Why the Strong Anti-Western Bias Among Orthodox?
#31
(02-17-2021, 12:43 AM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
(02-05-2021, 02:16 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(02-05-2021, 12:19 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(01-29-2021, 11:18 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(01-29-2021, 02:25 PM)Evangelium Wrote: If you want to read a strong Orthodox defense of the West, read Russia and the Universal Church by Vladimir Soloviev.

I've had this on my Drive for a while. And after reading a good portion of the Introduction, I'm reeling at how this man is even a Russian Orthodox! He really seemed to recognize the importance of the papacy in the West and its centrality to Christian orthodoxy.
Soloviev is about as Orthodox as Teliard de Chardin is Catholic.
He was an illuminist philosopher who held gnostic/pseudo-pagan views about Sophia as an "Eternal Feminine" and man as evolving toward a "universal humanity".

It's bizarre that Catholic apologists have latched onto him as a resource. This would be like Orthodox apologists trying to use Chardin as a resource if Chardin had happened
to hold some seemingly pro-Orthodox ecclesiological ideas amidst his heresies.

Considering I'm not an Orthodox, that doesn't particularly phase me. His unorthodoxy to the Orthodox has no particular bearing on my opinion of him. I just found it interesting that he was a supporter of the papacy.

As an Orthodox Christian I have found Soloviev to be a comfort amidst the implacable desert of Anti-Occidentalism the Orthodox tend to define themselves by. 

Yes, he may have held heretical views in terms of his Sofianism (which goes hand in hand with his Kabbalist and Gnostic studies) but he was right on the money when it came to the Papacy. Do we Orthodox want to throw out St. Gregory of Nazianzen because he supported Apocatastasis, or St. Joseph of Volokhomansk because he supported the Posessors unto the persecution of St Nilus and the Non-Posessors?  Many Orthotrads want to throw out St. Augustine for various (contrived) reasons, but he is a venerable and holy Church Father whose theology has illumined the Universal Church East and West. I am very wary of those who are quick to throw out people because of their flaws (real or imagined) and who will not confront their ideas. At the end of the day I fear many Orthotrads will be the sole arbiters of their own personal Orthodoxy, which is an inverted papacy; rather than submit to the Holy See and the man who God has placed as head of His Church they will become little popes themselves, which is exactly what Protestantism has become.
Strange that you perjoritatively condemn "Orthotrads" for their non-ecumenism, while quoting the ultimate "Orthotrad" non-ecumenist (Fr. Seraphim Rose) in your signature. Meanwhile, you seemingly have no issue with TradCath non-ecumenists, judging by your presence here, which is odd.
Reply
#32
(02-16-2021, 03:23 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(01-29-2021, 01:30 PM)Justin Tertius Wrote: I am a frequent listener to Michael Lofton's Reason and Theology podcast. Listening has sparked a recent interest in Eastern Christianity (not just exclusively Byzantine). 

I checked out some books on the topic, most of which are by Orthodox Christians. 

One thing that I have noticed is that, at least in some authors, there is a very strong anti-Western sentiment and a tendency to blame the West for every evil or wrong. (Alexander Schmeman was a good example of this that I recently encountered.) The accusations tend to be that the west is overly Rationalistic, that the West has a defective theology, that the West has allowed xyz innovation to corrupt their spirituality.

As far as I am aware, I haven't noticed a similar attitude coming from Catholics towards to the Orthodox. Generally, the Catholics seem to be very conciliatory towards the Orthodox churches, and this attitude seems to be the historical one (the Council of Lyon 1274 and the Council of Florence 1439 being attempts to heal the schism, which more or less succeeded until the Eastern Bishops returned to their dioceses.)

I haven't read too deeply into the subjects and am trying to get my bearings.
I came to Catholicism by way of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church.  I also spent a number of years in the Orthodox Church (enough material there for a whopper of a book!!), and for reasons I won't go into here, am now back in the Catholic Church, albeit attending my local R.C. parish.

You might be interested to read His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.  It was written by an Orthodox priest and so has an Orthodox bias.  If you keep that in mind while reading it, you might find it very illuminating.  https://books.google.com/books/about/His...KOUb6OcG4C

J Michael, you're back!  How have you been!
Reply
#33
(02-17-2021, 10:08 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-16-2021, 03:23 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(01-29-2021, 01:30 PM)Justin Tertius Wrote: I am a frequent listener to Michael Lofton's Reason and Theology podcast. Listening has sparked a recent interest in Eastern Christianity (not just exclusively Byzantine). 

I checked out some books on the topic, most of which are by Orthodox Christians. 

One thing that I have noticed is that, at least in some authors, there is a very strong anti-Western sentiment and a tendency to blame the West for every evil or wrong. (Alexander Schmeman was a good example of this that I recently encountered.) The accusations tend to be that the west is overly Rationalistic, that the West has a defective theology, that the West has allowed xyz innovation to corrupt their spirituality.

As far as I am aware, I haven't noticed a similar attitude coming from Catholics towards to the Orthodox. Generally, the Catholics seem to be very conciliatory towards the Orthodox churches, and this attitude seems to be the historical one (the Council of Lyon 1274 and the Council of Florence 1439 being attempts to heal the schism, which more or less succeeded until the Eastern Bishops returned to their dioceses.)

I haven't read too deeply into the subjects and am trying to get my bearings.
I came to Catholicism by way of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church.  I also spent a number of years in the Orthodox Church (enough material there for a whopper of a book!!), and for reasons I won't go into here, am now back in the Catholic Church, albeit attending my local R.C. parish.

You might be interested to read His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.  It was written by an Orthodox priest and so has an Orthodox bias.  If you keep that in mind while reading it, you might find it very illuminating.  https://books.google.com/books/about/His...KOUb6OcG4C

J Michael, you're back!  How have you been!
Yup, I'm baaaack :-)! 

Been alright for the most part.  Thanks for asking!  Hope you've been well!
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan
[-] The following 2 users Like J Michael's post:
  • Catherine, Melkite
Reply
#34
Quote:Strange that you perjoritatively condemn "Orthotrads" for their non-ecumenism, while quoting the ultimate "Orthotrad" non-ecumenist (Fr. Seraphim Rose) in your signature. Meanwhile, you seemingly have no issue with TradCath non-ecumenists, judging by your presence here, which is odd.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 

Fr Seraphim Rose is a model of modern man converting and living out the fullness of an ancient religion. I have an abiding love for his works (not the least of which is St. Michael's Skete on Spruce Island) which have been formative to my own orthodoxy, while I may disagree with some of his conclusions or even perspectives such as his non-ecumenism, which was definitely part of his "polemical stage" of early convert zeal. He later changed his tone and became more focused on helping post-modern man find solace in the bosom of Orthodoxy and was known to attend Shakespeare Festivals in Oregon and have snowball fights with the young boys that he and Fr. Herman had taken in.  We can agree on the holiness of a man or the rightness of one of his teachings without having to accept all of his opinions or perspectives.  


On a side note I happen to be a guest on this forum and therefore am trying not to get banned.  Therefore even if I disagree with "Tradcath non-ecumenists" I am keeping it mostly to my self. Although in a previous post I did express my frustration over what appears to be an unbending application of "extra ecclesia nulla salus" for which I was thoroughly "corrected" by the super-correct faction here. Also, I am not a full ecumenist in the sense of uniting all religions under one temporal and spiritual authority as appears to the current trajectory of the Vatican.  I am a apostolic ecumenist in that I believe Churches with Apostolic Succession have an obligation to work towards reunion.
"Orthodoxy is not so much a matter of the head. It is something living, and it's of the heart." --Bl. Seraphim of Platina

"Beauty will save the world." --Fyodor Dostoevsky

"You shall know the truth, and it will make you odd." --Flannery O'Connor
[-] The following 2 users Like PilgrimMichelangelo's post:
  • Evangelium, Melkite
Reply
#35
PorphyriosK, I'm genuinely curious about why you post here, given that you are Orthodox and oppose the Catholic Church.
The Gospel is traditional.
Reply
#36
(02-17-2021, 02:04 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
Quote:Strange that you perjoritatively condemn "Orthotrads" for their non-ecumenism, while quoting the ultimate "Orthotrad" non-ecumenist (Fr. Seraphim Rose) in your signature. Meanwhile, you seemingly have no issue with TradCath non-ecumenists, judging by your presence here, which is odd.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 

Fr Seraphim Rose is a model of modern man converting and living out the fullness of an ancient religion. I have an abiding love for his works (not the least of which is St. Michael's Skete on Spruce Island) which have been formative to my own orthodoxy, while I may disagree with some of his conclusions or even perspectives such as his non-ecumenism, which was definitely part of his "polemical stage" of early convert zeal. He later changed his tone and became more focused on helping post-modern man find solace in the bosom of Orthodoxy and was known to attend Shakespeare Festivals in Oregon and have snowball fights with the young boys that he and Fr. Herman had taken in.  We can agree on the holiness of a man or the rightness of one of his teachings without having to accept all of his opinions or perspectives.  


On a side note I happen to be a guest on this forum and therefore am trying not to get banned.  Therefore even if I disagree with "Tradcath non-ecumenists" I am keeping it mostly to my self. Although in a previous post I did express my frustration over what appears to be an unbending application of "extra ecclesia nulla salus" for which I was thoroughly "corrected" by the super-correct faction here. Also, I am not a full ecumenist in the sense of uniting all religions under one temporal and spiritual authority as appears to the current trajectory of the Vatican.  I am a apostolic ecumenist in that I believe Churches with Apostolic Succession have an obligation to work towards reunion.
Fr. Seraphim may have lightened his tone later in life and he rightly believed in attracting people to the truth with love and patience, but he never once comromised or changed his beliefs regarding the papacy or ecumenism. There is this notion going around that Orthodox are "mean", anti-Western and hate Catholics which is not the case at all. It's a matter of not compromising on the truth, period.

You can criticize Orthodox "convert zeal" all you want, but study the official and uncompromising teachings of the Church regarding papacy and ecumenism and you will see that these are not "extremist" views, but simply the voice of the Church:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Reply
#37
(02-17-2021, 09:38 PM)Evangelium Wrote: PorphyriosK, I'm genuinely curious about why you post here, given that you are Orthodox and oppose the Catholic Church.
I really don't post here that often and I never start my own threads, but occasionally chime in when Orthodoxy is the topic of conversation. I may oppose the papacy and other teachings of Rome, but I am in no way opposed to Catholics thhemselves and respect anyone who holds to their convictions. There are many misconceptions among Traditionalists regarding what Orthodox believe, so I will sometimes interject. Others here have expressed gratitude for my input, which is the only reason I occasionally make an appearance. God bless.
Reply
#38
(02-18-2021, 05:56 AM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(02-17-2021, 02:04 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
Quote:Strange that you perjoritatively condemn "Orthotrads" for their non-ecumenism, while quoting the ultimate "Orthotrad" non-ecumenist (Fr. Seraphim Rose) in your signature. Meanwhile, you seemingly have no issue with TradCath non-ecumenists, judging by your presence here, which is odd.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 

Fr Seraphim Rose is a model of modern man converting and living out the fullness of an ancient religion. I have an abiding love for his works (not the least of which is St. Michael's Skete on Spruce Island) which have been formative to my own orthodoxy, while I may disagree with some of his conclusions or even perspectives such as his non-ecumenism, which was definitely part of his "polemical stage" of early convert zeal. He later changed his tone and became more focused on helping post-modern man find solace in the bosom of Orthodoxy and was known to attend Shakespeare Festivals in Oregon and have snowball fights with the young boys that he and Fr. Herman had taken in.  We can agree on the holiness of a man or the rightness of one of his teachings without having to accept all of his opinions or perspectives.  


On a side note I happen to be a guest on this forum and therefore am trying not to get banned.  Therefore even if I disagree with "Tradcath non-ecumenists" I am keeping it mostly to my self. Although in a previous post I did express my frustration over what appears to be an unbending application of "extra ecclesia nulla salus" for which I was thoroughly "corrected" by the super-correct faction here. Also, I am not a full ecumenist in the sense of uniting all religions under one temporal and spiritual authority as appears to the current trajectory of the Vatican.  I am a apostolic ecumenist in that I believe Churches with Apostolic Succession have an obligation to work towards reunion.
Fr. Seraphim may have lightened his tone later in life and he rightly believed in attracting people to the truth with love and patience, but he never once comromised or changed his beliefs regarding the papacy or ecumenism. There is this notion going around that Orthodox are "mean", anti-Western and hate Catholics which is not the case at all. It's a matter of not compromising on the truth, period.

You can criticize Orthodox "convert zeal" all you want, but study the official and uncompromising teachings of the Church regarding papacy and ecumenism and you will see that these are not "extremist" views, but simply the voice of the Church:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

I am aware he didn't change his position regarding the papacy and ecumenism, my point is he moved on from polemics into a deeper understanding of the spiritual life. 

The Orthodox (and that includes myself up until about two and a half years ago) especially of the convert variety are known for their obnoxious lack of charity, their stubborn mischaracterization of the Faith as a monolithic ancient teaching cloaked in impregnable Tradition, and their schismatic mentality which justifies separation from the Catholic Church on the grounds of supposed doctrinal purity. Internet Orthodoxy tends to also deny the complicated history between East and West and rarely goes deeper than a popular version of events surrounding 1054. 

I have read the Encyclical of Eastern Patriarchs from 1848 and it only illustrates my point. The Orthodox will have nothing to do with the Catholic Church until they repent of their spiritual pride. This is why St. John Chrysostom says that the sin of schism is only healed when there is humility. 

Might I suggest a reading on the ancient heresy of Donatism? You may begin to see striking parallels between Orthodoxy attitudes towards Catholics today and the ancient Donatists: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Donatists (newadvent.org)
"Orthodoxy is not so much a matter of the head. It is something living, and it's of the heart." --Bl. Seraphim of Platina

"Beauty will save the world." --Fyodor Dostoevsky

"You shall know the truth, and it will make you odd." --Flannery O'Connor
[-] The following 1 user Likes PilgrimMichelangelo's post:
  • Evangelium
Reply
#39
(02-18-2021, 01:51 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
(02-18-2021, 05:56 AM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(02-17-2021, 02:04 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
Quote:Strange that you perjoritatively condemn "Orthotrads" for their non-ecumenism, while quoting the ultimate "Orthotrad" non-ecumenist (Fr. Seraphim Rose) in your signature. Meanwhile, you seemingly have no issue with TradCath non-ecumenists, judging by your presence here, which is odd.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 

Fr Seraphim Rose is a model of modern man converting and living out the fullness of an ancient religion. I have an abiding love for his works (not the least of which is St. Michael's Skete on Spruce Island) which have been formative to my own orthodoxy, while I may disagree with some of his conclusions or even perspectives such as his non-ecumenism, which was definitely part of his "polemical stage" of early convert zeal. He later changed his tone and became more focused on helping post-modern man find solace in the bosom of Orthodoxy and was known to attend Shakespeare Festivals in Oregon and have snowball fights with the young boys that he and Fr. Herman had taken in.  We can agree on the holiness of a man or the rightness of one of his teachings without having to accept all of his opinions or perspectives.  


On a side note I happen to be a guest on this forum and therefore am trying not to get banned.  Therefore even if I disagree with "Tradcath non-ecumenists" I am keeping it mostly to my self. Although in a previous post I did express my frustration over what appears to be an unbending application of "extra ecclesia nulla salus" for which I was thoroughly "corrected" by the super-correct faction here. Also, I am not a full ecumenist in the sense of uniting all religions under one temporal and spiritual authority as appears to the current trajectory of the Vatican.  I am a apostolic ecumenist in that I believe Churches with Apostolic Succession have an obligation to work towards reunion.
Fr. Seraphim may have lightened his tone later in life and he rightly believed in attracting people to the truth with love and patience, but he never once comromised or changed his beliefs regarding the papacy or ecumenism. There is this notion going around that Orthodox are "mean", anti-Western and hate Catholics which is not the case at all. It's a matter of not compromising on the truth, period.

You can criticize Orthodox "convert zeal" all you want, but study the official and uncompromising teachings of the Church regarding papacy and ecumenism and you will see that these are not "extremist" views, but simply the voice of the Church:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

I am aware he didn't change his position regarding the papacy and ecumenism, my point is he moved on from polemics into a deeper understanding of the spiritual life. 

The Orthodox (and that includes myself up until about two and a half years ago) especially of the convert variety are known for their obnoxious lack of charity, their stubborn mischaracterization of the Faith as a monolithic ancient teaching cloaked in impregnable Tradition, and their schismatic mentality which justifies separation from the Catholic Church on the grounds of supposed doctrinal purity. Internet Orthodoxy tends to also deny the complicated history between East and West and rarely goes deeper than a popular version of events surrounding 1054. 

I have read the Encyclical of Eastern Patriarchs from 1848 and it only illustrates my point. The Orthodox will have nothing to do with the Catholic Church until they repent of their spiritual pride. This is why St. John Chrysostom says that the sin of schism is only healed when there is humility. 

Might I suggest a reading on the ancient heresy of Donatism? You may begin to see striking parallels between Orthodoxy attitudes towards Catholics today and the ancient Donatists: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Donatists (newadvent.org)
The Donatist comparison is way off.

It is also a total falsehood to claim that using polemics to defend truth from error is somehow prideful or sinful. Read the works of any number of Fathers and saints, or the various canons and anathemas laid down by Councils and and you will often notice a sharp polemical tone. Undermining the truth of our faith for the sake of charity is also in fact a false charity and false humility. Effeminate "niceness" is not synonymous with true charity, nor is it a prerequisite for holiness. Also, read about spiritual pride and you'll notice it can pop up anywhere. Even pride in one's own "non-polemicism", so tend to the possible beam in your own non-polemical eye before you judge the patriarchs and saints of your own communion as sinful simply for their "tone".

That being said, it's perfectly fine for Orthodox and Catholics to have warm feelings for one another and to be charitable towards one another, but any union of churches that is based on warm feelings only without doctrinal unity would be a false union. I'm sure the Catholics here would agree. 

The question is,, if as an Orthodox you believe it is your own communion that has committed the sin of schism and not the Roman communion, and if you believe papal claims are true, then why are you Orthodox and not Catholic?
Reply
#40
(02-19-2021, 03:14 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(02-18-2021, 01:51 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
(02-18-2021, 05:56 AM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(02-17-2021, 02:04 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
Quote:Strange that you perjoritatively condemn "Orthotrads" for their non-ecumenism, while quoting the ultimate "Orthotrad" non-ecumenist (Fr. Seraphim Rose) in your signature. Meanwhile, you seemingly have no issue with TradCath non-ecumenists, judging by your presence here, which is odd.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 

Fr Seraphim Rose is a model of modern man converting and living out the fullness of an ancient religion. I have an abiding love for his works (not the least of which is St. Michael's Skete on Spruce Island) which have been formative to my own orthodoxy, while I may disagree with some of his conclusions or even perspectives such as his non-ecumenism, which was definitely part of his "polemical stage" of early convert zeal. He later changed his tone and became more focused on helping post-modern man find solace in the bosom of Orthodoxy and was known to attend Shakespeare Festivals in Oregon and have snowball fights with the young boys that he and Fr. Herman had taken in.  We can agree on the holiness of a man or the rightness of one of his teachings without having to accept all of his opinions or perspectives.  


On a side note I happen to be a guest on this forum and therefore am trying not to get banned.  Therefore even if I disagree with "Tradcath non-ecumenists" I am keeping it mostly to my self. Although in a previous post I did express my frustration over what appears to be an unbending application of "extra ecclesia nulla salus" for which I was thoroughly "corrected" by the super-correct faction here. Also, I am not a full ecumenist in the sense of uniting all religions under one temporal and spiritual authority as appears to the current trajectory of the Vatican.  I am a apostolic ecumenist in that I believe Churches with Apostolic Succession have an obligation to work towards reunion.
Fr. Seraphim may have lightened his tone later in life and he rightly believed in attracting people to the truth with love and patience, but he never once comromised or changed his beliefs regarding the papacy or ecumenism. There is this notion going around that Orthodox are "mean", anti-Western and hate Catholics which is not the case at all. It's a matter of not compromising on the truth, period.

You can criticize Orthodox "convert zeal" all you want, but study the official and uncompromising teachings of the Church regarding papacy and ecumenism and you will see that these are not "extremist" views, but simply the voice of the Church:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

I am aware he didn't change his position regarding the papacy and ecumenism, my point is he moved on from polemics into a deeper understanding of the spiritual life. 

The Orthodox (and that includes myself up until about two and a half years ago) especially of the convert variety are known for their obnoxious lack of charity, their stubborn mischaracterization of the Faith as a monolithic ancient teaching cloaked in impregnable Tradition, and their schismatic mentality which justifies separation from the Catholic Church on the grounds of supposed doctrinal purity. Internet Orthodoxy tends to also deny the complicated history between East and West and rarely goes deeper than a popular version of events surrounding 1054. 

I have read the Encyclical of Eastern Patriarchs from 1848 and it only illustrates my point. The Orthodox will have nothing to do with the Catholic Church until they repent of their spiritual pride. This is why St. John Chrysostom says that the sin of schism is only healed when there is humility. 

Might I suggest a reading on the ancient heresy of Donatism? You may begin to see striking parallels between Orthodoxy attitudes towards Catholics today and the ancient Donatists: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Donatists (newadvent.org)
The Donatist comparison is way off.

It is also a total falsehood to claim that using polemics to defend truth from error is somehow prideful or sinful. Read the works of any number of Fathers and saints, or the various canons and anathemas laid down by Councils and and you will often notice a sharp polemical tone. Undermining the truth of our faith for the sake of charity is also in fact a false charity and false humility. Effeminate "niceness" is not synonymous with true charity, nor is it a prerequisite for holiness. Also, read about spiritual pride and you'll notice it can pop up anywhere. Even pride in one's own "non-polemicism", so tend to the possible beam in your own non-polemical eye before you judge the patriarchs and saints of your own communion as sinful simply for their "tone".

That being said, it's perfectly fine for Orthodox and Catholics to have warm feelings for one another and to be charitable towards one another, but any union of churches that is based on warm feelings only without doctrinal unity would be a false union. I'm sure the Catholics here would agree. 

The question is,, if as an Orthodox you believe it is your own communion that has committed the sin of schism and not the Roman communion, and if you believe papal claims are true, then why are you Orthodox and not Catholic?

Respectfully, (a low metania) I will have to disagree with you on the comparison with the Donatists. (Side note, St. Thomas Aquinas has fully and properly convicted me of the sin of effeminacy, which is an inordinate love of pleasure and a great disdain towards pain--the great weakness of our age I would contend). 

I am spiritually in Communion with the Holy See but have not formalized my communion with Rome yet because I love the people that I am connected to via Orthodoxy. Also I have many personal/emotional issues that cannot be solved merely by switching communions. I will side with my Eastern Catholic brethren here (i.e. @ Melkite) when they say they are Orthodox in Communion with Rome. Mentally I am there, but have not made the Profession of Faith to formally ally myself with Rome. Despite Pope Francis and his shenanigan's, the Holy City of Rome is where my heart lies. There is an abiding Truth historically and spiritually and only Rome can fulfill. May Our Lady of Fatima, St. Padre Pio and St. Josaphat of Polotsk  enlighten all Orthodox to repent of their heresy( i.e. rejection of St. Peter's Supremacy) and convert to the True Faith, in which St. Peter's See occupies it's rightful locus of Primacy.  

Only when there is Repentance can true union be possible and pleasing to Our Lord Jesus Christ...
"Orthodoxy is not so much a matter of the head. It is something living, and it's of the heart." --Bl. Seraphim of Platina

"Beauty will save the world." --Fyodor Dostoevsky

"You shall know the truth, and it will make you odd." --Flannery O'Connor
[-] The following 1 user Likes PilgrimMichelangelo's post:
  • Evangelium
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)