Catholic Priest says Everything Confiscated by Russian Orthodox Must be Given Back
In Transylvania and throughout Romania, Catholics who lost more than 2,000 churches to the Russian Orthodox church after the Second World War when the Russians banned Catholicism now want their churches back. In most cases, the Orthodox church had said no, so Catholics have had to set up chapels in local villages, using borrowed rooms, basements, schools and even open fields to hold Mass. The Orthodox Church is a powerful force in today’s Romania and as a result, a total of 2,200 Catholic properties remained in Orthodox hands and court actions by Catholics to recover the properies, including houses and land, has been met with very limited success.
In January, Romania was admitted to the European Union after promising to respect the rule of law and consequently some properties have been returned to Catholics which now have the Orthodox up in arms, resisting with anger towards the Catholics and vice-versa.
Apparently, Catholics are not the only ones to complain against the strong arm of the Orthodox as reported by the United States’ state department of the church’s campaigning against other Christian faiths. Allegedly, there have been cases of Orthodox priests inciting the local population against Seventh Day Adventist Church, the Baptist Church, the Greek Catholic Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Meanwhile, the Orthodox church have their hands full of battling accusations that it collaborated with the former Communists.
.jpg)
thats funny for sure.
Churches have been STEALING and robbing and distorting the spiritual consciousness of people for CENTURIES, even going so far over the centuries to murder people for not believing in “ their” way as a path to the truth , and as if that isnt enough they now STEAL object d’art from themselves.
the BLIND lead the BLIND both fall into the pit. ..
thanks for the laugh !!!!!! as thieves they DESERVE each other.
Comment by sattvicwarrior — September 19, 2007 @ 5:56 AM
Hm… even though I sort of feel like the Catholics should get their churches back, I sort of wonder, do they have a right to claim that property again?
I know it’s a bit different from this case, but this sort of goes along the lines of whether or not it is correct to retain property “obtained” during war-times. Should we have returned the land back to the Native American tribes?… And what about Europe? Land and properties have been exchanged a whole lot due to wars in the world. I don’t really have an answer, but it just sort of made me think.
Comment by bink — September 19, 2007 @ 2:29 PM
IF one takes the time to look at history one can clearly see that the main centers of empires were actually torn down and built over with churches, the mezzo American civilizations for one example,
Did the church have the right to tear down their “ temples” and replace it with one of theirs??, Did they have the right to totally replace a culture with their own flawed ideology??
to THEM they did , but to the cultures that were destroyed, all in the name of a god that allows killing and murder to justify its own consciousness it seems perfectly all right.
it goes a lot further back than one realizes.
Its all about “ power” and nothing to do with God consciousness
Comment by sattvicwarrior — September 20, 2007 @ 7:23 AM
It is the “Romanian” Orthodox Church. Saying “Russian” Orthodox makes you sound as stupid as someone saying that the Irish are Polish Catholic, and clearly indicates that you have no idea what you are writing about.
Comment by Neal — September 20, 2007 @ 7:14 PM
actually Neal…
sorry. i DO know what im writeing about . any possiblity its NOT what you wanted to READ?
it dosent fit in with the way you LIKE to see things challenged? ..
its ALL about YOU isnt it?
thanks:)
Comment by sattvicwarrior — September 21, 2007 @ 1:16 AM
Its all about “ power” and nothing to do with God consciousness
Reading your approach to “discourse” in this thread, I can see how you can make this rather questionable hasty generalization…it is called projection.
Your terminology (God consciousness) suggests to me that you are attempting to repeat with words that which you erroneously accuse the Catholic Church; namely the attempt to “totally replace a culture with [your] own flawed ideology.”
I suggest taking a little closer read of history without a precommitment to the biased interpretations of the post Enlightenment project. If you were to do so, you would find that while some events may roughly meet your caricature the vast majority do not.
Try reading some of G.K. Chesterton to remedy what appears to be naive appropriations of the disorder in modern thought. Try, the Man Who Was Thursday, Orthodoxy, Heretics, and The Everlasting Man.
Comment by David — September 22, 2007 @ 1:03 PM
1. Reading your approach to “discourse” in this thread, I can see how you can make this rather questionable hasty generalization…it is called projection.
MY RESPONSE.
[I'm responding in CAPS for no other reason than it separates the two dialogues. sorry ]. anyway.
DEAR DAVID. OF COURSE IT’S A “ PROJECTION” I AM SIMPLY TRYING TO GIVE A PERSPECTIVE. SO BIG DEAL . I’M NOT NEGATING WHAT YOU SAY JUST SHOWING IT FROM A DIFFERENT ANGEL THAT’S ALL TO “ LABEL “ IS SORT OF REDUNDANT
Your terminology (God consciousness) suggests to me that you are attempting to repeat with words that which you erroneously accuse the Catholic Church; namely the attempt to “totally replace a culture with [your] own flawed ideology.”
NO NO NO . YOUR GETTING THAT ALL WRONG. I’M NOT TRYING TO REPLACE ANYTHING . I USED THE TERM “ GOD CONSCIOUSNESS” FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN . “ GOD IS CONSCIOUSNESS”. NOT SET IN THE LIMITED DUPLICITY OF THE THINKING PRINCIPLE CREATED BY THE CONCEPTS AND PRECEPTS AND NOTIONS OF MAN , WHICH HAS GIVEN “ FORM” TO A FORMLESS STATE. TO CALL IT “ GOD” IS VAGUE, UNDIVIDABLE OMNIPOTENCE WITHOUT FORM AND DUALITY IS SOMETHING THAT CAN ONLY BE EXPERIENCED. SO I HAVE NO REAL WORD FOR IT. THE BEST I CAN DO IS CALL IT “ GOD CONSCIOUSNESS. “ IT’S THE BEST I CAN DO IN MY STATE OF IGNORANCE.
I suggest taking a little closer read of history without a precommitment to the biased interpretations of the post Enlightenment project. If you were to do so, you would find that while some events may roughly meet your caricature the vast majority do not.
OK . AND YOUR POINT IS?? I SHOULD LOOK FOR SOME ONE ELSE’S OPINION TO NEGATE MINE? . HOW DOES THAT MAKE IT ANY MORE VALID? MORE INTELLECTUAL TWADDLE??
Try reading some of G.K. Chesterton to remedy what appears to be naive appropriations of the disorder in modern thought. Try, the Man Who Was Thursday, Orthodoxy, Heretics, and The Everlasting Man.
AND HERES A SUGGESTION FOR YOU PERHAPS. DON’T READ ANYMORE BOOK S TO POLLUTE YOUR MIND TO CONFIRM WHAT “ IS” OR IS “ NOT”. EMPTY YOUR MIND. THROW IT ALL AWAY, AND EXPERIENCE GOD AND NOT INTELLECTUALIZE THAT STATE.
THAT WHICH YOU THINK “ IS.. IS” NOT” AND THAT WHICH YOU THINK IS” NOT” ACTUALLY “IS.
YA GOTTA LOVE APHORISMS HUH??
Comment by sattvicwarrior — September 23, 2007 @ 6:28 AM
sattvic-
It is ironic that you attempt to employ rational faculties in order to reject rational faculties. You enjoin others to accept a philosophy that you do not (and cannot) live by. You demonstrate in your discourse that you are parasitic on the faculties that you reject. For anyone who wishes to employ common sense he can easily see, therefore, that your philosophy is irrelevant.
Your conflation of erroneous Western modernist philosophy and Eastern apophatism leave you with no absolutely resources to avoid what one must call–because of the moral implications of such a deficient philosophy–hypocrisy.
Comment by David — September 23, 2007 @ 10:47 AM
Comment:
sattvic-
hey DAVID!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT’S ME!!!!!!!!
It is ironic that you attempt to employ rational faculties in order to
reject rational faculties.
OPPS!!!!! SORRY DUDE YOU GOT THAT TOTALLY WRONG . I’m not REJECTING anything. I’m SIMPLY MAKING A STATEMENT THROUGH OBSERVATIONS its that simple. . its based on EXPERIENCE and nt faulty dogma. [ did that clear the air??]
You enjoin others to accept a philosophy
that you do not (and cannot) live by.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
huh???? WHAT ? that makes no sense. AND. I’m not asking anyone to ACCEPT ANYTHING. what I DO find confusing is WHY others DEMAND that their way is the only way? .
You demonstrate in your discourse
that you are parasitic on the faculties that you reject.
SILLY GOOSE !!!!. NOT PARASITIC AT ALL . I DO DELIGHT IN SEEING HOW OTHERS PRESENT THEIR DISCOURSE. AND FOR THE MOST PART IT ALWAYS SEEMS SOMETHING A BIT DESPERATE!!!!!!. SO ARE THEY TELLING ME OR DEMANDING THAT I SEE IT THEIR WAY? where is the knowledge in that ?
For anyone who
wishes to employ common sense he can easily see, therefore, that your
philosophy is irrelevant.
ACTAULLY DAVID THAT’S TRUE WITH ANY PHILOSOPHY. AND THAT’S MY POINT!!!!. THERE IS NOTHING CONSTANT IN THE THINKING PRINCIPLE BUT CHANGE. SO YO SEE THERE IS NO PERMANENCE IN ANY OF THIS! so what then is TRUTH? and how and where is it FOUND?
Your conflation of erroneous Western modernist philosophy and Eastern
apophatism leave you with no absolutely resources to avoid what one must
call–because of the moral implications of such a deficient
philosophy–hypocrisy.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Dave.
c’mon lighten up. you’ll blow up if you get any more “ puffed up”. but two IMPORTANT words you say.
philosophy—hypocrisy
YOU GOT IT DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its all hypocrisy anyway!!!!!!!!
no matter what side of the coin it comes from simple because of the transitory nature of its presentation [ or existence] or lack there of. . makes it a HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!!
thanks
sattvicwarrioir
Comment by sattvicwarrior — September 23, 2007 @ 2:52 PM
Sattvic,
I know that somewhere you might be thinking “Wow, I’m making a great argument that is clear, rational, and faultless.” – however in this discussion, you are unclear, irrational, and your argument is completely irrelevant. Need I remind you that this post was originally about Roman Catholics wanting their churches back?
Frankly, I can’t follow your irreverent drivel here – your argument style is more tangential than my own! You confuse the Catholic Church of today with the Catholic Church of the middle ages (crusades, etc). The Church is no longer the source of power and political leadership in the world – they serve as a moral teaching authority for Catholics. You clearly do not understand the position and placement of the modern Church in culture and society.
David might argue his point, which I think is centere more on pointing out the flaws in your own argument. It would be best for you to address those points if you wish to save face here.
Comment by bink — September 23, 2007 @ 3:51 PM
1. I know that somewhere you might be thinking “Wow, I’m making a great argument that is clear, rational, and faultless.”
uuhhh.. why is you people ALWAYS “think” what OTHERS are THINKING? I NEVER THOUGHT THAT AT ALL .[ sorry bout the caps but it separates the two dialogues]
YOU SAY.
– however in this discussion, you are unclear, irrational, and your argument is completely irrelevant.
MAY BE TO YOU IT IS BUT TO ME I AND OTHERS IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. SO YOU ARE NOT THE ABSOLUTE AUTHOURITY AS YOU MAY THINK. YET YOUR QUITE RIGHT TO A POINT WE DID GET OFF ON ANOTHER TRACK
Need I remind you that this post was originally about Roman Catholics wanting their churches back?
THANK YOU . YOUR RIGHT.
Frankly, I can’t follow your irreverent drivel here – your argument style is more tangential than my own!
WELL THEN DON’T FOLLOW IT. i wasent TALKIN TO YOU ANYWAY. EASY HUH? IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME. [ or anyone else that wants to think” outside the box”]
You confuse the Catholic Church of today with the Catholic Church of the middle ages (crusades, etc).
OTHER THAT THE FACT THEY DON’T TORUTRE AND KILL PEOPLE LIKE THEY DID [ or would probably still want if they had the chance to for not believing in THEIR way] your right. BUT AS FAR AS IDEOLOGY GOES I STILL DON’T SEE MUCH DIFFERENCE than the dark ages. . .
The Church is no longer the source of power and political leadership in the world –
WELL WE BOTH CAN THANK GOD BIG TIME FOR THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
they serve as a moral teaching authority for Catholics.
TELL THAT TO THE BILLION DOLLARS ABUSE SETTTLEMENTS THAT HAVE TRANSPIERED IN THE COURTS OF TODAY. NOW THERES A GOOD SENSE OF MORALITY IF I EVER SAW IT.
You clearly do not understand the position and placement of the modern Church in culture and society.
WELL TO BE HONEST ABOUT IT. I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND. SO WOULD A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE SPIPRTUAL AND VERY GOOD PEOPLE THAT STILL FIND THE CHURCH A HATEFUL AND OPRESSIVE ORGANIZATION . . BUT THERE IS SO MUCH AMBIGUITY AND HATE THAT IS SPEWN OUT BY THE CHURCH IT REALLY IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GREATNESS OF CHRIST OR HOW ONE WISHS TO IDENTIFY WITH GOD.
David might argue his point, which I think is centere more on pointing out the flaws in your own argument. It would be best for you to address those points if you wish to save face here.
THAT’S WHAT “ CHURCHY TYPES” DO THEY ALWAYS SEEM TO POINT OUT “ FLAWS”. DON’T THEY. AND AS FOR SAVING FACE? C’MON… I COULDN’T CARE LESS WHAT YOU THINK. OR WHAT ANYBODY THINKS OF WHAT I THINK. I’m JUST MAKING A COMMENT. [ AND TO ME ITS VERY CLEAR]. I suppose that’s the joy of abandoning centuries old dogma that has been so reworked and gone over it may be difficult for you to see.
the church doesn’t like people to “THINK” it takes away their power and control , but thanks to communications and electronics etc it gives people a whole new sense of freedom , and when people are free from the shackles of the typical self indulgent pompous arrogance of the past they become closer to god, . but anyway. again . this was s about churches getting their property back or something like that . and a gain I say why. ? for the most part they STOLE from someone else to begin with .
hope you understood that
thanks:)
Comment by sattvicwarrior — September 23, 2007 @ 7:08 PM
Sattvic,
My points exactly!
Comment by bink — September 24, 2007 @ 7:51 AM
Okay Sattvic, here’s my response (the preceding post was meant to get out some frustrations I had concerning your’s):
My initial “wow…” comment was there really to vent frustration more than to promote my argument. Yes, I do not know what you were thinking, but I simply wanted to let you know that I was frustrated and annoyed by your argument. You have made it clear (from the various comments in your post) that you are equally annoyed. Let us put all of that behind us and argue on the points alone. I’ll address them here.
Me: “Need I remind you that this post was originally about Roman Catholics wanting their churches back? You: “THANK YOU . YOUR RIGHT.”
We did get off track. It’s interesting to note how that can happen, but.. well… here we are. Off-track and I suppose staying that way. Let’s proceed.
MAY BE TO YOU IT IS BUT TO ME I AND OTHERS IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. SO YOU ARE NOT THE ABSOLUTE AUTHOURITY AS YOU MAY THINK.
“Absolute authority?” Um… Sattvic, come on. I did not say I was an authority, let alone an “Absolute Authority”. More character-bashing for the sake of… umm? Let’s try to avoid this in the future, eh? If you continue along these lines it will just seem like you have no argument against any points and are simply a child throwing a temper-tantrum. I know there are counter-arguments there, so let’s try to keep it civil.
they serve as a moral teaching authority for Catholics.
TELL THAT TO THE BILLION DOLLARS ABUSE SETTTLEMENTS THAT HAVE TRANSPIERED IN THE COURTS OF TODAY. NOW THERES A GOOD SENSE OF MORALITY IF I EVER SAW IT.
Ok, first of all: irrelevant. The Catholic Church has established itself as a moral teaching authority. Whether you agree with their moral teachings or not does not change this fact. Second of all, you cannot use less than 2% of all Catholic Priests to classify the whole. Those scandalous priests still represent a minute portion of the population of Catholic priests. I believe there is actually a higher incident of child/sexual abuse in the general population than in the clerical population. You cannot say that Catholics are immoral based on a few incidents any more than you can say that all humans are child abusers based on a minority.
WELL TO BE HONEST ABOUT IT. I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND. SO WOULD A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE SPIPRTUAL AND VERY GOOD PEOPLE THAT STILL FIND THE CHURCH A HATEFUL AND OPRESSIVE ORGANIZATION . . BUT THERE IS SO MUCH AMBIGUITY AND HATE THAT IS SPEWN OUT BY THE CHURCH IT REALLY IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GREATNESS OF CHRIST OR HOW ONE WISHS TO IDENTIFY WITH GOD.
This is actually a good point. I would recommend reading the Encyclicals and documents that are put out by the Vatican. I would also recommend reading this blog and a few others to get a better picture about what the Catholics (and others) are all about and what they stand for. I have to say that I was once just as skeptical and, well, angry quite frankly about the Church and their supposed “moral authority”. I found that the more I read about the Church, the more I found that really most of what I was feeling was as a result of misunderstanding. Certainly, there is corruption within the Church, but only due to the infallible human involvement. Honestly, I do have issues with this as well as you do, but I really do implore you to look further into it. I am actually not the one to clarify these issues as I am still learning about the Church. David would probably be able to answer this one better.
THAT’S WHAT “ CHURCHY TYPES” DO THEY ALWAYS SEEM TO POINT OUT “ FLAWS”. DON’T THEY. AND AS FOR SAVING FACE? C’MON… I COULDN’T CARE LESS WHAT YOU THINK. OR WHAT ANYBODY THINKS OF WHAT I THINK. I’m JUST MAKING A COMMENT. [ AND TO ME ITS VERY CLEAR].
Sattvic, I’m not a “churchy type”, but I do know what you are referring to. And pointing out flaws in arguments is a good thing both for you and for me. It is part of the argument process, actually. It also helps you formulate your own argument by making your points stronger. Honestly I point out flaws simply because flawed points are not really that strong. I should also say that if you did not care what I think, you would not have made these vague generalizations (“Churchy type”?
Your last paragraph was helpful, yes. I see that you are frustrated with the Church. You clearly seem to think that they have no right to “spread the truth” when you (1) do not believe the truth they spread is correct, and (2) believe that they are hypocritical to a degree and therefore have no right to spread their message. Like I said before, I had these same frustrations. Again, I implore you to read more about the Church and the religion. This does not mean you should read about religions from sources that would seek to abolish the Church, but sources that are actually from the Church. You will find beauty in the teachings, I’m sure. I still cannot completely grasp some of the concepts without difficulty, but it is important for me to keep faith in the Church.
About how they “stole” from someone else (the original post by Shelray), if you read my comment above (the first one) you will see that I actually am not sure if the Catholics should get their church back. Yeah the Orthodox Church “stole” from them in a time of war… is that like winning the church fair and square? It’s actually an interesting question that I sort of wanted to talk about. Perhaps later.
I hope this post helps your efforts (one way or another). Talking about your opinions on this matter is actually a very useful way to “iron-out” your true position on an issue. You’ll see I don’t agree with David and Shelray about a lot of things they post either, but commenting here helps us both strengthen our arguments and potentially alter the other’s point of view.
Thanks.
Comment by bink — September 24, 2007 @ 9:17 AM
Bink – thanks for absorbing the frustration while I have been away. It is clear to me that sattvic is either disingenuous or so gravely unselfreflective that he cannot see that he is both making absolute truth claims and denying the possibility of absolute truth claims all at the same time. His unintentional penchant for ironic assertions is his only saving merit. I am thinking, for example, of his rejection of reading which he claims only pollutes the mind–it is quite obvious that his unfortunate choice of reading material is exactly what polluted his mind.
I appreciate your sharing some of your background. You were willing to open your heart and investigate the Church more closely. sattvic has hardened his will, for whatever reason (though I could probably guess correctly in less than 10 questions) and in order to protect his life’s choices he has chosen to rationalize his position by rejecting the capacity for reason.
If you wish, you are welcome to continue the “conversation” but I discern that rational discourse with sattvic will only be possible, if it is, after much prayer. He first has to be willing to listen for understanding rather than instinctively responding with irrational emotion whenever he is faced with a proposition that causes him moral challenge.
Comment by David — September 24, 2007 @ 3:40 PM
Bink – I may have to recant on the offer to continue the conversation with sattvic here. It seems that all he has left is ad hominem, which of course is the making of truth claims (even though they are erroneous)…again, the self-contradiction of relativism…
sattvik – house rules here are that the commenter does not make the rules. If you want to discuss things rationally then you are welcome to make comments. If you want simply to emote with vitriol then you will not be welcome.
Comment by David — September 24, 2007 @ 9:18 PM
Sattvic, he’s not that self-absorbed as you have stated. If you are willing to listen to what David has to say, you will find that although he can sometimes be a bit arrogant (at times), he is always willing to listen to reason and discuss points in a rational manner. Chew over what I have recommended – it’s not like I need you to think as I do, but I only ask that you really try to sit and analyze your arguments on their logical merit. I found that a lot of what I was feeling before was more based on feelings/opinions that really could not stand in the face of a logical argument.
David, thanks. It’s really no problem – keep the posts coming, I’m always up for discussions (especially about science-related issues!).
Comment by bink — September 25, 2007 @ 8:29 AM