you want you can invite the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow to reject the Gregorian Calendar and return to the Julian Calendar used in Mt. Athos. Let us see if the Universal Church will obey them.

The Pope respected the immovable Bishops in their stubbornness but the Pope went on with the date that he set and OBVIOUSLY THE WHOLE WORLD OBEYED THE POPE not your Bishops.

[And what again has this to do with the truth? Ah nothing--it is simply Catholic triumphalism all over again.]

HA, HA, HA... IT IS BECAUSE THE DECISIONS OF YOUR BISHOPS WERE PROVEN TO BE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER NOW YOU ARE CRYING TRIUMPHALISM. HA, HA, HA... I AM ENJOYING YOUR "BITTERNESS OF THE LOSER".

IF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH WAS NOT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ROME HOW COME THEY ARE OBEYING ROME AND NOT CONSTANTINOPLE, PERGAMON, MOSCOW, ETC. WHY?

The 3 others are almost non existent now.

[Non-existent? Heaven forbid that you say that; not even the bishop of Rome would say something like that. Again, Catholic triumphalism? ]

WELL, THERE IS STILL A REMNANT. THEY EXIST AS A REMNANT OF THE GLORY THAT WAS IN THE PAST.

BY THE WAY, THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE WILL NEVER TELL THE POPE THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME IS IN HERESY. Actually, I talked to some Orthodox priests. I’ve met them and we both embraced each other in fraternal embrace. I am wondering what kind of Orthodox you are. YOU ARE SO BITTER AND ANTI CATHOLIC.

I do not remember any member of this group attacking the Orthodox Churches yet here you are calling the Church of Rome 'in error' and 'in heresy'. O NO, NO, NO... NOT ON MY FACE because NESTORIUS is a Bishop of Constantinople.

Who cares if he left the place?

[Well, according to another member here: The Bishop of Rome never leaves his see for another see for the 1st 1000 years as per part of the tradition of the western church.]

I think that gentleman can speak for himself. On my part, I agree with you that the Pope indeed left Rome and lived in Avignon. but most probably, he meant that the Pope never betrayed the Faith and he was never in heresy.

I'm merely pointing out to him that the bishop of Rome did leave his See and resided in Avignon.

Rome didn't separate itself from the Church. She is the Church.

[Again, according to Rome, of course.]

THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED ON PETER. IT IS THE SEE OF PETER THAT POSSESSES THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM. THAT IS WHY IM WILLING TO GIVE MY LIFE FOR THE CHURCH OF ROME AS THOUSANDS OF OUR MARTYRS BUT NOT FOR CONTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. MY LOYALTY IS TO GOD AND TO THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER.

How much more it is hallucinatory to think that the leader of the Church to replace the see of Peter is the one of Constantinople and Moscow.

[Where did I even mention that?]

I'M GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT CLAIMING THAT. INDEED, CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER TO EQUATE THEMSELVES WITH ROME: BIBLICALLY, PATRISTICALLY, HISTORICALLY. ..

YOU MIGHT CALL IT TRIUMPHALISM. NO THIS IS CATHOLIC DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH WHICH YOU ARE LAMBASTING IN FAVOR OF THOSE WHO ARE INFERIOR TO HER.