Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.7K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
Pope Benedict Visit to the UK
Hello,
Is the Coptic Orthodox Church sending anyone to greet the Catholic Pontiff?
It seems he has an agenda to reach out to other Christian leaders, and I just had the impression, from reading the news, that he's interested in bringing Anglicans back to the RC.
What about discussion with the Orthodox? Is that on the table???
Thanks
Is the Coptic Orthodox Church sending anyone to greet the Catholic Pontiff?
It seems he has an agenda to reach out to other Christian leaders, and I just had the impression, from reading the news, that he's interested in bringing Anglicans back to the RC.
What about discussion with the Orthodox? Is that on the table???
Thanks
Comments
Also many of the clergy of the Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches in the UK are attending the Ecumenical Vespers at Westminster Abbey tomorrow afternoon - I shall be there myself. And today the President of the Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches in the UK is attending the Royal Reception being held at Holyrood Palace by Her Majesty the Queen in honour of Pope Benedict. I believe that several of the Oriental Orthodox bishops will also be attending the Mass being celebrated by Pope Benedict at Westminster Cathedral on Saturday morning.
I don't think that Pope Benedict is interested in bringing UK Anglicans to Catholicism. Don't believe ANYTHING in the press or the media. They are all just liars. He is opening doors for larger groups of Anglicans in the US and Australia who have already separated from the gross error in the 'official' Anglican Churches in those countries. Anglicans in the UK could always have joined the Catholics, Some did when the Anglicans ordained female priests. The majority don't want to and have learned to put up with error.
Last week I went to visit the Franciscan International Study Centre at Canterbury and had an interesting few hours conversation with the Director there, Brother Phillippe. I do disagree with aspects of Catholicism, and think that it is itself at risk from the assaults of 'protestantism' and 'liberalism'. But I think that the relationship between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholics in the UK is positive.
Father Peter
Father Peter
There is surely no reason not to call him by his official title and name which is Pope Benedict.
Father Peter
I have respect for priests, such as yourself, and bishops such as H.H. Pope Shenouda, but not an individual like ratzinger. I can give details but I think it might be better if I dont. See I am getting better at learning what is appropriate and whats not, kinda! lol
There is the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Regional Forum which meets regularly and draws together representatives bishops and priests of the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox communities. I am the Co-Secretary of this Forum.
What is the mandate of such a forum? Is its ultimate goal to bring unity between the Catholics and ourselves? Out of curiosity, who would that be? Why don't these Anglicans join the Anglican high Church which does not accept women priests, nor gay bishops?
Why go to the Catholics?? Please tell me: What does the Catholic Church have to say about the Charismatic movement that has inflitrated right into the Core of their Church? How do they explain that? How can that be?
How can they have one bishop who is dead against such movements, and others who are promoting it? I know that the non-traditionalists look up to us. They see us as the "2nd lung in the Body of Christ". But the traditionalists themselves see us as heretics. What do you make of that? Ironically, they themselves are excommunicated from the Catholic Church anyway.
Father Peter
Also, there are many reasons I refuse to recognize and accept the latins, many doctrinal. The reason I have decided to to give no respect the the leaders, especially Ratzinger, is for them covering up child sex abuse scandals. This issue has always been close to my heart, and leaders like Ratzinger are sick and disgusting for ruining peoples lives like this. I will not be "unified" with a pedophile and I certainly will not kiss his hand nor show him any sort of respect, maybe just maybe I will show him the same amount of respect I show rat.
I dont understand why there is a necessity for dialog between us and the latins? Do we really need them? I dont think we are capable of reconciliation for many reasons. Our own church is disorganized, how can we organize any kind of unity if we can get it together ourselves? The latins are heretics, atleast the leaders whom have no respect for whatsoever, how can we reunite with them? Should we seek reconciliation with arian or nestorian groups? I am honestly puzzled by this desire for unity.
Also, there are many reasons I refuse to recognize and accept the latins, many doctrinal. The reason I have decided to to give no respect the the leaders, especially Ratzinger, is for them covering up child sex abuse scandals. This issue has always been close to my heart, and leaders like Ratzinger are sick and disgusting for ruining peoples lives like this. I will not be "unified" with a pedophile and I certainly will not kiss his hand nor show him any sort of respect, maybe just maybe I will show him the same amount of respect I show rat.
Our own bishops have covered up issues and watered down disasterous acts that our priests have done. OK.. it hasn't gotten to the point of Child Abuse, but the same attitude exists within our Church.
;)
seriously though, i will be with u all in prayer, i am very glad u are going, may God guide u, as always.
I am not fond of some of the actions of our leaders and definetly not fond of some of their beliefs, but that is our right to not agree, not to the point of rebellion. So long as they are not heretical or going against doctrine, then we surly can disagree with their opinions. But I doubt that any bishop or H.H. Pope Shenouda have done what the Latins have done, the despicable Latins. The thought of honoring a madman like ratzinger makes me want to vomit. He is not Orthodox, he is heretical. The devil has fine tuned his ability to destroy the church. First by force, then from within. Now he let the floodgates of his mouth open to release a flood of heresy. The problem is that this heresy mimicks us. It pretends to be Christian and attempts toe get us to validate it.
Ratzinger is a heretic and a protector of pedophiles and homosexuals just like Karol Józef Wojtyła. None of these supposed popes are valid since before Leo I, Sixtus III. I personally will never honor such sick, disgusting, and vile human beings. I am not trying to tear down Fr. Peter in any way, he has his views and his duty as an ambassador of the Orthodox church, I fully respect him and understand what he is doing.
I wont apologize at all for what I said because simply it is true. If you dont believe me watch Deliver us from Evil, and read Fr. Cozzone's book The Changing Face of the Priesthood, as well as Fr. Malachi Martin's number of books detailing homosexuality and pedophile networks of priests within the church. All the Latins are is a bunch of homosexuals playing dress up, the leaders anyways, and pretending to be the church of Christ but are void of any life.
I have to say you all come across as a pretty miserable bunch of folk. :-(
I don't think you appreciate the value and importance this visit has for Britain.
Father Peter
Its just finished. Bishop Angaelos was on TV a lot.
I have to say you all come across as a pretty miserable bunch of folk. :-(
I don't think you appreciate the value and importance this visit has for Britain.
Father Peter
Well...Father Peter......no one outside Britain would understand or respect this....and i am sure you know many of the members on site by now...from their writings/posts and many many responses to ANYTHING really.
Ratzinger is a heretic and a protector of pedophiles and homosexuals just like Karol Józef Wojtyła.
Boy, that is some claim!
Apart from all quotes from the books you read by lapsed/unorthodox Catholics your claims are immoderate.
Could we instead say that the RC hierarchy didn't know how to cope with certain sins (mostly paedophilia) and moved the sinners away (in some cases) out of temptation's way, (so they thought)?
Can I make a plea? We have had rants against protestants, JWs and now papists. Why not try to marshal arguments instead of letting us all know how disgusted you are. For example, you tell us that their has been no pope (of Rome?) since before Leo. Do you not think that a moderately educated RC would be able to refute such a rash claim? Why not justify your claim instead of getting carried away by spleen?
Btw I have your book on order. I hope its not the same standard of discourse as that post.
In Christ
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9749.msg119497#msg119497 date=1284743206]
Ratzinger is a heretic and a protector of pedophiles and homosexuals just like Karol Józef Wojtyła.
Boy, that is some claim!
Apart from all quotes from the books you read by lapsed/unorthodox Catholics your claims are immoderate.
Could we instead say that the RC hierarchy didn't know how to cope with certain sins (mostly paedophilia) and moved the sinners away (in some cases) out of temptation's way, (so they thought)?
Can I make a plea? We have had rants against protestants, JWs and now papists. Why not try to marshal arguments instead of letting us all know how disgusted you are. For example, you tell us that their has been no pope (of Rome?) since before Leo. Do you not think that a moderately educated RC would be able to refute such a rash claim? Why not justify your claim instead of getting carried away by spleen?
Btw I have your book on order. I hope its not the same standard of discourse as that post.
In Christ
First off Aidan maybe you should check my sources I presented, I am not flying off at the mouth for fun. Since those sources are not good enough I shall give more. First off dont say the part of the creed "I believe in one holy catholic (universal) apostolic church" anymore. If you believe there are many churches then that conflicts with the creed, therefore you are lying to yourself and God. The reason I trace the apostasy back to Leo I is because he was the first Latin bishop to write on papal primacy, which is a heresy. ( Walsh, Michael J. "A New Dictionary of Saints: East and West" p. 362) (Kelly, J.N.D. "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" p.43") Also in Leo's sermons 3.3-4 and 5.2-4 as well as New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. VIII, p. 637. All give sufficient documentation that Leo I was the first known to speak and write on this subject.
This is also backed up by an article by Fr. Athanasius Iskander in the magazine "Parousia" concerning the 4th council. In this article Fr. Athanasius clearly shows the bias of Leo I in protecting Theodoret, a heretic while condeming St. Dioscorous for accepting Eutyches back into the church for recanting his beliefs. Fr. Athanasius proves that Leo I sought to oust the Alexandrian church from power, as they had defended the faith the first three councils. This is also evidenced by the fact that we defined the nature of Christ exactly how St Cyril did, which can be read in his book "On The Unity of Christ". We also accepted their definition as valid, yet we were deemed heretics.
How do I know that Ratzinger and Wolityla protected priests? Watch the documentary "Deliver us from Evil" in which this is documented. These two alleged popes covered up abuses and instead of punishing the priest and kicking him out of the church, he was moved to another church. Two alleged popes made the same mistakes? Moved them out of temptations way? How is moving several priests to different churches removing them from temptation?
Aidan, I suggest you look passed the disgust and see that I did provide sources, both Fr. Cozzone and Fr. Malachi Martin are Latin priests. Cozzone talks on how homosexuality is rampant in the Latin church, but instead of admonish the church he advises they accept homosexuals into the clergy.
Is that enough for you Aidan?
please can we think before posting.
if we really are so much better than other people, we should work hard for their salvation with tears night and day, as saint paul did.
I gave you my sources, I am not pulling this out of thin air.
Pope Benedict’s visit to the United Kingdom
Posted on: Friday, 17th September, 2010
Abba Seraphim, accompanied by Fathers Simon Smyth & Peter Farrington attended an ecumenical service of Evening Prayer at Westminster Abbey on 17 September as part of the programme of events linked to the State Visit to the United Kingdom of H.H. Pope Benedict XVI.
The Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches, of which Abba Seraphim is a Vice-President, was well represented during the papal visit: H. G. Bishop Angaelos, as President of the Council, attended the reception for Pope Benedict at the Palace of Holyroodhouse on 16 September and joined in the procession of church leaders at Westminster Abbey. Also present at the Abbey were H.E. Archbishop Athanasios of the Syrian Orthodox Church and His Grace Bishop Mathews Mar Timotheos of the Malankara Orthodox Church, as well as priests from the Coptic and Syrian Orthodox Church.
Commenting on the Papal visit, Abba Seraphim said, “Pope Benedict’s visit is very important for all Christian communities in the United Kingdom as it emphasises the deep significance of our Christian heritage in shaping our culture and the values which underpin the fabric of the British way of life. Like many other European countries, in recent decades we have become a more multi-faith society but our tolerant and hospitable ethos has enabled us to welcome and respect other religious cultures. Pope Benedict’s message is no narrow or sectarian view, but encompasses all people of faith as well as respect for those with none; but it is uncompromising in upholding the dignity of each human being, created in the divine image. His warning of the dangers of an aggressively secular agenda, which marginalises religious faith, are timely and address the concerns of many religious people who feel that they have been neglected, ignored or patronised.
I hope Christians will read and digest carefully what the Pope has said during this visit, as it is supportive of Christian principles and addressses our role in contemporary society in a challenging but realistic way and I commend it to our Orthodox faithful. The eloquent comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury were totally consistent with Pope Benedict’s message, which appeared to resonate with church leaders of all mainstream denominations.”
http://britishorthodox.org/1328/pope-benedicts-visit-to-the-united-kingdom/
if you dont believe in one holy universal and apostolic church, then why do you recite the creed?
I couldn't agree more (with the question, that is). If you are a communicant in the Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian etc church then you can't also believe that the Roman or Roman Orthodox churches are included when you say the creed or that their mysteries are also valid. BUT, from a pastoral point of view people do receive communion in churches other than their own (Ethiopians sometimes receive communion in Antiochian churches, I've heard).
It is debatable whether or not this should happen. But what is not debatable is the Christian witness given by those who are not Orthodox. You could call Mother Teresa an old meddler if you wanted to be insulting ('truthful') but most Orthodox would consider her a saintly Christian. And what about C S Lewis and my favourite writer in defence of the faith, G K Chesterton? That's a personal list.
I speak from the other side-the Eastern Orthodox so called. There are many strains from people who suspect hierarchs of hob nobbing too much with papists and start or join schismatic groups. The monk who baptised me didn't want to join up with the Russian Church inside Russia because he thought they were too tainted by being part of the Soviet state. So now, in England, we are encumbered by schism. Nobody knows much about Orthodoxy and yet people can be 'holier than thou' and create schisms, God help us.
So, be careful. Interestingly, I recognised Bishop Angaelos, Archbishop Elisei(my bishop) and Metropolitan Kallistos (one Timothy Ware) sitting in front of the Pope of Rome listening to his address. None of them was going purple with rage because most of what he said was true.
One question; is schism worse than heresy, vice-versa, or are they both as bad as one another?
http://dioceseofsourozh.squarespace.com/maineng/2010/9/9/address-by-metropolitan-hilarion-of-volokolamsk-to-the-annua.html
[Moderated: This sort of language which I have removed is not appropriate on this forum and will be edited]
The problem with your point of view is that if we must insist on absolute Orthodoxy on all points then just like the Jewish Law most people on Tasbeha would be found to be un-Orthodox in some point and therefore entirely non-Orthodox. I think that some of your views are not Orthodox, so following your logic I would have to say that you are not Orthodox at all and so very quickly we would all find that we were in tiny groups, or even standing as individuals, only in fellowship and friendship with those who thought 100% the same as us.
This is not Orthodoxy and has never been Orthodoxy. It is not the way of our Fathers. They teach us to be tolerant and to be as Orthodox as is possible and appropriate, but not to insist on such strictness that we end up in communion only with ourselves. We are not about to enter into union with anyone, but in these dark days it seems to our bishops, and to me, that we must work in such fellowship with all those with whom it is possible to keep back the darkness. In this, certainly in the British Isles, the Catholic Church is a partner, not an opponent. If more becomes possible in God's will I will be very glad.
Father Peter
1. Pope meets Queen Elizabeth and is obviously put back by the fact that she is also the head of her church.
2. Queen Elizabeth meets the Pope and has difficulty acknowledging his as being the head of the church that they left.
3. The Pope is head of State for which he should not have that role.
4. The Queen is head of a church for which she should not have that role.
5. Neither really cares about the other but is trying to use the event to further their own cause.
6. Neither Church for which they are heads has a church attendance over 20%.
7. So many universal statements made, but with no possibility for implementation.
8. Usually the heads of churches greet with a kiss of peace (from side to side). I did not see the Queen or the Pope give a chance for a kiss of peace. It would have looked ridiculous as heads of state and as heads of church.
9. The Western system is so bizarre!
I have to say that your views do not represent at all the many fruitful interactions which I have had with Catholics both before and after my ordination. And clearly your views do not represent the opinions of our own Coptic Orthodox bishops, or the bishops of many other Orthodox Churches. If you watched the services over the last few days you will have seen His Grace Bishop Angaelos and His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim representing the Coptic Orthodox Church, and greeting the Pope warmly and sincerely. I have no doubt at all about the Orthodoxy of these two bishops, or the many other Orthodox bishops who have met with the Pope on this visit with an openness of heart. At the papal mass today His Grace Bishop Angaelos was in the altar area itself, together with His Eminence Archbishop Gregorios of Thyateira, His Grace Archbishop Athanasios, His Grace Bishop Antonios, and several other bishops I couldn't make out.
The problem with your point of view is that if we must insist on absolute Orthodoxy on all points then just like the Jewish Law most people on Tasbeha would be found to be un-Orthodox in some point and therefore entirely non-Orthodox. I think that some of your views are not Orthodox, so following your logic I would have to say that you are not Orthodox at all and so very quickly we would all find that we were in tiny groups, or even standing as individuals, only in fellowship and friendship with those who thought 100% the same as us.
This is not Orthodoxy and has never been Orthodoxy. It is not the way of our Fathers. They teach us to be tolerant and to be as Orthodox as is possible and appropriate, but not to insist on such strictness that we end up in communion only with ourselves. We are not about to enter into union with anyone, but in these dark days it seems to our bishops, and to me, that we must work in such fellowship with all those with whom it is possible to keep back the darkness. In this, certainly in the British Isles, the Catholic Church is a partner, not an opponent. If more becomes possible in God's will I will be very glad.
Father Peter
Fr. Peter, I understand just how frustrated you must be with me, as well as others here, I expect that and take no offense whatsoever. That being said, I feel as if I have proven everything I have said by supplying valid sources to show that I am not just spewing things out of my mouth. I do agree that you believe that the majority of what I say is not Orthodox, and yes that many of our leaders would probably have a big problem with my views. I dont however believe that my views conflict with the Orthodox church. The reason being is I make sure that I am not speaking lies against someone or something, as I have provided my sources to demonstrate this. I also said earlier that Fr. Peter is a priest and has a duty in representing the Orthodox church, as well as our bishops.
Just as you see fault with my absolutism, which I am not sure I understand completely, I find fault in mingling with other so called Christians in their worship service. Yes it is Liturgy atleast, but at any rate Catholicism is heresy because they adhere to doctrines that are non-Orthodox. Having an opinion is much different than rejecting Orthodox doctrine or accepting foreign ones. I have just as much problem with typical human being protecting criminals as I would anyone with a fake title. I am sorry I have offended you Fr. Peter, I love you dearly. I was not directing this towards you or any of our bishops so please do not take it that way, I will do a better job in making sure I do not implicate our clergy. I realize sometimes I can be quite vague.
The fact is our clergy know more than I do. They are definetly much closer to God than I am. They know what they are doing. My point is, we all need to be careful in this time and I worry that these actions will send false message to others that we are the same religion, when clearly we are not. So please Fr. Peter forgive me, this attack was not meant for our beloved clergy. I hope you understand my ideology. I know we are in the end and I have developed a very skeptical mindset. This is me, I will die defending this church and I think I have been more upset about the infiltration of protestantism into our church so I have been a bit high strung. Some things I need to keep inside.
Zoxasi, I would love to see the evidence of this. For instance, I would love to see the evidence that shows that H.H. Pope Shenouda and other bishops have covered up child abuse and then moved priests to another church, and another, and another, etc. Clearly protecting pedophile priests. Please show me the evidence that nearly 50% of our clergy are homosexual, as in the Latin church. (The Changing Face Of The Priesthood, Fr. Cozzone, a Latin priest)
I must admit, what makes me proud of my Church is the discipleship I can see in the hierarchy of our clergy. It works. It is honest. However, in many domestic problems, I have witnessed cases where priests have been in err, and their bishops have not been reactive. On the contrary, they have rather hidden the action, or even , in some cases, justified it.
I think the issues I am talking about, although morally wrong, are in no magnitude compared to the what the catholic has been accused of: Pedophilic priests, child abuse.
The only point I am making is that our priests are not perfect, nor our bishops - and in many cases, there have been issues where they have acted foolishly.
The Catholic Church is much larger than ours, and the more priests, the more problems. Of course the scale of the problems is worse than ours also. They have ordained priests who should NEVER have been made priests. The same here.
A sin is a sin. Whether it is lying or pedophilia. Its a SIN.
Whether it is bearing false witness, stealing or rape - in front of God , its a SIN!!!
Whether it is being biased and only serving the rich, and forgetting the poor, and homosexuality - all are sins.
Like we have priests that are saints, they too have priests that are saints!!
The good thing about this issue is the following: There was a tendency to deify priests (whether in the RC or OO). That is now long gone.
I would now like to return to my original thread and talk about prospects of Unity with the RC.
My apologies if I gave you the impression that I am in anyway against any unity or upset about the coming of the Pope. Not at all.
On the contrary, I'm eager to know about developments concerning the Unity. I think after talking to you, you are clearly aware of the issues blocking the unity between us.
Now his visit has concluded, are there any advancements?
May I make a suggestion? This is for you personally - its just a suggestion:
Whilst dialog is going, why not suggest that it would be a good idea for Orthodox Christians to use Catholic Churches of worship (if there are Orthodox Communities) there. It will encourage catholics to at least attend an Orthodox liturgy, and the Church will be in use. There are SOO many abandoned and BEAUTIFUL catholic Churches in Europe.
Rather than any of them be purchased to be used as nightclubs, or saunas, I think if the RC allowed the Orthodox Churches to use them, with the intention of giving them back when they were able to have a priest of their own, that would not be a bad idea.
What do you think???
Zoxasi, I do not believe that there is any activity being directed towards union with the Catholic Church, but there are lots of activities directed towards helping us to properly understand each other, and resolve those issues which do separate us. There is a time for concentrating on the issues which separate us, and a time for concentrating on the things that unite us. At this present time, when all traditional and Apostolic Christians find themselves under assault in the UK, this is a time for building on those things which unite us and working hard to see how far we are able to come into agreement.
There are issues which are matters of controversy, but when we dialogue with the Catholic Church we are not speaking with a Church that has no Apostolic tradition, but rather with a conmmunity which, as far as we can see, has wandered away from the fulness of the Apostolic deposit and is, to a great extent, seeking to find a way back. I mean that many of the positions which might have been held in the past are now being moderated and reinterpreted so that they are more consistent with patristic and Orthodox teachings.
Just off the top of my head these are some of the issues which are a matter of controversy, though many are not so serious as to be the cause of any breach in communion.
i. Papal infallibility
ii. Universal jurisdiction
iii. Filioque
iv. Immaculate conception
v. Original sin
vi. Communion in one kind
vii. Baptism by affusion
viii. Eucharistic wafers
ix. Clerical celibacy
x. Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix
There are other issues which are a matter of concern and discussion.
i. Charismatic movement in Catholicism
ii. Liberalism in Catholicism
iii. Movement for women priests in Catholicism
iv. Syncretistic Catholicism in South America
v. Extreme veneration of Virgin Mary in some places
You will see that I don't think that there is a substantial issue with traditional Catholic Christology. Personally the greatest problem I have is with the papal claims. I don't even think that the filioque, as understood by modern Catholicism, is a major issue.
As an example, issues like the form of baptism and the form of the eucharist are actually late modifications of the traditional Western practices. Catholic baptisms in England were by immersion until the medieval period. In 816 AD for instance, the Orthodox Catholic Synod assembled at Cealichyth determined in Canon 11,
And let the presbyters know that, when they administer holy baptism, they may not pour water upon the heads of the infants, but the infants must always be immersed in the laver.
and in the period even after the Norman Conquest, around 1080 AD, the rite used in the see of Salisbury says the following,
Then let the priest take the child by its sides in his hands, and having asked its name, let him dip it thrice, invoking the Holy Trinity thus: 'N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father,' and let him dip it once with its face towards the north and its head towards the east; 'and of the Son,' and let him dip it a second time with its face towards the south; 'and of the Holy Ghost: Amen,' and let him dip it the third time with its face towards the water.
In the Council of Cashel, held in 1172 AD in Ireland and representing all of the archibishops and bishops in Ireland together with representatives from England says,
That children shall be brought to the church, and shall there be baptized in pure water by trine immersion, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
The Synod of Worcester in 1240 AD says,
We enjoin that, in every church where baptism is performed, there shall be a font of stone, of sufficient size and depth for the baptizing of children, and that it shall be decently covered. . . And let the candidate for baptism Always be thrice immersed.
And into the 15th and 16th century..
In A. D. 1486, Prince Arthur, son of Henry VII, was baptized by immersion, as was also the Princess Margaret, afterwards Queen of Scotland, three years afterwards. They were both "put into the font." King Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth were both baptized by trine immersion.
I am making all these quotations just to show that in the British Isles until the Protestant Revolution all Catholic baptisms, except in emergency, were conducted by a triple immersion. It was only as Protestant authorities lost connection with the Catholic Orthodox tradition, and especially when Protestants returned to England who had come under the influence of Calvin, that pouring became increasingly the norm in Britain.
What I am suggesting is that many of the things which are problematic within Catholicism are actually of relatively late date. What is being asked of the Catholic Church is that it return to its own more ancient tradition and practice, rather than that it adopt something alien to itself. Almost every Christian child born in Britain until the 16/17th century would have been baptised by a triple immersion.
It is also the case that married priests remained common in England in the Catholic Church later than anywhere else. Well into the 13th century. It is the case also that many Catholic priests had beards until quite late. Francis I of France, in the 16th century, didn't like beards and was offended that all the Catholic clergy were bearded, so he obtained authority from the Pope of that time to fine any priest with a beard, and thereby tried to eliminate the practice. So in France beards were still normal for clergy in the 16th century. Pope Paul III, for instance, has a large beard - see picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III. Therefore the matter of beards seems also to be a matter of losing the wider custom and tradition, and not some absolute difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
I am presently writing a paper on the filioque for the Glastonbury Review. I do not believe that it is a show stopper. It is necessary to ask how Catholics understand this term today, and not centuries ago. It seems to me that there is a very great measure of agreement.
So, there are lots of issues, but I do not see Catholicism as so far from Orthodoxy that it is impossible to imagine not only fellowship and reconciliation, but also reunion. There would need to be changes on the part of Catholicism, and some greater degree of coherence and integrity among Orthodox, but this is not impossible. Indeed there is a sense in which both communions must, in the 21st century, seek to renew their commitment to authentic Orthodoxy, working to eliminate those influences which now and in the past have introduced foreign elements into each communion. Our Orthodox communion has certainly retained a fidelity to and continuity with the Apostolic Orthodox Church, but it is clear how even we are at threat from outside influences, and have succumbed to some degree. Therefore we should, it seems to me, have some measure of sympathy for the Catholic communion in so far as it seeks to be truly Apostolic and Orthodox. No-one is seeking a union with Catholicism as it is, but we should all seek to encourage all faithful Christians to find unity in the fulness of the Orthodox Faith.
This certainly does not require the Catholic communion to become the same as an Eastern Orthodox church, or indeed the same as the Coptic Orthodox church. It has its own Orthodox history and tradition to return to.
Father Peter
Thank you for your response.
Concerning what you said above - so, if I understand correctly, now is a time for concentrating on the points that unite us??
So, there is dialogue now concerning the issues that unite us??
The way I see it is as follows:
The closer the RC move towards orthodoxy, the less problems they will have (for their own good).