DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: History
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9156--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 23, 2014, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=coldwar link=topic=862.msg9153#msg9153
date=1411483279]
^ "It seems to me no one has solved the problems yet of how to
run churches. Wouldn't it be better if the congregation
elected their Bishop instead of having so many political
considerations enter the picture?"
Especially with the whole Russia - Ukraine thing, I could
definitely smell politics in the woodpile.[/quote]Luckily for
Canada and the US, there aren't enough Orthodox churches to
start outright violence here; but they quarrel among themselves.
Is there such a thing as the "Canadian Orthodox Church"? No.
Some still use languages like Slavonic and Romanian -- you name
it, they use it depending on which churches they're aligned with
in Europe. In short, the conflicts in Europe got exported to
the Americas where no real "national churches" were set up. I
wonder if it would matter though, since so many countries in
Europe have competition each church claiming to be "the one" of
the proper national church.
The situation is so grave that some Bishops won't be allowed to
attend the Orthodox Council . . . if it ever does meet. That's
because one Patriarch or the other objects to them. It seems
now to be mostly a conflict between the Russian Patriarch and
the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Mind now, Patriarch Kiril of Moscow said that anywhere in the
world that his authority extends anywhere there are Russian
speaking Christians. That would include Canada and the USA.
Indeed that claim could be bolstered by the fact that the first
Orthodox missionaries came from Russia via Alaska and Canada.
Some autonomy was granted, but Kiril still seems to have some
authority.
A similar situation existed in the USA where the Russian
speaking Orthodox churches were brought together in a coalition
with other languages to form a national church of sorts; but
then the Russians sent missionaries to New York City (and
perhaps in other places too, I forget) a few decades to set up a
Russian Orthodox Church that answered directly to the Russian
Patriarch and operated as part of the Russian Orthodox Church --
so it was in competition with the already established church
that a prior Patriarch said had autonomy. A move was made to
bring all the American Orthodox churches under the complete
domination of the Russian Patriarch; and the Americans resisted
stoutly.
[quote]It seems to me that a huge portion of Christendom has,
for almost 2000 years, been misinterpreting what is meant by
the "Kingdom of God on Earth". Religion combined with politics
is a horribly explosive mixture, in my opinion, and I strongly
believe this is what we're seeing here. It is like - the ink had
barely dried on the original writings we call the Bible, and
political men began to build the "Kingdom of God" according to
their own understanding. In the meantime, Jesus is invisibly
"building His Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail
against it."[/quote]
I'm wondering how far the Russian Patriarch is willing to go
with his claims of spiritual authority that mesh perfectly with
what Putin echoed about Russian interests in Ukraine, saying
that anywhere people spoke Russian, Russia had the right to
intervene. Kiril said it first, Putin repeated it. If the
conflict escalates in the Arctic over the oil there, will
religion play a role there too? Are there really enough
Russian speaking people in Canada for Putin and Kiril to make a
similar claim about their right to intervene?
I find it troubling that Russia is building a new military base
in the Arctic
HTML http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/russia-building-new-military-base-arctic-180952691/?no-ist;<br
/>and the recent incursion into Canadian air space
HTML http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/09/20140919-195442.html<br
/>by two bombers cannot be interpreted as friendly. Now it see
ms
a stretch to my own mindset that such actions could be justified
by appealing to religious fervor; but that is what happened in
Ukraine. Russian propaganda pumped out the dangers of the gay
pride events in Ukraine for one thing, portraying the situation
there as threatening all civilization.
Putin's interference in Syria also seems geared to portray
himself as the Savior of Orthodoxy and Christianity as well as
to try to get the pipeline from Israel to go through Syria and
Russia so the Russians control the flow.
[quote]The "gates of hell" must consist of all the confusion
that's been handed down to the world today as "Orthodoxy" - be
it the earliest forms of it that took hold in the East among
Paul's churches of Asia Minor, the Roman form of it which
emerged under Constantine, or the Protestant Anglo, German and
Swiss forms of Orthodoxy that came out of the Reformation.
[/quote]What amazes me in this study is how many various sects
had existed before Constantine. What seems fairly clear to me
is that Constantine didn't really care that much about the
theology or the workings of the church so much as he wanted a
unified church that would support him politically the way the
Roman church had supported him earlier at a critical time. We
know he leaned towards Arianism; but having the Council approve
his view wasn't that important to him it seems. It would be to
later Emperors who leaned that way; but Constantine's goal
seemed more political so he wanted Christianity to be on one
page.
That's interesting to me. Before then, it seems widely varying
views were often not only tolerated but accepted. The way I
see it, perhaps that was the way the Holy Spirit was leading
them into "all truth." When Constantine changed that with this
council, the evil of persecuting your opponents became "official
policy." Up to then, there had been conflicts and
disagreements, but the force of the state was behind any of them
to enforce one position or another.
It's also fascinating to me that the current Catholic position
on "ecumenical councils" is that a Pope must summon them. How
they can hold this position is a mystery since Constantine
called the Council of Nicea and then the Bishop of Rome agreed
and signed on. Constantine presided. An unbaptized man
presiding over a council of Bishops and theologians? Ah, but
the flatterer Eusebius (whose work I cited earlier) wrote
glowingly of the Emperor
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Character_and_purpose<br
/>that he "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly
,
like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which
glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing
radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant
splendor of gold and precious stones."
The concept of the "ecumenical council" was completely new, of
course. There had been the "Council of Jerusalem"; but that
consisted of the twelve Apostles. They all agreed too. The
idea was put forth that somehow every Bishop was the successor
of the Apostles; and while I agree with that, I wonder how
they could disagree if they were all endowed by the Holy Spirit
by right of Apostolic Succession. It seems as if the view was
some could err; but together they could not. That is what is
taught today by Rome. An individual Bishop can make mistakes;
but an ecumenical council with all the Bishops can't. But then
I ask why include theologians which came to be the practice?
Were the Bishops so poorly educated that they needed learned men
to steer them right about matters of theology -- what happened
to the guiding of the Holy Spirit?
Of course, there has never been a real ecumenical council with
all the Bishops. Not one. The latter ones called by Rome
excluded the Orthodox Bishops; and Rome justified this by saying
they weren't entitled to vote. So of course, the Orthodox don't
accept such councils as ecumenical. Nor was the Council of
Nicea ecumenical since almost all the Bishops were from the
East. We know of only five Bishops attending from the West.
First of all, the travel posed a problem. Secondly, the
proceedings were in Greek, so why go if you couldn't understand
what was being said? This lopsided lack of Western Bishops in
these councils was made up by saying the Pope could represent
them all. If he signed on, that represented them all. That is
where the later claim by the Bishops of Rome that they could
veto anything came from.
The logic still escapes me. If an ecumenical council of Bishops
cannot err, why would they need the approval of the Pope? If
they could err, why bother calling them at all if the goal was
to set a standard you said was inerrant? Why not just ask the
Pope?
[quote]The Church that Jesus is building has no man, other than
Himself, which it is being built upon - "For other foundation
can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". For
any who claim that the church is built upon Peter, based upon
Matt. 16:17-19, then it must follow that they have Satan as
their foundation (Matt 16:22,23). How could this be? I think
that when we read the Bible, we have the words, but not the
gestures. A good rendering of this is in the Living Oracles NT,
which reads - Matt:16:15 But who, returned he, do you say that I
am? 16 Simon Peter answering, said, You are the Messiah, the
Son of the living God. 17 Jesus replying, said to him, Happy
are you, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 I tell you,
likewise, you are named Stone; and on this rock (Jesus gestures
to Himself) I will build my congregation, over which the gates
of Hades shall not prevail. 19 Moreover, I will give you
(gesturing to all of them, not just Peter) the keys of the
kingdom of heaven: whatever you shall bind on the earth, shall
be bound in heaven; and whatever you shall loose on the earth,
shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then he forbade his disciples
(again, all of them) to tell any many that he is the Messiah.
The sad results of the Church being built upon a foundation of
any man other than Jesus are seen in the blood-soaked history of
Eastern and Western Orthodoxy, and from what you've shown us in
the articles quoted above regarding Russia and Ukraine, this
grave error still continues to this very day. Meanwhile,
however, both within and outside of all forms of Orthodoxy
worldwide, Jesus is quietly building His Church from "living
stones" (or stones that have been given life, just as He said to
Peter "you are named Stone").
[/quote]What about the Church being built layer by layer or
level by level? If we follow that analogy, we get Jesus as
the Foundation Rock. Peter is laid on that first and then the
other eleven Apostles. Peter wrote:
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual
house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay
in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that
believeth on him shall not be confounded.
I believe Jesus said that to Peter because Jesus had already
laid the corner stone. It was then Peter's job to become a
stone; and Peter said we are all to become "lively stones" built
on the one foundation -- but I do not read that to mean the
spiritual house is only two levels high -- with Jesus as the
foundation and every other stone being built directly on top of
him.
People may argue about it; but I believe all three churches
which are mentioned directly in the Canons of Nicea are being
the three major ones were all founded by Peter. The church at
Alexandria says Peter was there. The church at Antioch says he
was there. While he may not have been the first Apostle to
visit these places, the traditions still assert he was there.
The claim of the Orthodox Churches seems slightly off to me.
They say that all the Apostles and even every Bishop shares in
the keys of Peter; and to a degree this seems true. I think
their view evolved however to justify the later promotion of the
Archbishop of Constantinople, something I see as divisive and
controversial. St. Philip founded the church at Heraclea. It
was a minor bishopric under the Bishop of Antioch. How you can
say you move a Bishopric first of all is a mystery; and how you
can then deny the validity of Canon 6 which had been agreed
upon to remove (steal really) territory from the Bishop of
Antioch and promote that bishopric in the "second in importance"
in the Empire seems frightfully wrong to me. It is true that
the Bishops of Antioch continued to assert their influence over
who should be installed as the next "Archbishop of
Constantinople." After all, it had been in their territory for
centuries.
That also got altered -- and the Archbishopric of Constantinople
got elevated to "Patriarchy." The three Patriarchs of Rome,
Alexandria and Antioch were not always that easily influenced by
the Emperors. Having a Patriarch in Constantinople where the
Emperor had more clout meant the Emperor could use the Patriarch
of Constantinople as a tool against the other Patriarchs.
The opposite was also true, when a Patriarch of Constantinople
could get the Emperor to side with him against the others.
Thus it became important to Rome, Alexandria and Antioch who the
Patriarch of Constantinople was and who his allies were. If
you were in Alexandria, it would be nice to think the Patriarch
of Constantinople was your friend; and if the seat was vacant
you would lobby to get a friend installed. If it wasn't vacant
and the current occupant was not friendly, you might try to get
him demoted and exiled.
The violation of canon 6 in creating new Patriarchies or centers
of power seems to have left lasting effects. Today it seems as
the Russian Patriarch is attempting a coup to elevate himself
over all other Patriarchies. Decidedly he is attempting to
minimize the influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople. I
found it interesting then when Pope Francis and Patriarch
Bartholomew announced a council pf Catholic and Orthodox Bishops
in 2025
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/30/pope-francis-bartholomew-ecumenical_n_5419114.html.<br
/> Why so long? Allegedly because it's the 1700th anniversary
;
but I wonder if it will materialize, really. If they said
2018, they might have to deliver on the promise. It appears to
be a way of saying they were forming an alliance against
Patriarch Kiril of Moscow. It may materialize; and the closer
it would come to materializing the more pressure on Moscow
because they might be left out.
#Post#: 9158--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: coldwar Date: September 23, 2014, 6:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
^ "Are there really enough Russian speaking people in Canada for
Putin and Kiril to make a similar claim about their right to
intervene? "
We have a sizeable Ukrainian population, mostly in the west
(where Helen lives). Think of Wayne Gretsky - he's 3rd
generation Ukrainian. I think the language has died off, but
they still hold their customs dear, and that would include the
churches. There are far less Russians in Canada. The Arctic
thing can sound troubling in the Media - like the recent
incident - but then an expert came on the CBC Radio, and I
happened to hear him say that Russia is constantly flying that
close to Canadian air space, but not with Bombers - that's what
made it different this time.
^ "People may argue about it; but I believe all three churches
which are mentioned directly in the Canons of Nicea are being
the three major ones were all founded by Peter. The church at
Alexandria says Peter was there. The church at Antioch says he
was there. While he may not have been the first Apostle to
visit these places, the traditions still assert he was there."
I can readily believe that he travelled to Antioch and
Alexandria, but not Rome, other than once near the end of his
life - I believe the commentary that he went there to confront
Simon Magus, who went to Rome after the first encounter with
Peter in Acts, otherwise, Peter's ministry was based in
Jerusalem. It's rather interesting that "Simon the Sorcerer" has
become a wildly popular Computer Game very recently, but that's
another matter.
#Post#: 9163--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 23, 2014, 8:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=coldwar link=topic=862.msg9158#msg9158
date=1411514851]
We have a sizeable Ukrainian population, mostly in the west
(where Helen lives). Think of Wayne Gretsky - he's 3rd
generation Ukrainian. I think the language has died off, but
they still hold their customs dear, and that would include the
churches. There are far less Russians in Canada. The Arctic
thing can sound troubling in the Media - like the recent
incident - but then an expert came on the CBC Radio, and I
happened to hear him say that Russia is constantly flying that
close to Canadian air space, but not with Bombers - that's what
made it different this time.[/quote]Yes, why bombers? Did it
have anything to do with the fact that the President of Ukraine
had just addressed the Canadian Parliament?
[quote]I can readily believe that he travelled to Antioch and
Alexandria, but not Rome, other than once near the end of his
life - I believe the commentary that he went there to confront
Simon Magus, who went to Rome after the first encounter with
Peter in Acts, otherwise, Peter's ministry was based in
Jerusalem. It's rather interesting that "Simon the Sorcerer" has
become a wildly popular Computer Game very recently, but that's
another matter.[/quote]The strongest evidence I can give is that
no one ever questioned it until the rise of the Protestantism.
When fights broke out, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria,
Constantinople and Jerusalem never suggested that Rome's claim
about Peter was fabricated. I believe that while any Apostle
could establish a bishopric, Peter established the three major
ones himself or at least gave his blessing to them in person.
#Post#: 9164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: coldwar Date: September 23, 2014, 9:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
^ "Yes, why bombers? Did it have anything to do with the fact
that the President of Ukraine had just addressed the Canadian
Parliament?"
Yes - everything to do with it - at least that's how the media
is spinning it. Our PM Harper is following a particularly
Un-Canadian path, it seems to me - being a staunch supporter of
Ukraine, and very anti-Russian (there was a time when we
imported Lada cars here for many years, and could buy Russian
cameras and wristwatches at K-Mart - they were everywhere);
Harper is pro-Israel and equally anti-Palestinian at every turn,
and also denies climate change - right now, even though he's
actually in New York, he's refusing to attend the UN Forum on
climate change.. perhaps it is I who am deceived, but I am
brashly against such conservatism. Whether right or wrong, he's
certainly changed the world's perception of what Canadian values
are all about.
^ "The strongest evidence I can give is that no one ever
questioned it until the rise of the Protestantism. When fights
broke out, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria,
Constantinople and Jerusalem never suggested that Rome's claim
about Peter was fabricated. I believe that while any Apostle
could establish a bishopric, Peter established the three major
ones himself or at least gave his blessing to them in person"
That is interesting... I'll dig into this with a more open mind
... so in spite of the two millennia of in-fighting among the
Orthodox, one thing they've never questioned was Peter's
position as singled out by Jesus from the other Apostles?
#Post#: 9166--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 24, 2014, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=coldwar link=topic=862.msg9164#msg9164
date=1411527101]
That is interesting... I'll dig into this with a more open mind
... so in spite of the two millennia of in-fighting among the
Orthodox, one thing they've never questioned was Peter's
position as singled out by Jesus from the other
Apostles?[/quote]They never questioned that Peter had been in
Rome. They also never questioned the fact that the Bishop of
Rome was considered the first in rank the way the Emperors were
called "first citizen." I don't think they question it now
even. They do not see him as the authority over everything
however.
The Pope as final arbiter could be useful if other Patriarchs
had squabbles. He could act as a court of final appeals to
settle things if other people couldn't resolve their
differences.
Indeed it's not mentioned in the canons; but the Council of
Nicea also decided that all churches should celebrate Easter
according to the Western practice -- I think they may have
mentioned conforming to the Bishop of Rome in the matter. Up
until then, different people had different dates. It then
became the duty of the Bishop of Alexandria to announce the
dates -- most probably because of the astronomical expertise
there. Don't quote me on it; but I believe the delegation from
Egypt asked for guidance about when they should celebrate
Easter, and that was the answer they got.
That common date held in most parts of Christendom until Gregory
switched the calendar. The Eastern Orthodox Church stuck with
the Julian calendar; and the Coptic Church invented its own
calendar that is so complicated I never could grasp it.
England may have heard of the Council of Nicea; but they hadn't
sent a Bishop and clearly did not feel obliged to comply with
its decisions. The question was not resolved in Northumbria
until the Synod of Whitby in 664. That's over 300 years of not
knowing what got said at Nicea? At any rate, people had been
using two methods; so there were two dates for Easter in
England. One group used the Roman method; and another followed
a tradition that went back to St. John. They mention the
Council of Nicea; but they also mention the conforming to the
practice of Rome.
Bishop Colmán argued the Ionan calculation of Easter on the
grounds that it was the practice of Columba, founder of their
monastic network and a saint of unquestionable holiness, who
himself had followed the tradition of St. John the apostle and
evangelist.
Wilfrid argued the Roman position on the following grounds
(according to Bede's narrative):
1 it was the practice in Rome, where the apostles SS. Peter and
Paul had "lived, taught, suffered, and are buried";
2 it was the universal practice of the Church, even as far as
Egypt;
the customs of the apostle John were particular to the needs of
his community and his age and, since then, the Council of Nicaea
had established a different practice;
3 Columba had done the best he could considering his knowledge,
and thus his irregular practice is excusable, but the Ionan
monks at present did not have the excuse of ignorance; and
4 whatever the case, no one has authority over Peter (and thus
his successors, the Bishops of Rome).
Oswiu then asked both sides if they agreed that Peter had been
given the keys to the kingdom of heaven by Christ and pronounced
to be "the rock" on which the Church would be built, to which
they agreed. Oswiu then declared his judgment in favour of the
holder of the keys, i.e. the Roman (and Petrine) practice.
What I find interesting about this synod is that it reveals how
the British looked at the "authority" of what we call ecumenical
councils. They gave them and the Pope consideration but didn't
seem to consider them binding. I think their willingness to
"give in" to have unity also shows something about how people
looked at things then. If there is going to be unity, someone
has to give in when there are disagreements.
Before the Great Schism, there are other examples of Popes being
asked to settle disputes in the East; but they began to lose
this role when they grew demanding and overbearing. They were
supposed to act like the eldest brother trying to resolve
differences in the family but instead began to act like a
dictatorial father.
The Easter question is still a thorn. The current Coptic Pope
has asked Pope Francis to deal with it.
HTML http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/coptic-orthodox-pope-asks-pope-francis-to-unify-date-for-easter
#Post#: 9169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: coldwar Date: September 24, 2014, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually, what I believe to be true about all this can be found
in this long document:
HTML http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm
I don't believe everything written within it --- I also see the
style of Herbert W. Armstrong in many places, but the historic
sources quoted are difficult for me to dispute, without further
investigation. In particular, I don't fully agree with the
conclusions written by whoever assembled this piece, such as -
"Thus Satan (through his tool Simon Magus) was able to build a
huge, universal, counterfeit church that millions of people have
come to believe is the true Church of God on the earth today!"
But I do believe the history which concludes that Simon Peter,
the Disciple of Jesus, went to Rome twice, not to become the
first pope and set up a succession of popes, but rather, to
declare the true Gospel in that city, in opposition to Simon
Magus.
#Post#: 9170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: September 24, 2014, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
^ A lot of difficulty comes from the way titles are used today.
The word "Pope" was not in use then. It was used first for the
Coptic Bishops of Alexandria. The early records sometimes even
list Linus as the first "Bishop" of Rome. From Wikipedia
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus#Early_bishops_of_Rome:
The earliest witness to Linus's status as bishop was Irenaeus,
who in about the year 180 wrote, "The blessed apostles, then,
having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands
of Linus the office of the episcopate." The Oxford Dictionary of
Popes interprets Irenaeus as classifying Linus as the first
bishop of Rome. Linus is presented by Jerome as "the first
after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church" and by
Eusebius as "the first to receive the episcopate of the church
at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter". John
Chrysostom wrote, "This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of
the Church of Rome after Peter", while the Liberian Catalogue
presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his
successor in the same office.
The Liber Pontificalis[8] also presents a list that makes Linus
the second in the line of bishops of Rome, after Peter, while
also stating that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus,
for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself
instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that
he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his
successor. Tertullian too wrote of Clement as the successor of
Peter. Jerome classified Clement as "the fourth bishop of Rome
after Peter" (i.e., fourth in a series that included Peter),
adding that, "most of the Latins think that Clement was second
after the apostle."
The Apostolic Constitutions denote that Linus, who was ordained
by Paul, was the first bishop of Rome and was succeeded by
Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is considered Linus's
successor by Irenaeus, and the others cited above, who present
Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter
as the first, as the second.
#Post#: 9223--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: October 4, 2014, 12:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
At first glance, it seems to say no Christians should be in the
military. Does it apply only to those in holy orders?
Canon 12 As many as were called by grace, and displayed the
first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but
afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that
some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military
stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three
years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these
cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and
what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give
evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with
fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they
have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly
communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine
yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the
matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not]
entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must
fulfil the whole time.
At any rate, it is still forbidden for someone in holy orders to
bear arms or to take a life or even to spill blood. Where do
you draw the line though between actively doing these things and
aiding and abetting? Earlier this year, a Jesuit priest resigned
over this t**** problem. From National Catholic Reporter
HTML http://ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/leaving-jesuits-after-32-years<br
/>online:
This week, with a heavy heart, I am officially leaving the
Jesuits after 32 years. After three years of discernment, I'm
leaving because the Society of Jesus in the U.S. has changed so
much since I entered in 1982 and because my Jesuit superiors
have tried so hard over the decades to stop my work for peace --
most recently, when my provincial ordered me to Baltimore but
gave me no assignment and, I felt, encouraged me to leave, as
many other superiors have done in the past.
According to my provincial, the Society of Jesus in the U.S. has
renounced its commitment to "the faith that does justice." It
has also deepened its financial involvement with the culture of
war and decreased its work with the poor in favor of serving
through its universities and high schools. Given this change and
the lack of support (and, at times, censure) I have endured over
the years and its debilitating effect on my health, I realized I
could no longer stay.
This decision was sparked three years ago, when Archbishop
Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, N.M., removed my priestly faculties
because he objected to the prayer vigils for peace and against
nuclear weapons development I was leading at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the birthplace of nuclear weapons. He had
received many complaints regarding my peace efforts over the
years from the local pastor in Los Alamos and other Catholics
who work in Los Alamos, building nuclear weapons.
After this, Fr. James Shea, my Jesuit provincial, the head of
the Maryland Province, ordered me to leave New Mexico and return
to Baltimore, to be near province headquarters. Instead of
supporting my work for peace, he was embarrassed by it. I moved
to Baltimore, where the archbishop there gave me full priestly
faculties as a priest in good standing, though I was not given
an assignment by my provincial. Over the course of several
meetings, I felt Fr. Shea was urging me to stop my work for
justice and peace and leave the society. He said, for example,
that nothing I have done over the last 10 years has had anything
to do with the Society of Jesus.
Further along:
In recent years, I've been saddened to see many Jesuits involved
in the U.S. military, our schools deepen their involvement in
the U.S. military, and Jesuits permitted to work even in places
such as the Los Alamos Labs, West Point, and Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq. As far as I can tell, Jesuits who work for the military
can continue their work. I've been especially saddened that the
Jesuits at Loyola University in Baltimore have been allowed to
hold an annual Mass where after Communion, they bring their
nearly 100 ROTC cadets into the sanctuary to profess an oath to
"defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic." I told my provincial that I
consider this blasphemy, a mockery of Jesus and the Eucharist,
but he said he had no problem with it.
Where should the line be drawn? Should we say people in the
military should be deprived of having a clergy? No, I wouldn't
say that; but I would say conflicts of interest arise when
clergy is being paid by the military. If the government is
paying you, it's your employer. You may be trying to serve both
God and mammon.
#Post#: 9224--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Brad Date: October 4, 2014, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
^This has often been a point of contention in the christian
faith concerning military service. It has often troubled me,
and I am still unsure about it, but I think the point is that we
should not be a part of any organization that promotes killing
above keeping peace and order. And the person in charge should
be compassionate and God fearing. If they are not, it would be
best to leave the organization.
#Post#: 9243--------------------------------------------------
Re: Council of Nicea
By: Kerry Date: October 5, 2014, 6:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Canon 13 As for those who are dying, the ancient church law is
still to be maintained, i.e., that if any man is at the point of
death, he must not be deprived of the most indispensable final
Eucharist. But, if anyone is restored to health again who
received communion when his death was considered imminent, let
him remain among those who commune in prayers only. But in
general, and in the case of any dying person, let the Bishop,
after making examination, give the Eucharist to whoever asks to
receive it.
This seems fairly clear to me since the canon says "any man."
It does not limit it in any way. However, it's not practiced
this way. Current practice seems to be to ask the dying person
(or person who may be dying) to confess their sins first and
sometimes impose a light penance before the granting of
Communion. There are other restrictions too at times. Fear of
whether the person cannot swallow properly and "desecrate" the
Host or vomit the wine. Is the person insane? And so on. Yet
when Terri Schiavo was ill and unconscious and expected to die,
a fuss was raised when her husband refused to allow a priest to
administer Last Rites. From World Net Daily
HTML http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21344/#qmCseAQRXeukko8b.99:
Attorney Deborah Bushnell told Monsignor Thaddeus Malanowski,
who has been Terri’s spiritual provider for three years, that
”because of court order and doctor’s orders, you can’t put
anything in her mouth,” not even a morsel of moistened communion
wafer.
Malanowski recounted the bizarre incident for WorldNetDaily.
”I felt that time was of the essence at this point and made a
decision that because she is not going to live much longer, I
might not have another opportunity to give her Holy Communion,”
he said.
As he had done almost every Saturday for over three years, the
priest accompanied Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler,
to the Hospice of the Florida Sun Coast in Pinellas Park, Fla,
where she has been a patient since April 2000. Because so little
time is left for the family to be with Terri, her brother Bobby
and sister, Suzanne, were there as well.
Plus there were two police officers in the room and a woman who
was said to be Schiavo’s ”representative.”
Malanowski spoke with Bushnell outside the room, explaining that
he wanted to administer the Sacrament of Annointing of the Sick
or the Viaticum, the last communion for a Catholic before death.
Bushnell contacted Schiavo by phone to make certain he would
allow it, and he gave his permission.
Wanting to make it a prayer service, the priest invited the
family into the room to share the sacrament with Terri, but
Bushnell demanded to know what the priest was going to so.
Malanowski explained he was going to give her: ”a small, tiny
particle of the consecrated Host. And I’ll moisten my index
finger [in water] to make sure the Host will stick to it and
that it will stick to her tongue.”
Bushnell said he couldn’t do that, but suggested he ”take the
Host, touch her lips with it, and you consume it.”
I'm not sure if Communion would benefit an unconscious person.
I suppose it couldn't hurt anything, so I would have allowed it.
I cannot figure what the objection of the attorney would be.
However, notice that the priest was going to give her only a
tiny particle -- that was so it would not be something that
would fall out.
He also could have used a drop of wine. Indeed churches still
keep both consecrated bread and wine in supply; but they used to
keep greater stocks of them. If we get around to discussing
the notorious Synod of the Oaks, we will get into more of the
history of the conflict between St. John Chysostom and his arch
enemy, Pope Theophilus of Alexandria; but we learn in a letter
from John to Pope Innocent I how the consecrated wine kept in a
church was spilled when partisans who sided with Theophilus
resorted to violence. Thus we know it was an ancient practice.
From John's letter
HTML http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Correspondence%20with%20the%20Bishop%20of%20Rome%20-%20Saint%20John%20Chrysostom_0.pdf<br
/>-- and brace yourself at the horrid picture John paints:
How am I to relate the events which followed, transcending as
they do every kind of
tragedy? What language will set forth these events? what kind of
ear will receive them without shuddering? For when we were
urging these things, as I said before, a dense troop of
soldiers, on the great Sabbath itself, as the day was hastening
towards eventide, having broken into the Churches violently
drove out all the clergy who were with us, and surrounded the
sanctuary with arms. And women from the oratories who had
stripped themselves for baptism just at that time, fled
unclothed, from terror at this grievous assault, not being
permitted to put on the modest apparel which befits women;
indeed many received wounds before they were expelled, and the
baptismal pools were filled with blood, and the sacred water
reddened by it. Nor did the distress cease even at this point;
but the soldiers, some of whom as we understand were unbaptized,
having entered the place where the sacred vessels were stored,
saw all the things which were inside it, and the most holy blood
of Christ, is might happen in the midst of such confusion, was
spill upon the garments of the soldiers aforesaid: and every
kind of outrage was committed as in a barbarian siege.
Switching gears once again, how this canon should be read was a
matter of controversy earlier this year when someone claimed he
was refused last rites. From February in the Huffington Post
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/ronald-plishka-gay-heart-attack_n_4823914.html:
Lifelong Catholic Ronald Plishka wasn't sure that he that he
would survive when an ambulance brought him to the emergency
room of Washington, D.C.'s Washington Hospital Center to treat
his heart attack, so he requested a priest to give him communion
and administer last rites.
Father Brian Coelho, a priest assigned to the hospital's
Department of Spiritual Care, arrived at his bedside to perform
the sacrament of anointing of the sick, but stopped preparing
for communion once he found out that Pliskha was gay, according
to the patient's account to the Washington Blade.
Plishka told The Blade that Coelho offered to take his
confession before proceeding with communion and sacramental last
rites. “We started talking and I told him I was so happy with
this new pope because of his comments about the gays and his
accepting the gays,” Plishka said. “And I mentioned that I was
gay. I said it and then I asked him does that bother you? And he
said, ‘Oh, no, that does not bother me.'"
The Washington Post reported that the conversation was
interrupted by another person coming into the room, which
Plishka shared with another patient. Plishka said that after his
revelation, Coelho simply "would not continue" with the
anointing of the sick sacrament or administration of communion,
offering Plishka no explanation.
“He said, ‘I will pray with you,’ but that’s all he’d do. That
was it.” Plishka was shocked and angered by Coelho's reaction.
He told The Blade, "He wanted to pray. That’s what he wanted to
do. He said well I could pray with you. And I just told him to
get the **** out of here — excuse me. But that’s what I told
him.”
Coelho has not responded to media requests for comment and the
Archdiocese of Washington has said he is not doing interviews.
He is an employee of the Archdiocese, not the hospital.
So what does this canon mean? The way I read it, anyone who
asks for Last Rites should be given it, but it seems that is
not the case anymore.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page