Претражи Живе Речи Утехе

Pa eto, mislim da je trenutak, da se pohvalim sa svojim drugim romanom " Uzareni asfalt" Na njemu sam radio desetak godina, a radnja se zasniva na nekom mom dugogodisnjem iskustvu u auto svetu. Ovde mozete procitajte i kriticki osvrt na roman koji je pisao moj brat a objavljivacu i misljenja drugih citaoca. ?

The Following is a response to an Orthodox interlocutor. He had read my blogpost entitled “Papal Office is internal to the Episcopate , Some Notes On The Mutual Dependency of Bishops to the Pope, Citations from the Church Fathers“, and offered some objections. His real name will go unmentioned. He will be referred to as Max. His comments are in the large bold lettering, my answers are in the small text. WHERE IS EVIDENCE OF THIS AT THE FALSE REUNIFICATION COUNCILS OF LYONS (1274) AND FLORENCE (1439) WHICH WERE REJECTED BY THE EASTERN CHURCHES ONLY HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE BISHOP OF ROME WITHIN HIS OWN (WESTERN) PATRIARCHATE? The author of this statement has overridden the natural constitution of the Church’s government in preference of Patriarchal governance. It is fact that Patriarchal governance was not instituted by Jesus Christ, nor the Apostles, nor the early bishops for several centuries. What did Christ establish? He established the 12 Apostles who formed both an administrative college and missionary society. What did Christ establish through the Apostles? He established the successors to the Apostles, bishops, which is formed, like the Apostles, in a governing college and commissioned society. Within this College, there is a distinction between Head and members, Pope and bishops. Later metropolia and patriarchal organization were Church-created organizations for the better managing of the churches. The latter cannot be used to size up any into one grouping. There are churches with their bishops. The church of Rome has the successor of Peter. Thus, the church of Rome as the central head of the worldwide episcopate and the bishops/churches surrounding him in one compact visible administrative unity. Thus, when Max here makes a measurement of the universal church in Patriarchal divisions, leaving the bishops and Pope who agreed with the decrees of Lyons and Florence, he is disregarding fundamental and divine institutions and even mistakes them for the Patriarchal boundaries. One more thing – I wonder where Max gets the idea that the Patriarchate of Rome was automatically everything Western. At the council of Nicaea, canon 6 alluded to the comparable quasi-Patriarchal rights over Italia suburbicaria, which didn’t quite encompass Gaul, Spain, England, what would become Frankish lands, Africa, etc,etc. So what is it between the Council of Nicaea and the big Councils such as Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451 that automatically makes all these Western sees part of the Roman Patriarchate? Sure Rome was a missionary mother to these churches, but that doesn’t entail what has been assumed. The original mother was the city church of Jerusalem, and yet the world is not one big Jerusalem Patriarchate. Many more questions could be brought up ERICK YBARRA WRITES: “BUT, WE CAN ASK, CAN THE POPE GO AGAINST THE ENTIRE EPISCOPATE?” —> THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WHEN ROME WENT INTO SCHISM AND BROKE AWAY FROM THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHATES OF JERUSALEM, ANTIOCH, ALEXANDRIA, CONSTANTINOPLE AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNITY MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT! Again, another Patriarchal sizing of the divine ekklesia, and coming to the wrong conclusion thereby. Also, this added part “pretty much every ecclesiastical community mentioned in the New Testament!”, only has enough power to turn around and hit as a target the original shooter. During the 4th century, many Eastern churches went into an Arian disarray and corrupted the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ. Many of these churches were part of the grouping that Max provides. Does this have any significance? Enough to turn his argument into a poor inconsistency? I think so. But it only gets worse. The condemnation of St. John Chrysostom, eventually shared by the “Patriarchates” of Cple, Alex, and Antioch. Were these churches of the Ecclesiastical new testament community ? If so, what entailments follow? And, if Max’s purported import were proven true, wouldn’t it backfire? But then, it was, in fact, only the Roman See, which had alone taken initiative with Emperor Honorius/Arcadius to hold a synod to examine the case of Chrysostom, and the western sees which had retained Chrysostom’s name in the diptych of the mysteries. I wonder, just what significance Max would glean from a situation where the Eastern patriarchs broke away from one of the foremost heroes of Eastern Orthodoxy, the golden tongue himself? But then, when, once again, the three major “Patriarchal Sees” went into heretical monophysiticism, and the Roman See (together with the Western sees & some Eastern believers underground, including monks) was alone continually standing firm on Chalcedon, does he see any effectual significance of Rome standing alone again, atop of the heretical world as the “pure home of orthodox dogma” (As St. Sophronius of Jerusalem would call her) ? But God forbid the Roman See would ever break “from the ancient Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and pretty much every Ecclesiastical community mentioned in the New Testament”. ERICK YBARRA WRITES: “CHRIST ALWAYS SUSTAINS A REMNANT, IF NOT ALL, IN THE DIVINE VOCATION OF THE EPISCOPATE THAT WILL ALWAYS BE ON THE RIGHT-BELIEVING SIDE OF THINGS. THUS, BY WAY OF ACCIDENT [FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE], AND NOT BY ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, THE POPE WILL NEVER BE ALONE IN HIS OWN PAPAL MAGISTERIUM FOR THIS REASON.” —-> ERICK SEEMS TO FORGET THAT BOTH POPE HONORIUS AND POPE VIGILIUS WERE CONDEMNED BY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS FOR HERESY! It seems that when Max can find a reason to undermine Papal claims, he is willing to even do so when it means doing so in the most abnormal and extra-contextual manner possible. But then, when it suits Orthodoxy, he can expect his interlocutors to understand extenuating circumstances (see his comments above on Lyons/Florence) Pope Honorius I likely didn’t even teach monotheletism. But even if he did, where was he to confirm himself in the error? He was in the grave, and his soul hopefully in heaven or purgatory if not. Be that as it may, the Council felt free to condemn Honorius as well as many other deceased persons. Doesn’t this mean that the Council has a higher authority than the Pope? I’m sure many thought this. After all, didn’t many think Councils weren’t even more authoritative than the pontifications of their favorite theologians (see the Nestorians/Coptic churches) ?? Anyhow, Catholics have always had a response to this situation. Firstly, the promise of infallibility, which Pope St. Agatho readily asserts for the Roman See in his letter to the Eastern Council, only pertains to a specific mode of teaching. And it isn’t as mechanical as some would like to envision it. It is a mode from where the Pope speaks as the supreme pastor of the church, making a solemn judgement concerning faith &/or morals with the fullness of his God-given authority. In fact, Pope Agatho explains that Pope Honorius did not appeal to Papal authority and the tradition of Rome when he wrote his letter to Sergius of Cple. One might have thought that it would be entirely anarchronistic to think of someone noting the distinction in modes of Papal teaching. But there it is in the 7th century, by no less than a Greek Pope. Pope Leo, who ratified the decrees , agrees to the condemnation of Honorius, even if it were only that he was negligent. A good case can be made, however, that the words of the condemnation are still much stronger than that. What does this prove? That a Council, working together with a valid Pope, examines and condemns a former Pope for heresy. There is room for that on my bus. In fact, many of us are praying this occurs under the present Pontificate, if in the case of formal heresy. Of course, prayers first go to the wellbeing of all, including the Pope himself. For Vigilius – How often do you read anti-Papalists go through the whole story of Vigilius? It is rare that I hear it mentioned that the whole Three chapters controversy was an attempt on the part of the Emperor to resolve the church’s theological disputes. This, right off the bat, should signal an abnormality which the Popes themselves had previously warned against (See Gelasius’ letters to the Emperor). This tendency began with the Emperor Constantine, and could obviously serve the Church very well. But it obviously does not serve the Church very well when the secular rulers circumvent the government of the Church and imposes upon the Church its own rules and mandates. Under the power of Justinian, we see this immediately with his 3 chapters plan. He sends an edict to the eastern patriarchs, requiring them to sign. These Eastern patriarchs, knowing that such matters are to be handled only by collaboration with the prelate of the Roman See, signed conditionally. That condition was whether Pope Vigilius, the head of the universal church, would sign. Justinian knew what he was doing, and he knew he would take any measure necessary to acquire the assent of Rome. We know this because when delegates from Justinian arrived in Rome and met with an unwilling Vigilius, they already knew what plan B was. Take Vigilius into custody. *Right there*, the Byzantine Ceasar was imposing himself upon the freedom of the Church to settle her own affairs. He had already done so with the Eastern patriarchs. From here on forward, all Papal actions are rendered suspicious , since the Pope is under duress. I’d only hope that Max would afford the same understanding he expects us to have when he explains the Greeks embraced Florence. But I only hope. When in Constantinople, Vigilius gives way to Justinian and assents. Then, when he realizes his actions afford him great controversy to many churches in the West, he retracts. But Justinian holds on to that. Then the 2nd edict of the three chapters is made by the Emperor, and the eastern patriarchs are made to sign. Vigilius excommunicates all the eastern patriarchs. The very same thing that Max would say was in the power of the Council against himself [Vigilius]. And yet, no one complains. Rather, they visit the Pope and make it clear that they submit to Chalcedon “for it was ratified by the Apostolic See”, insinuating the essential role of the Pope in the determination of doctrine for the universal church. Push comes to shove w/ the Emperor, a slight reconciliation is made, and plans for a council are agreed upon. However, Justinian didn’t comply with Vigilius, the head of the Church, in allowing the West to play a major role in the dispute. Its obvious, Justinian knew it was a waste of time since the West was not going to budge on Chalcedon, even if stupidly not realizing the Nestorianism in Theodore/Theodoret/Ibas. *Right there again* – The Emperor taking the driver position in the church bus. A big no no. But Vigilius has little to choose from, right? I mean, he is being held prisoner, let’s not forget. The Council convenes and Vigilius isn’t very cooperative, but then says he’ll give a statement on his view within a certain time. The Council doesn’t like the result, and they strike his name from the diptychs, and move on with the condemnation of the three chapters. Council is closed. Vigilius is left an outsider. Now, from here, Max believes his Eastern Orthodox position has gained him another leg in the debate with Catholicism. The problem here is that he has sacrificed the Church’s stance on what an Ecumenical Council *is* in order to obtain this idea that Constantinople 553 held jurisdiction over the Pope and the universal church. First of all, the West was absent. So, at the point in time that the Council closed, we aren’t talking about a Universal Council, though Max would attribute it as such. Now, this is even more curious given that Max, unless I’m mistaken, holds to a similar view of Khamiokov on the gradual acceptance of a council as ecumenical, where the full achievement of ecumenical, supreme, and infallible authority is contingent upon the *whole church receiving it*. If that is the case, then I can’t imagine how Max would say that Justinian and the Eastern bishops comprised an ecumenical action against Vigilius which had the authority to do so. Just a few years after this event, Pope St. Gregory I would say ‘without the authority and the consent of the Apstolic See, none of the matters transacted have any binding force’. Now unfortunately, the removal of the Pope’s name from the diptych of the Eastern liturgies had already become a common thing in the East by then, so I’m sure it wasn’t too strange an idea, but what I’m having a difficult time getting is its validity. When Acacius of Cple removed Pope Felix from the diptychs, it is not as if committed Catholics have to then overturn their belief in the supremacy of the Pope. So this is my response. I will add that Cple 553 began abnormally and would thus end abnormally. Vigilius wrote in with repentance to the patriarch of cple saying he was wrong and that the council was right. I don’t know if he ratified the council then or not. His successor Pelagius I would take the task for sure, and he had quite a battle on his hands since the Western churches were not invited to the convocation, and plus, they saw it as a threat to conscience, i.e. their revoking of Chalcedon. A mess created a bigger mess. But what I hope to communicate here, in concluding, is that it is extremely revealing that Orthodox such as Max would depend so heavily on the actions of Justinian and the eastern bishops against Vigilius, given the rare and abnormal circumstances. THE FOLLOWING CITATIONS ARE FROM A WORK BY THE FRENCH HISTORIAN CLAIRE SOTINEL. IN IT, THE AUTHOR DISCUSSES THE PERIMETERS OF CHURCH AUTHORITY DURING THE TIME OF JUSTINIAN AND SEEKS TO DEFINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHURCH AND IMPERIAL AUTHORITY IN THE PERIOD LEADING UP TO AND FOLLOWING THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. WHEN DISCUSSING THE RELEVANCE OF VIGILIUS’ EXCOMMUNICATION TO HER TOPIC, SHE QUOTES JUSTINIAN’S LETTER IN WHICH VIGILIUS IS CLEARLY SINGLED OUT. REMEMBER THAT AT THIS STAGE, VIGILIUS HAD RETRACTED HIS CONDEMNATION OF THE THREE CHAPTERS: “THE MOST RELIGIOUS POPE OF OLD ROME [HAS MADE HIMSELF] A STRANGER TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN DEFENDING THE IMPIETY OF THE CHAPTERS AND, MOREOVER, IN SEPARATING HIMSELF FROM YOUR COMMUNION BY HIS OWN INITIATIVE […]. THUS, SINCE HE HAS MADE HIMSELF A STRANGER TO CHRISTIANS, WE HAVE JUDGED THAT HIS NAME WILL NOT BE RECITED IN THE HOLY DIPTYCHS LEST, BY THIS MEANS, WE FIND OURSELVES IN COMMUNION WITH THE IMPIETIES OF NESTORIUS AND THEODORE […]. ONE THING IS CERTAIN: WE SERVE UNITY WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, AND YOU MAINTAIN IT. VIGILIUS’ TRANSFORMATION, OR ANYONE ELSE’S, CANNOT, IN FACT, HARM THE PEACE OF THE CHURCHES”. TO WHICH THE COUNCIL RESPONDS: “THE PLANS OF THE MOST PIOUS EMPEROR ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH HIS ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN FOR THE UNITY OF THE HOLY CHURCHES. LET US THEREFORE SERVE UNITY WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE OF THE ALL-HOLY CHURCH OF OLD ROME BY FULFILLING EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE IMPERIAL DECREE WHICH HAS JUST BEEN READ” The relation of ecclesial authority to Imperial authority, I believe, had been answered correctly by Pope Gelasius. Also see above comments. ERICK YBARRA WRITES:”DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE SYMMACHUS, GREEKS APPEALED TO HIM ON BEHALF OF THE EASTERN CHRISTIANS WHO WERE SUFFERING FROM THE MONO-PHYSITE FALL OUT: “YOU WHO ARE TAUGHT DAILY BY YOUR SACRED TEACHER, PETER, TO FEED THE SHEEP OF CHRIST ENTRUSTED TO YOU THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE HABITABLE WORLD” (MANSI, 8.221)” —-> ERICK FORGETS TO MENTION THE SYMMACHEAN FORGERIES. SEE BELOW: THE SYMMACHEAN FORGERIES ARE A SHEAF OF FORGED DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN THE PAPAL CURIA OF POPE SYMMACHUS (498—514) IN THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTH CENTURY, IN THE SAME CYCLE THAT PRODUCED THE LIBER PONTIFICALIS. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PARTISANS OF SYMMACHUS AND ANTIPOPE LAURENTIUS THE PURPOSE OF THESE LIBELLI WAS TO FURTHER PAPAL PRETENSIONS OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME FROM CRITICISMS AND JUDGMENT OF ANY ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNAL, PUTTING THEM ABOVE LAW CLERICAL AND SECULAR BY SUPPLYING SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS SUPPOSEDLY OF AN EARLIER AGE. “DURING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN POPE ST. SYMMACHUS AND THE ANTI-POPE LAURENTIUS,” THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA REPORTS, “THE ADHERENTS OF SYMMACHUS DREW UP FOUR APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS CALLED THE ‘SYMMACHIAN FORGERIES’. … THE OBJECT OF THESE FORGERIES WAS TO PRODUCE ALLEGED INSTANCES FROM EARLIER TIMES TO SUPPORT THE WHOLE PROCEDURE OF THE ADHERENTS OF SYMMACHUS, AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE POSITION THAT THE ROMAN BISHOP COULD NOT BE JUDGED BY ANY COURT COMPOSED OF OTHER BISHOPS.” – CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA XIV, 378. This is an extremely uninformed response. First, what does the letter from the Greeks appealing to the Pope have to do with the Symmachean forgeries? Absolutely nothing. I am shocked that this was his response. Allow me to give you the context here. Macedonius (495) was elected in the place of Euphemius of Constantinople, and he was confronted with a demand from the Emperor Anastasius I to issue an official repudiation of the Council of Chalcedon. He responded that without the consent of the Roman see, no repudiation was possible from him. (Caspar, op. cit., vol ii, p. 121). He was immediately deposed. One year later (512) Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were in the hands of Monophysitism. From these states of affairs, we have a letter from some Greeks in the East who were victims of Caesaropapistic tyranny during this Acacian schism. Dr. Trevor Jalland describes this letter: “Reminding the Pope that he enjoys the power to loose as well as to bind his [Greek] petitioners please: ‘Of a truth you are possessed of the Spirit of Christ, who are daily instructed by your holy teacher Peter how to tend the flock of Christ, which has been entrusted to you over all the earth and obys you not by constraint but willingly…All of us, both those in communion with them (sc. Monophysites) and those who decline it, await next to God the light of your visitation and admission to favour. Wherefore hasten to help the East, whence the redeemer Himself sent forth two great luminaries Peter and Paul to give light to the whole world’. What answer, if any, Symmachus returned to this pathetic appeal is unknown. All that remains of his eastern correspondence is a letter to the Illyrian episcopate urging them to take warning from the fate of the eastern churches: ‘For those, who believed they could disregard the admonition of the Apostolic See, have deservedly suffered what is bound to befall those who forsake their duty’” (Church and Papacy, page 335-6). Max cannot find you a scholar who is contesting these records. Thus, his response to this in terms of the Symmachean forgeries should inform anyone of his readers that he is not closely looking after the things that he writes. That can change, and hopefully it will. But this may be an opportunity to bring up something of interest here since the topic of forgeries came up. The following sources *are not from the forgery collection*. Symmachus had a rival to the episcopate of Rome, a man named Laurence. When Symmachus won the election, the party of Laurence sought at first change to accuse Symmachus of wrongdoing. Sure enough, when Symmachus had established the date of Easter to March 25th, the pre-Victorian Paschal cycle, in defiance of the Alexandrine date of April 22, the part of Laurence sought to procure his summons to a court in Ravenna to be indicted. They added other charges as well. During this plan, a synod was held in Italy at the church of St. Maria in Trastevere, at which Symmachus appeared in person, though Laurnence was presiding. After two sessions accomplishing nothing, the synod sought Theodoric the Arian King in order to condemn Symmachus by civil power. But this plan didn’t fall through since Symmachus didn’t show up for trial, and neither did Theodoric seek to intervene. The Italian synod ended with an acquittal on Symmachus. Seems like an unimportant event, but it comes with some interesting details. It just so happens that two Western bishops, Ennodius of Milan & Avitus of Vienne, both venerated Saints in the Orthodox churches, both of whom were strong supporters of the authority of the Roman see. These both wrote in response to Symmachus’ enemies during the above context. In the first place, we have a statement coming from some bishops of Italy who wrote to King Theodoric concerning the attempt of the supporters of Laurence to condemn Symmachus : “…the person [Symmachus] who was attacked ought himself to have called the Council, knowing that to his See in the first place the rank or chiefship of the Apostle Peter, and then the authority of venerable councils following out the Lord’s command, had committed a power without its like in the churches; nor would a precedent be easily found to show, that in a similar matter the prelate of the aforementioned See had been subject to the judgment of his inferiors” (Mansi, viii, 248). St. Avitus of Vienne wrote a letter to the Roman senators, which reads: “We were in a state of anxiety and alarm about the cause of the Roman church, inasmuch as we felt that our order [the episcopate of Gaul] was endangered by an attack upon its head…What license for accusation against the headship of the universal church ought to be allowed?…As a Roman senator and a Christian bishop, I conjure you that the state of the Church be not less precious to you than that of the commonwealth. If you judge the matter with your profound consideration, not merely is that cause which was examined at Rome to be contemplated, but as, if in the case of other Bishops any danger be incurred, it can be repaired, so if the Pope of the city be put into question, not a single bishop, but the episcopate itself, will appear to be in danger. He who rules the Lord’s fold will render an account how he administers the care of the lambs he entrusted to him; but it belongs not to the flock to alarm its own shepherd , but to the judge [God]. Wherefore restore to us, if it be not yet restored, concord in our chief” (Mansi, viii. 293). St. Ennodius wrote , “God perchance has willed to terminate the causes of other men by means of men; but the prelate of that See He has reserved, without question, to His own judgment. It is His will that the successors of the blessed Apostle Peter should owe their innocence to Heaven alone, and should manifest a pure conscience to the inquisition of the most severe Judge [God]. Do you answer; such will be the condition of all souls in that scrutiny? I retort, that to one was said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church’, and again, that by the voice of holy pontiffs, the dignity of his See has been made venerable in the whole world, since all the faithful everywhere are submitted to it, and it is marked out as the head of the whole body” (Mansi, viii. 284). Some pretty interesting words from these two saints venerated to this day in the Orient. Dr. Trevor Jalland corroborates on this in addition to the Symmachean forgeries : “Yet in spite of the Pope’s pathetic situation, enthusiastic champions of the Roman see made a timely appearance in the persons of Ennodius of Milan and Avitus of Vienne. The latter may well have expressed the view of the Italian episcopate as well as that of Gaul when he wrote: ‘If the position of the chief (princeps) is shaken by accusation, we feel the position of everyone of us to be weakened’. The work of Ennodius on the other hand, as a reply to the Pope’s enemies, though characterized by clever evasions, violent abuse and a marked dependence on irrelevant quotations of Holy Scripture, bas a special interest as the product of a church which at one time seemed to overshadow even Rome itself as the primatial see of Italy. In him we find the earliest explicit assertion that a distinction is to be drawn between the Pope as an individual and the Pope as the holder of the Papacy. As an individual he will receive just judgment on the Last Day; as Pope he cannot be guilty of anything demanding judicial punishment. It is not difficult to imagine that such a view would have been highly acceptable to one such as Gregory VII, under whose inspiration the Ennodian principle was embodied in the Dictatus Papae. Not less remarkable was the abundance of pseudonymous and apochryphal literature which may rightly be regarded as a by-product of this anomalous situation. The chief object of these writings was to make good some of the very obvious defects in the papal structure which recent events had laid bare. They included, besides other suppositious conciliar Acts such as the Gesta Liberii, the Gesta Xysti and Gesta Polychronii, the proceedings of an apocryphal ‘synod of Sineuessa’ at which the unhappy Marcellinus was supposed to have been arraigned. Encouraged to judge himself, the Pope was represented as having declared himself guilty, whereupon Militades, apparently elected and consecrated on the spot, is said to have remarked, ‘Rightly has he been condemned out of his own mouth, for no one has ever judged the Pope, since the first see can be judged by no man’. A similar principle emerges in the contemporary supplement to the Silvestrian saga depicting another imaginary Roman synod, which besides condemning the author of the Paschal cycle, rejected by Symmachus, some hundred years or so before his birth, passed a series of canons of which the last significantly read: ‘No man shall judge the first see’. It is evident from these strange essays in imaginative history that the ideas of Gelasius were already showing themselves prolific, but it would be unjust to Symmachus to attribute to him direct responsibility for the offspring” (Church and Papacy, page 333-4). According to Dr. Klaus Schatz, the forgeries were only to get the principle “the First see is judged by none” into canon law. The drafters of the forgery already knew the valid existence of the principle under the pontificate of Pope Gelasius. Schatz writes: “The principle that prima sedes a nemine iudicatur, ‘the principal see is judged by no one’ (which effectively means ‘can be judged by no one’) became in the course of the centuries a succinct way of saying that there can be no court above the pope that can condemn him, depose him, or set aside his decisions. In this sense the principle has developed an enormous influence, especially since the eleventh century. But it was known and effective long before that…..In this succinct phrasing [first see is judge by none] the principle can be traced back to the Symmachian forgeries, written in about 500. Their setting was the period of Ostrogoth domination. Pope Symmachus, politically a supporter of the Arian Ostrogoth king Theodoric, faced strong ecclesiastical opposition within the Roman clergy, whose orientation was to Byzantium, and he was about to be deposed by a synod. The forgers hoped that this principle could be used to prevent his deposition; they referred to supposed cases around the year 300 when the deposition of a pope was averted because of this principle. Of course it was only this bold formulation that was new, not the content. It appears very clearly in two letters of Pope Gelasius I from 493 and 495 in the context of the Acacian schism. According to the canons, every can appeal to the pope, but there is no appeal beyond him, ‘and thus he judges the whole church and himself stands before no tribunal, and no judgment can be passed on his judgment, nor can his decision be abrogated’. But it was through the Symmachian forgeries that the principle entered the legal canon; it was this formulation, and not that of Gleasius, that made history, but only slowly and by roundabout ways. It was apparently not until the ninth century that the principle became a fixed element in the legal traditions of Rome, possibly under Frankish influence.” (Papal Primacy: From its Origins to Present, page 73) ERICK YBARRA WRITES: “SO WE HAVE, THEN, A RECOGNITION BY THE CHURCH FATHERS THIS IDEA THAT THE PETRINE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE IS NOT AN EXTERNAL REALITY, AS THOUGH IT WAS ADDED UNTO THE EPISCOPAL CONSTITUTION. RATHER, IT IS ONE WITH THE EPISCOPAL CONSTITUTION. SECONDLY, THAT THIS ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE EPISCOPAL CONSTITUTION IS NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN PERTAIN TO ANY AND ALL SEES, BUT ONLY THAT OF THE ROMAN SEE (WE CAN EXPLAIN CONCERNING MORE ABOUT GREGORY’S LETTER WHEREIN HE SPEAKS OF 3 LOCATIONS OF PETER’S SEE IF IT IS BROUGHT UP IN REBUTTAL) SINCE IT ALONE RECEIVES THE SUCCESSION TO PETER’S PRIMACY.” —> ERICK DOES NOT BOTHER OFFERING A REBUTTAL OF POPE GREGORY’S VIEW ON 3 LOCATIONS OF PETER’S SEE. BUT LET US SEE WHAT ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND ST. THEODORET HAVE TO SAY: ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM: “IN SPEAKING OF ST. PETER, THE RECOLLECTION OF ANOTHER PETER [FLAVIAN, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, AT THE TIME THE DISCOURSE WAS WRITTEN,] HAS COME TO ME, THE COMMON FATHER AND TEACHER, WHO HAS INHERITED HIS PROWESS, AND ALSO OBTAINED HIS CHAIR. FOR THIS IS THE ONE GREAT PRIVILEGE OF OUR CITY, ANTIOCH, THAT IT RECEIVED THE LEADER OF THE APOSTLES AS ITS TEACHER IN THE BEGINNING. FOR IT WAS RIGHT THAT SHE WHO WAS FIRST ADORNED WITH THE NAME OF CHRISTIANS, BEFORE THE WHOLE WORLD, SHOULD RECEIVE THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES AS HER PASTOR. BUT THOUGH WE RECEIVED HIM AS TEACHER, WE DID NOT RETAIN HIM TO THE END, BUT GAVE HIM UP TO ROYAL ROME. OR RATHER WE DID RETAIN HIM TO THE END, FOR THOUGH WE DO NOT RETAIN THE BODY OF PETER, WE DO RETAIN THE FAITH OF PETER, AND RETAINING THE FAITH OF PETER WE HAVE PETER” (ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, “ON THE INSCRIPTION OF THE ACTS”, II; CITED BY E. GILES, DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING PAPAL AUTHORITY (LONDON: SPCK, 1952), P. 168. CF. CHAPMAN, STUDIES ON THE EARLY PAPACY, P. 96). [NOTE: NOTE THAT ST. FLAVIAN, ARCHBISHOP OF ANTIOCH IS A PETER AND HAS OBTAINED THE CHAIR OF PETER, AND THAT AS LONG AS HE KEEPS THE FAITH OF PETER’S CONFESSION, ANTIOCH HAS A ST. PETER.] ST. THEODORET MAKES A SIMILAR STATEMENT ABOUT THE SEE OF ANTIOCH WHEN HE STATES THAT ANTIOCH POSSESSES THE THRONE OF PETER: “DIOSCURUS, HOWEVER, REFUSES TO ABIDE BY THESE DECISIONS; HE IS TURNING THE SEE OF THE BLESSED MARK UPSIDE DOWN; AND THESE THINGS HE DOES THOUGH HE PERFECTLY WELL KNOWS THAT THE ANTIOCHEAN METROPOLIS POSSESSES THE THRONE OF THE GREAT PETER, WHO WAS THE TEACHER OF THE BLESSED MARK, AND FIRST AND CORYPHAEUS OF THE APOSTLES.” (PHILIP SCHAFF, NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS (GRAND RAPIDS: EERDMANS, 1956), VOLUME III, THEODORET, EPISTLE 86, TO FLAVIANUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, P. 281). That the Orthodox continue to bring out Gregory’s letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria is quite shocking. This attempt to equate the Roman see with that of the Alexandrian or Antiochene See is clearly refuted by the following statements of Pope Gregory: “As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26). “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches” (13:1) In a letter to Bishop John of Syracuse, Gregory says : “as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal”. Anglican Patristic scholar, J.N.D. Kelly wrote that Gregory I “was indefatigable…in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome’s appellate jurisdiction in the east….Gregory argued that St. Peter’s commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome” (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67). Jaroslav Pelikan writes concerning the tri-partite See of Peter Max mentioned: “To be sure, Peter had also been in Alexandria and in Antioch, and Gregory sometimes put forth the idea that these two patriarchs shared with him the primacy given to Peter: Rome was the see where Peter had died, Alexandria the see to which he had sent Mark, and Antioch the see which he himself had occupied for seven years. There was one see of Peter in three places. But this touch of whimsy about the apostle did not have any far-reaching implications for Gregory’s concrete doctrine of primacy in the church. Everybody knew that the see of Peter was Rome. When the legates at Chalcedon in 451 responded to the reading of Leo’s Tome with the exclamation, ‘Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo!’ they were simply giving voice to this general assumption. For the early church, primacy had belonged in a special way to Jerusalem, the mother city of all believers. But it had moved from the capital city of the old Israel to the capital city of the world, which became the capital city of the new Israel….The churches of the Greek East, too, owed a special allegiance to Rome. As far as the Church of Constantinople was concerned, ‘who would doubt that it has been made subject to the apostolic see’, that is, of course, to Rome? By hailing the authority of Leo, the fathers at Chalcedon gave witness to the orthodoxy of Rome. One see after another had capitulated in this or that controversy with heresy. Constantinople had given rise to several heretics during the fourth and fifth centuries, notably Nestorius and Macedonius, and the other sees had also been known to stray from the true faith occasionally. But Rome had a special position. The bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that ‘without the authority and the consent of the Apstolic See, none of the matters transacted have any binding force’. (The Christian Tradition, Vol 1, pages 353-4) ERICK YBARRA WRITES: “PAPAL FAILURES DO NOT DIMINISH THE ONTOLOGICAL ROLE OF THE PAPACY, NOR DOES IT PROVE IT IS OF MAN-MADE ORIGIN OR THAT IT IS AN EXTERNAL MACHINERY CREATED FOR THE SAKE OF GOOD ORDER, BUT IT CONTINUES TO BE OF THE ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTION.” —> AGAIN, ERICK SEEMS TO FORGET THAT BOTH POPE HONORIUS AND POPE VIGILIUS WERE CONDEMNED BY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS FOR HERESY! IF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL CAN JUDGE A POPE AS HERETICAL (AS THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL DID WITH REGARDS TO POPE HONORIUS), IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH. ANCIENT POPES WERE REQUIRED TO YIELD TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITY OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AND ALL DECISIONS EFFECTING THE ENTIRE CHURCH IN MATTERS OF DOCTRINE AND ADMINISTRATION WERE MADE THROUGH CONSENSUS AT ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, THEY WERE NEVER MADE BY PAPAL DECREE ALONE. See comments I made about Vigilius and Honorius. As for Max’s insistence that an Ecumenical Council has more binding authority than the Pope. For starters, an authentic Ecumenical Council requires the Pope’s participation, and thus for Catholics, one cannot divorce Pope and Council in the way Max does. It is as St. Gregeory the Great said, without the authority of the Holy See, no Council can have this sort of authority. Secondly, there are plenty of historical evidences which demonstrate that the court of the Roman See exceeded the authority of a Council supposedly claiming to hold jurisdiction over the universal church. I can give you the following examples. When they were condemned by the Council of Ephesus 449, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, St. Flavianos of Constantionple, and Theodoret of Cyrus all appealed to Pope Leo for the overturning of the decrees at Ephesus, which was finalized under the “authority” of Pope of Alexandria, Dioscorus, and Emperor Theodosius II. From all appearances, this was a Council. And for students such as Max, who love to shout the universal power of Justinian at the 5th Council, there isn’t any reason why he should think Ephesus 449 is not ecumenical, at least in preparation and matter. Moreover, Pope Leo unilaterally annulled the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Even after the bishops at the Council ratified it together with the Patriarch of Constantinople and Emperor Marcian, the Patriarch of Constantinople finally, after two years, admitted to Pope Leo that all the canons were suspended for his approval or disapproval, and he dropped the whole case – at least, he said he would. Following this, you have the fall out in the East to monophysiticism. It was the Roman See which had continued to herald the decrees of Chalcedon. And the only way the East was brought back into the unity of the Church was through a formula drawn up by Pope Hormisdas and officially signed by a great many in the East under the prodding of Justinian I. There is a rumor going around, made popular by a 19thcentury Anglican anti-Catholic writer, Fr. Puller, that the East had made all sorts of modifications and demands of their own before coming into union with the Holy See. Such is nonsense. If space allowed, we could go on to the historical context of the Pelagian controversy in North Africa, the Iconoclastic controversy, and the dispute caused by Photius. https://erickybarra.org/2017/01/28/catholic-primacy-answering-some-objections-from-an-eastern-orthodox-researcher/

"IMAM PROBLEM SA LITERARIZACIJOM VUČIĆA ZATO ŠTO MI ON PO SVEMU DJELUJE PRETJERANO. U TAKVOM PRETJERIVANJU NEMA LIKA, NEMA MOGUĆNOSTI ZA PRIČU. TAJ NJEGOV PLAČLJIVI GEST, HIROVITA LJUTLJIVOST, I TA – NE BIH HTIO DA ME SE KRIVO SHVATI – GOTOVO PA ŽENSKA UVRIJEĐENOST NEŠTO JE SA ČIM SE NE UMIJEM NOSITI NI KAO GRAĐANIN – MAKAR STRANI – NI KAO PISAC" Kada bismo nabrajali sve knjige hrvatskog književnika Miljenka Jergovića, i to samo prva izdanja, trebalo bi nam odista mnogo prostora (više od 40 naslova). Autor "Sarajevskog marlbora" i "Dvora od oraha" redovno piše novinske kolumne u kojima secira aktuelne društvene teme, a kao strastven čitalac piše i prikaze novih knjiga, neretko podržavajući nove, mlade autore. Nije mu strano da piše i o muzici i slikarstvu. Za sebe će reći da je "inokosna pojava". Sa Jergovićem razgovaramo u čuvenom beogradskom kafiću Azra, njegovom omiljenom mestu kada boravi – a to nije retko – u prestonici Srbije. I nekako se poređenje samo nametnulo: ono što je Džoni Štulić značio za jugoslovenski rokenrol, to Jergović i njegovo delo znači za "srpskohrvatsku" književnost. "VREME": U jednom davnašnjem intervjuu govorili ste o dolascima u Beograd, o graničnim službenicima i hotelskim recepcionerima koji vas doživljavaju kao"ponositog stranca" koji perfektno govori "njihov jezik". U međuvremenu, vaše delo u Srbiji skoro da je postalo domaće. Da li se može reći da je nekakav jedinstven (eks)jugoslovenski kulturni prostor, uprkos svemu, obnovljen? MILJENKO JERGOVIĆ: Za početak, u Beogradu sam prestao da odsjedam u hotelu i počeo da koristim blagodeti onoga što se zove "stan na dan", i to uvijek istog stana. To je još jedan korak ka "odomaćenju". Koristim i srpski mobitel, zato što je roming između Srbije i Hrvatske skuplji – to znam jer sam lično, svojim mobitelom provjeravao – nego roming između Hrvatske i Bjelorusije ili Hrvatske i Ukrajine. U tom smislu, jedino skuplja od Srbije je Crna Gora. Što se tiče "fantomskog" zajedničkog kulturnog prostora, stvar je veoma jednostavna. Taj zajednički kulturni prostor, htjeli mi to ili ne, postoji zato što postoji zajednički jezik i zato što postoje zajedničko kulturno iskustvo i zajedničko istorijsko iskustvo, šta god ono bilo. Svi ljudi koji žive na prostoru između, recimo, Sutle i Timoka, najmanje između Sutle i Timoka – da malo Sloveniju i Makedoniju ostavimo po strani – čine taj zajednički kulturni prostor, i svi oni participiraju u njemu. Ne poznajem nikoga, ali zaista nikoga, ko uopšte čita hrvatsku književnost a da, recimo, ne čita srpske knjige i srpske pisce. Postoje samo oni koji ne čitaju ništa, pa jednako tako ne čitaju ni Srbe kao što ne čitaju ni Hrvate. Ako uzmeš te tzv. niže slojeve, one nepismene i polupismene, ili – što je možda najbolje – ako uzmeš nacionaliste, i to one najgore vrste koji bi sutra vrlo rado učestvovali u nekom sljedećem ratu – oni takođe imaju zajednički kulturni prostor i iste zajedničke kulturne sadržaje. Hrvatski nacionalisti koji su redovni na Tompsonovim koncertima, pored Tompsona ne slušaju, recimo, Terezu Kesoviju ili Kiću Slabinca, nego je njihova muzika – Ceca, Dragana Mirković, Stoja, Aca Lukas i već sve niže spomenutih. Dakle, i oni sa Srbima dijele zajednički kulturni prostor. A šta je to što spaja ove potonje? I da li su ovi koji čitaju i srpsku, i hrvatsku, i bosanskohercegovačku književnost – na margini, a ovi što slušaju Cecu i Tompsona – mejnstrim? Čitajući su svakako margina, a ovi koji slušaju Cecu i Tompsona su patriotska margina, ona margina koju vlasti u Srbiji i u Hrvatskoj, istina na različite načine, vole predstavljati kao patriotsku i društvenu elitu. Iz perspektive hrvatske predsjednice – to je vjerojatno i jedina elita. Ona je naprosto zaljubljena u taj društveni sloj. Čak mi se čini da ta zaljubljenost iz njene perspektive ima i smisla jer zahvaljujući toj svojoj ljubavi, ona dobija izbore. I to ne zato što je taj društveni sloj većinski, već zato što on predstavlja elitu društva kojeg personificiraju Katolička crkva i konzervativni ideali onoga šutljivog, seljačkog i prigradskog sveta. Taj "šutljivi, konzervativni, seljački i prigradski svet" je ono što je većina i u Srbiji i u Hrvatskoj? Da, s tim što oblici njihove konzervativnosti nisu fiksirani. Pre desetak godina u Hrvatskoj oni su većinski glasali za SDP. Ali nisu oni glasali za SDP zato što su bili ljevičari, a u međuvremenu postali desničari – njihov konzervativni ideal nije politički. Oni glasaju za političare kao što bi glasali za televizijske i estradne zvijezde. I u Srbiji i u Hrvatskoj je tako. Ovi koji glasaju za SNS i za Vučića, pre 16-17 godina glasali su za nekakav DS ili DSS. Nema taj većinski sloj ni u jednoj ni u drugoj zemlji fiksirana ideološka i svjetonazorska uvjerenja. Oni čak nisu nužno ni nacionalisti. Mnogi bivaju nacionalisti na isti način na koji bivaju heteroseksualci. Naprosto je sramota biti "peder" i onda se predstavljaš kao heteroseksualac. Takva je, čini mi se, politička svijest u ljudi na današnjem Balkanu. Jedan ovdašnji filozof je rekao da je u Srbiji nepodnošljivo lako postati nacionalista... Slažem se, ali to nije karakteristično samo za Srbiju nego za cijelu bivšu Jugoslaviju, minus Slovenija. Jedino se Slovenija – i kada ode ulijevo, i kada ode udesno – ne uklapa u tu sliku. Kada smo kod mejnstrima, da li se, s obzirom na vaše impozantno delo, može reći da ste vi u Hrvatskoj mejnstrim pisac? To je "tricky" pitanje, a reći ću vam i zašto. U posljednjih 25 godina nikada ni u jednom kulturnom programu Hrvatske televizije nije se govorilo ni o jednoj mojoj knjizi. U tih 25 godina nikada nisam gostovao u emisiji u kojoj se govorilo o mojoj književnosti. A u poslednjih petnaest godina, sa izuzetkom gostovanja u emisijama Aleksandra Stankovića, moje lice se na HTV-u pojavljivalo samo u vidu potjernica. Recimo, jednom je upriličena i emitovana specijalna emisija posvećena mojoj navodnoj simpatiji za Dražu Mihailovića. Takođe, od postojećih književnih nagrada u Hrvatskoj, dobio sam samo jednu jedinu – "Ksaver Šandor Đalski", i to prije 25 godina kad vjerovatno još nisu bili načisto ko sam i šta sam. Sa te strane gledano, ja ne samo da nisam mejnstrim već ne postojim, ili pak postoji ozbiljan trud mejnstrima da me se učini nepostojećim. Sa druge strane, vrlo često ćete od ozbiljnih ljudi, pa i nekih profesora na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu ili tzv. ljudi iz kulture i književnosti čuti za mene da sam važan, veliki pisac. Pa će se onda moje knjige navoditi kao vrhunci savremene hrvatske književnosti. Stvar je u osnovi paradoksalna i na vaše pitanje nema odgovora. Može se odgovoriti i da sam mejnstrim i da me nema. Ali svi o meni imaju neko mišljenje. U ovom slučaju imati mišljenje zaista znači isto što i imati guzicu. A šta je to što smeta mejnstrimu da vam ne odaju više nego zasluženo, po mom mišljenju, priznanje? Riječ je o različitim stvarima, ali im generalno smeta moja drukčijost. Naprosto sam različit. Ta drukčijost se može ticati raznih stvari. Najviše i najprije se tiče toga da nisam deo nikakve grupacije. Ne pripadam grupi desnih hrvatskih pisaca i nacionalista. Oni me preziru. Ne pripadam ni grupi lijevih hrvatskih pisaca i antinacionalista. Oni me takođe preziru. Ja sam, eto, ja. Inokosna pojava. Igrom slučaja, dijelim isti prostor sa njima i nemam pritom nikakav problem sa vlastitom isključenošću, niti imam naročitu želju da stvar bude drukčija. Svaka kultura i svaka književnost zaokružuje i definiše vlastiti prostor, zaokružuje sebe. Definiše svoje važne pisce, važna dela, definiše vlastiti kulturni i književni život. Hrvatska književnost, ono što čini njen mejnstrim, pokušava sebe definisati tako da ja ostanem izvan nje. I to je meni sasvim okej. Hrvatska književnost i hrvatska kultura kroz cijeli dvadeseti vijek i ovaj dvadeset i prvi – sebe je najčešće definisala u negativnom smislu, definišući se preko toga što nije, a ne preko toga što jest. I tako je zaokruživala svoj imaginarni prostor. Nasuprot hrvatskom izolacionističkom principu, tokom dvadesetog vijeka srpska kultura je imala ekspanzionistički princip, neprestano je pokušavala da prisvoji i ono što se činilo izvan njenog obuhvata. U političkom smislu, ekspanzionizam je loša stvar, to znamo iz iskustva, ali u smislu kulturnog obuhvata i definisanja vlastitog kulturnog polja, ekspanzionizam je pozitivan. Ako želiš reći da su Meša Selimović i Ivo Andrić srpski pisci i ako srpsku književnost za vrijeme njihovog života definišeš tako što ih obuhvaćaš kao svoje, ti si na dobitku. Hrvati su svoju književnost definisali tako da ona obuhvaća sve ono što nije Ivo Andrić. I zato je danas smiješan i opskuran pokušaj hrvatske književnosti da, zbog žudnje za Andrićevom Nobelovom nagradom, njega integrišu u nešto čemu on nikako ne pripada prosto zato što je iz toga prethodno isključen. Pokušaj pljačke Andrićeva leša jedna je od odvratnijih stvari u savremenoj hrvatskoj kulturi. Jasne su razlike između vas i desnih književnih krugova. Koje su razlike između vas i lijevih književnih krugova u Hrvatskoj? Sa tim ljudima, ljevičarima iz hrvatske književnosti, dijelim minimalna politička uvjerenja, ali ništa osim toga. Sve drugo što oni jesu ja nisam, i obrnuto. Jer, književnost se definitivno ne definiše isključivo kroz političko uvjerenje autora. Književnost se ne definiše ni kroz političko uvjerenje čitalaca. U hrvatskom slučaju između tzv. književnih desničara i književnih ljevičara jedina razlika je u tom mininalnom političkom uvjerenju, i u tome što jedni glasaju za HDZ i ne žele čitati Dragana Velikića i Svetislava Basaru kao što ne čitaju ni bilo šta drugo, ali će zato rado poslušati Cecu. Ovi drugi, ljevičari, ako čitaju, pročitaće Velikića i Basaru i kititi se činjenicom da su ih čitali, i to će biti izraz njihove slobodoumnosti i njihovog velikog ljevičarstva, prema čemu ja imam načelne simpatije, ali mi i dalje ne znači previše. Pogotovo što se u trenutku kada dođu na vlast, odnosno kada njihova ministrica dođe na vlast, ne razlikuju od najcrnje desnice. Ta etapa, kada su u Hrvatskoj na vlasti bili lijevi ministri kulture, u kulturi bila je bitno gora od mnogo dužih etapa desnih ministara kulture. I što je važno: ništa manje isključiva, nacionalistička, sektaška. Po sitnom lopovluku, klijentelizmu i udovoljavanju svojim ljudima, braći od tetke i tetkama, lijevi ministri u Hrvatskoj bili su bitno gori. Izneli ste svojevremeno interesantnu tezu o tzv. integralnim fašistima koji su"dekorativni levičari", a koji takođe imaju totalitarni pogled na svet i ne podnose one koji imaju makar i samo za nijansu drugačije mišljenje. O kome ste tačno mislili? Mislio sam na mnoge. Mislio općenito na fenomen ljudi koji se kite lijevim folklorom, a zapravo su fašisti. Oni misle da se ljevica sastoji od majica sa likom Če Gevare, od razgovora o 1968, od čitanja Varufakisa i od crvenog folklora, a nikako od nekog stvarnog sadržaja. Dakle, ništa suštinski, ništa stvarno angažovano. Samo folklor. Kako gledate na pojave jugonostalgije i "titostalgiju", koje su prisutne u svim zemljama bivše Jugoslavije? Od samih početaka to mi ide na živce. A kako vrijeme prolazi i kako se pojam jugonostalgije okamenjuje, stvar me još više nervira. Kao prvo, Jugoslavija nije nešto za čim je mudro biti nostalgičan, i to iz elementarnih razloga. Ona je bila neslobodna društvena i politička zajednica. U Jugoslaviji nisu postojale elementarne građanske slobode. Mi smo se osamdesetih borili i potpisivali peticije za ukidanje člana 133 Kaznenog zakonika, odnosno verbalnog delikta. Ne možete biti nostalgični za zemljom u kojoj je verbalni delikt ukinut tri ili četiri godine prije njenog nestanka. Drugo, postoji nešto što se tiče elementarne čovjekove autopercepcije. Prirodno je, naime, da smo nostalgični, da smo bolećivi prema svojoj prošlosti. Naša bolećivost dolazi od onoga što se zove "optimizam sjećanja". Sva naša sjećanja su uljepšana. Sjećanja na Jugoslaviju su strašno uljepšana. A to zapravo nisu sjećanja na Jugoslaviju nego na našu vlastitu prošlost. Zaboravili smo da nam je bilo dosadno, grozno, zaboravili smo da smo bili zabrinuti, da nas je bolio zub, da smo bili bolesni, da smo imali grozne roditelje, da je grozno bilo u školi, da smo imali jedinicu iz matematike koju je valjalo popraviti... Sve smo to zaboravili, ostale su samo lijepe stvari. Naprosto zato što je to koncepcija ljudskog sjećanja. Pomalo je nedostojanstveno biti žrtva faličnosti sopstvenih sjećanja. U toj Jugoslaviji proveo sam petnaest mjeseci na odsluženju vojnog toka, a služenje JNA bila je kombinacija zatvora i ludnice. Danas postoji nostalgija i za tim vojničkim danima, što je najluđe od svega. Sa druge strane, ako ostavimo po strani to da je Jugoslavija bila loša, nepraktična, neslobodna zemlja, opasna za svoje građane, treba reći da je za čovjeka koji se zanima za kulturu, koji čita, sluša muziku, gleda filmove – bilo dobro živjeti na mnogostruko većem prostoru od ovih današnjih država. I takva, neslobodna Jugoslavija bila je više integrisana u Evropu i u svijet nego ijedna današnja postjugoslovenska zemlja, uključujući Sloveniju. Kada si bio čitalac u Jugoslaviji, ti si bio čitalac u Evropi. Tvoj svijet je bio evropski svijet. Danas smo spušteni deset spratova niže i od kulturne, intelektualne i svake druge bijede spasava nas samo to što smo dio digitalnog, internetskog svijeta, i što tako možeš da komuniciraš sa svijetom. Da nije tog kompjutera, mi bismo danas živjeli malo bolje nego što se živjelo u Enver Hodžinoj Albaniji, s tim što ne bismo bili izmučeni albanskom Partijom rada nego svijetom provincijskih tabloida. Tabloidi bi danas bili naš pakao da ne postoje kompjuteri i internet. U pitanju je užasno velika razlika između današnjih država i Jugoslavije, koja govori u korist Jugoslavije. Ali opet ponavljam, ne može se za tom i takvom zemljom, i tim i takvim društvom, biti nostalgičan. Jer, nostalgija za Jugoslavijom je i nostalgija za služenjem JNA. A meni je JNA, nakon matematike u osnovnoj i srednjoj školi, najstrašnije iskustvo u životu. Često se na regionalnim skupovima novinara ili nevladinih aktivista, ljudi iz bivših jugoslovenskih republika utrkuju da dokažu kako je kod njih – stanje najgore. Otkud potreba za tom vrstom ekskluziviteta? Putujući po zemljama bivše Jugoslavije, čovjek svuda dođe na dan-dva, tri, sedam, deset, petnaest... Čak i ako ostane dva-tri mjeseca, on je neko sa strane kog se toliko ne tiču, to jest nimalo ga se ne tiču lokalne stvari i lokalna sredstva maltretiranja. Uvijek si toliko izmaltretiran u svojoj maloj republici, u svom malom gradu, u svojoj maloj palanci, da ti se čini da je u onoj drugoj palanci, sa druge strane granice, puno bolje. Meni je, recimo, u Beogradu puno bolje nego u Zagrebu. Čak mislim da je i objektivno bolje, iz prostog razloga što je Beograd veći od Zagreba, pa sama ta veličina izrodi i nešto pozitivno. Ali, moj osjećaj da je ovdje bolje više se tiče činjenice da ja nisam odavde, da gledam, recimo, na Vučića kao na živopisnu pojavu sa ekrana, a ne na nekog ko ima bilo kakvog utjecaja na moj život. Kada moram pronaći način da prođem beogradskim Trgom republike, da nekako pronađem ulicu kojom se može ići – meni to predstavlja svojevrsnu avanturu, jednom u tri-četiri mjeseca, a ne svakodnevnu stvar. Ja se ne vozim beogradskim gradskim prevozom, gužvu na Brankovom mostu doživim jednom godišnje. O beogradskom, srbijanskom i vojvođanskom očaju saznajem od svojih prijatelja i poznanika i onda to uspoređujem sa svojim očajem. Uvijek je vlastiti očaj veći od tuđeg. To dolazi od toga i to je jedan veoma zanimljiv fenomen. Dok se nacionalisti, čak i kada imaju minimum svijesti da je u njihovoj zemlji loše, uvijek tješe time da je u Srbiji još gore, ili da je u Bosni još gore, ili da je u Hrvatskoj još gore, antinacionalistima se opet čini da je u Srbiji bolje, da je u Bosni bolje. Kažu, u Bosni su barem tri nacionalizma, a tri nacionalizma tlače manje nego jedan. Dok se onima koji su u Bosni čini da tri nacionalizma tlače više nego jedan. Sve je to razgovor ljudi koji zapravo nisu u stanju razgovarati, jer nisu u stanju izaći iz vlastite situacije i vlastite ucijenjenosti. Ipak će kolege iz regiona morati na kraju da priznaju da Srbija ima ubedljivo najgore tabloide. Kada dolazite ovde i vidite te pojave na kiosku ili ih listate, šta pomislite, o čemu se tu radi? Najprije da kažem, u Srbiji su novine bolje nego u Hrvatskoj. U Srbiji, naime, postoje i novine koje nisu tabloidi. Tačno je da u Hrvatskoj nema novina poput "Informera" ili "Srpskog telegrafa", ali su tzv. mejnstrim novine u velikoj mjeri tabloidi. Tako izgledaju, tako funkcionišu, i u jednom dobrom dijelu se bave taboidnim temama. Dok u Srbiji postoje dvoje-troje žanrovski ozbiljnih novina, potpuno svejedno da li su te novine nama politički simpatične ili nisu. Mislim da upravo to u Srbiji omogućava i postojanje tih jednokratnih žurnalističkih tabloidnih ludila... Prekjuče hodam pored trafike i ugledam na naslovnoj stranici glave masakriranih ljudi. I nešto ispod toga, neki naslov – ubilo, zaklalo... To je, recimo, nešto što se, čini mi se, više nigdje osim u Srbiji ne može vidjeti na kioscima. Kada bi nekome negdje palo na pamet da na naslovnu stranu ili uopšte u novine tako nešto stavi, to bi neko vijeće za štampu ili nekakav higijenski zavod jednostavno zabranilo. Vučić je u nekim zemljama Zapada doživljavan, poput onomad Miloševića, kao faktor regionalne stabilnosti. Istovremeno, njegovi mediji bljuju nacionalističku mržnju, a takva je i infrastruktura njegove vlasti, antidemokratska i antizapadna. Kako objašnjavate taj fenomen? Srpsko društvo i javna scena zasnovani su na nizu paradoksa. Tabloidi i poluautoritarna vlast – to je paradoks. Paradoksalno je i to da u Srbiji postoje tri gradića u kojima SNS nije na vlasti, a u isto vrijeme se vlast tako zdušno i tako energično bori protiv opozicije. To je suludo. Srpsko društvo, odnosno društvo koje stvara i projektuje ova vlast je ultrakonzervativno, a premijerka Ana Brnabić je žena sa seksualnim opredeljenjem koje jedva da nije protivzakonito. U Srbiji je nezamislivo, kao i u Hrvatskoj uostalom, da gej par ima dijete, a predsjednik Srbije premijerki šalje čestitku nakon što je ona u svojoj partnerskoj vezi dobila dijete. Da li to može samo ona!? Postoji li ikakav način da to može još neko? Ne, ne postoji. I to je paradoks. Kada je Ana Brnabić postala ministrica, a pogotovo kada je postala premijerka, vjerovao sam da će se ovako ili onako dogoditi nekakva dobra stvar. Naprosto da će ljudi, ta divlja masa, reći da je to okej, da će o njoj govoriti na osnovu toga kakva je ministrica ili premijerka, a ne na osnovu njenog seksualnog oprijedeljenja. Mislio sam da će njen izbor relaksirati situaciju u odnosu na tu manjinsku grupu. Međutim, nije se desilo ništa nalik tome. Dogodilo se to da je prihvaćeno kako je Ana Brnabić gej i da sa tim niko nema problema, pa čak ni episkopi. Ali, to se odnosi samo na nju i ni na koga više. To je takođe neviđeni paradoks. Jednako kao što je paradoksalno i to što pojedinci pišu na novčanicama da je Kosovo Srbija, a zaboravljaju da to znači i to da je bezmalo dva miliona Albanaca takođe Srbija. Ako su i oni Srbija, onda za početak, prijatelju, dužan si da pola večernjeg dnevnika bude na albanskom jeziku, i da ga uređuju od tebe nezavisni albanski novinari. Dužan si i da svaki natpis u Srbiji bude dvojezičan. Govorite o Kosovu i odnosu prema Albancima. Da li se može reći da svojevrsni kultur-rasizam prema kosovskim Albancima nije bio samo monopol Srbije i Srba već da je bio deo zajedničke kulture "naroda" bivše Jugoslavije? To je važno pitanje. U pitanju je bila bomba koja je morala da razori Jugoslaviju. To je i pokazatelj da je ideja o jugoslovenskom zajedništvu bila falična, nedovršena, kvarna, iznuđena... Svaki Albanac i svaki Mađar je morao, ali baš morao, da zna naš jezik. Svaki Albanac i svaki Mađar ga je u školi učio dok ga ne bi naučio, a onda bi se u JNA proveli kao bosi po trnju sa svojim nedovoljnim znanjem srpskohrvatskog jezika. Niko od nas većinaca nije u školama, makar fakultativno, morao ili mogao da uči ni mađarski ni albanski, pa ni makedonski ni slovenački jezik. Mi o njima ništa nismo znali i ništa nismo htjeli da znamo. To je bio mnogo veći problem Jugoslavije nego ideja o zajedničkoj kulturnoj sceni. U krajnjoj liniji, kosovski Albanci bivali su važnim akterima i činili deo jugoslovenske kulturne scene, ali samo u slučaju da su savršeno ili gotovo savršeno govorili naš jezik. Ili ako su kao pjesnici ili prozni pisci bili prevođeni u Jugoslaviji, to jest u Srbiji. Naime, izvan Srbije Albanci se i nisu prevodili kao što se ni danas ne prevode. U Hrvatskoj je preveden samo neki antisrpski esej velikoga albanskog pisca Ismaila Kadarea i to je, koliko se mogu sjetiti, jedina knjiga prevedena sa albanskog u Hrvatskoj u posljednje dvije i po decenije. Sa jedne strane, hrvatska se državna politika zalaže za prava Albanaca na Kosovu. Hrvatska je priznala Kosovo. Kada se na jednoj strani nađe albanski stav, a sa druge srpski, Hrvati će uvek biti za albanski stav, a kada treba prevesti knjigu ili pjesmicu ili bilo šta, onda se pokazuje da ih taj svijet jednostavno ne zanima. Još više ih ne zanima nego što ih nije zanimao u jugoslovenska vremena. Liberalni kapitalizam i Crveni Kmeri Koliko je uopšte kultura ovde moguća bez državne pomoći ili finansiranja iz nekih stranih donacija? Da li je moguće da ozbiljna kultura na ovim prostorima bude samoodrživa? Naravno da nije. Ne samo na Balkanu. Kada bi kultura bila oslobođena poreza, onda bi bila druga stvar. Porezi služe da se zadovoljavaju elementarne potrebe zajednice, a kultura je elementarna potreba zajednice. Pod uslovom da zajednica postoji, bilo kao nacija, bilo kao društvo povezano jezikom, državnim granicama i poreznim sistemom. Ideja da se kultura izostavi i prebriše iz elementarnih potreba zajednice huliganska je ideja, koja po svojim metodama i ciljevima pripada metodologiji Crvenih Kmera. Iako se u našim slučajevima to naziva idealom liberalnog kapitalizma. Ako je tako, onda između tako zamišljenog liberalnog kapitalizma i Crvenih Kmera nema nikakve razlike. Spomenuli ste Vučića. Da li je on vama literarno zanimljiv lik? Imam problem sa literarizacijom Vučića zato što mi on po svemu djeluje pretjerano. U takvom pretjerivanju nema lika, nema mogućnosti za priču. Taj njegov plačljivi gest, hirovita ljutljivost, i ta – ne bih htio da me se krivo shvati – gotovo pa ženska uvrijeđenost nešto je sa čim se ne umijem nositi ni kao građanin – makar strani – ni kao pisac. Kada kažem ženska uvrijeđenost, nadam se da ne trebam objašnjavati kako postoji i muška uvrijeđenost, koja od ženske nije ni bolja ni lošija, nego je različita. To što je Vučićeva uvrijeđenost ženska meni nipošto nije smiješno, samo me zbunjuje i ne da mi da o njemu dalje mislim kao o književnom liku. Ako bih nekoga iz Vučićevog kruga literarizirao, meni bi Ana Brnabić bila mnogo zanimljivija. Ona je sigurno žena s elementarnom građanskom hrabrošću, spremna pripadati prezrenoj i degradiranoj društvenoj manjini, razlikovati se, ne biti po mjeri čaršije. Ali njoj se, čini mi se, dogodila velika, teško objašnjiva transformacija. Od vremena kada je bila ministrica, od vremena kada je postala predsednica Vlade, pa do danas, ona se promijenila u svom nastupu, u svojoj gesti, u odnosu prema društvenim vrijednostima. Promijenila se u temperamentu. U nastupu je počela ličiti na Vučića, i to je jako zanimljivo s obzirom na prethodnu poziciju. Ako sam dobro razumeo, za Vučića nema prostora u nekoj ozbiljnoj književnosti? Možda bi imao prostora kod nekog pisca među kakve ja ne spadam. Možda bi Miodrag Bulatović u svojim najboljim danima mogao od Vučića da napravi književni lik. Ili recimo možda čak – ovo će malo čudno zvučati – možda čak i Kurt Vonegat. Možda bi on od njega uspeo napraviti nekog zanimljivog čudaka. Ja Vučićem kao književnim likom ne vladam. Moji su čudaci obični, svakodnevni autsajderi. A Vučić je krajnje artificijelna pojava, kakvih ima u literaturi, ali ih nema u stvarnosti. Ne bi me iznenadilo kada bih saznao da Aleksandar Vučić zapravo ne postoji. U jednom vašem intervjuu bilo je reči o dva spakovana kofera u kojem treba da držite sve važne stvari i uspomene, jer postoji velika mogućnost da će sve osim toga biti izgubljeno. U zbirci "Sarajevski marlboro" varirali ste tu Džumhurovu tezu. Da li sada imamo gdje da odemo, pobjegnemo, s obzirom na loše vijesti koje dolaze iz svijeta? Prije samo deset godina dijelili smo zajednički san o evropeizaciji naših prostora. U međuvremenu su se stvari radikalno promijenile. Svijet je prilično balkaniziran. Kada gledam i slušam Donalda Trampa, u sebi osjećam istu emociju kakvu sam osjećao prije dvadeset i pet godina, a koju osjećam pomalo i danas kada gledam i slušam Šešelja. Oni su užasno slični, ne toliko u fizičkom smislu, mada ni fizički nisu sasvim različiti, koliko u načinu na koji govore i emocijama koje odašilju. Slični su i u tom konstantnom prelaženju granice pristojnog, granice mogućeg, granice društveno prihvatljivog. Šešelj je osuđeni ratni zločinac sa radnim mjestom u Skupštini Srbije, što nije naročito visok položaj, a Donald Tramp je predsjednik Amerike, na neki način predsjednik svijeta. Donald Tramp je svijet. To znači da se Amerika, barem preko svog predsjednika i svega što on znači i što metastazira, pretvorila u Balkan. Ako je Amerika Balkan, onda se sa Balkana nema gdje pobjeći. Možda nije mudro ni bježati danas sa Balkana. Istina, Amerika je veličanstvena jer uspijeva već godinama držati Trampa na uzdama, što je pokazatelj snage jedne stvarne demokracije, ali sa druge strane, stvar je – zastrašujuća. Ipak, odavde ljudi odlaze i dalje na zapad, rezultati "egzodusa" su strašni? To je zajedničko svim našim zemljama. Tačno, mladi ljudi odlaze. Svi odlaze na zapad, i nacionalisti, i fundamentalisti, i vjerski manijaci bilo koje vjerske denominacije. Niko da ode u središte svoje vjere, osim ako ne ide malo da ratuje za ISIL ili za Rusiju. Odlaženje ljudi sa ovih prostora najviše se tiče nemogućnosti da se napravi projekcija vlastitog života u kojem bi se moglo zamisliti da će sljedeće godine biti bolje. Mislim da zbog toga ljudi odlaze, i sa te strane ih potpuno razumem. Neprestano je prisutna projekcija da će nam biti gore, i gore, i gore. Čak i kada je bolje, mi nemamo utisak da je tako jer imamo strah od sljedeće godine. Da se razumijemo, u proteklih petnaestak godina koješta je u ovim zemljama bivalo i bolje a da to nismo ni primijetili. Da li su izbeglice u Evropi zapravo novi varvari, oni iz legendarne Kavafijeve pesme, bez kojih ne znamo "šta će biti s nama"? Koliko je Evropa danas zajednica na koju treba da se ugleda ostatak sveta, a koliko jedan svet u zalasku? Iako su izbori za Evropski parlament, prema mnogima, zaustavili, bar delimično, uspon ekstremne desnice, ipak je snaga ovih stranaka neupitna. Izbori u Danskoj su pokazali i jednu zabrinjavajuću tendenciju: "izdominirali" su levičari koji takođe vode antiimigrantsku politiku. Najprije, ja nisam siguran da je riječ "izbjeglica" adekvatan pojam. Oni koji su bježali od rata, iz Sirije, jesu izbjeglice, ali ljudi iz različitih dijelova Afrike i ljudi iz drugih država Bliskog istoka i Srednjeg istoka koji su išli prema Evropi težeći za boljim životom – jesu gastarbajteri u pokušaju. Oni su ljudi koji se preseljavaju, ali nisu izbjeglice. Problem je u tome što smo mi u poslednjih nekoliko godina prihvatili kriminalizaciju ljudi koji idu za boljim životom. I koji se sele iz ekonomskih razloga. Odjednom je to postalo zazorno. Moram priznati da je to nešto što je veoma zabrinjavajuće, čak i u diskursu u tom smislu inače korektne Angele Merkel. I ona je počela da pravi razliku između ratnih izbjeglica i ekonomskih migranata, u kojima je potonje sumnjičila da nešto sa njima nije u redu. Težnja za boljim životom i težnja da se ide negdje gdje ćeš bolje živjeti, više zarađivati i gdje će tvojoj djeci biti bolje – najprirodnija je stvar na svijetu, i to je nešto što je upisano u sve naše porodične povijesti. Svi mi smo tako išli nekud, naši očevi ili pradjedovi... I Evropa je sastavljena od takvih ljudi. Kako da je to odjednom postao problem? Očito da je taj problem produkovan nizom informativnih kampanja i protivkampanja, i da je Evropa sama sebi stvorila ozbiljan problem tokom ove izbjegličke krize. Stvorila je problem u percepciji sebe same, a pogotovo u percepciji ljudi koji dolaze, prolaze, odlaze... I stvoreno je tako plodno tle za stvarno opasne tipove kakav je Viktor Orban. On je opasan, jer djeluje infektivno, zarazno. Istina, velika zaraza u Evropi nikada nije kretala iz male zemlje, a Mađarska je ipak mala zemlja, ali bez obzira na to, stvar nije ni ugodna ni bezazlena. Danski primjer samo potvrđuje kako je mondeno i moderno biti protiv drugih i drugačijih. Mi na Balkanu jako dobro znamo one koji su se na sličan ili isti takav način ponašali. Meni pada na pamet hrvatski solcijaldemokratski ministar kulture, lijevi ministar kulture koji se zvao Antun Vujić, i koji je bio ideološki guru SDP-a. On je, nakon što smo mi za svoj račun sa FAK-om (Festival alternativne književnosti) 2001. godine išli u Novi Sad i Beograd, sazvao konferenciju za štampu na kojoj nas je proglasio nacionalnim izdajnicima zato što smo se usudili ići u Srbiju prije nego Srbija vrati hrvatska blaga opljačkana u ratu. On je bio ikona hrvatske ljevice. Naprosto mu se isplatilo da nekom montira metu na čelu jer mu je to donosilo nekakvu popularnost. Istina, ta strategija se pokazala potpuno pogrešnom jer ideja da ćeš ti u nacionalizmu pobijediti nacionaliste doživjela je potpunu propast. Dugoročno, takve strategije svugdje izazivaju propast. Neumitno je da se partikularno, djelomično ljevičarenje kad-tad skrši na temeljnim pitanjima. Nedim SEJDINOVIĆ

Timisoara , May. 27, 2008 (CWNews.com) – A Romanian Orthodox bishop has shared Communion with Catholics, causing a sensation in a country where Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox have a history of tense relations. At the consecration of the Queen of Peace parish church in Timisoara on May 25, Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu of Banat asked to share Communion. The Orthodox metropolitan approached the altar and received the Eucharist from his own hand. Romanian Catholic Bishop Alexandru Mesian of Lugoj was the celebrant of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Catholic church; Archbishop Francisco-Javier Lozano, the apostolic nuncio to Romania, was also present. Although Orthodox and Catholic bishops often join in ecumenical services, and occasionally participate in each other’s liturgical ceremonies, they do not share Communion– an indication of the breach in ecclesial communion between the Orthodox churches and the Holy See. In Romania, tensions between the Orthodox Church and the Eastern-rite Romanian Catholic Church have been pronounced, adding to the surprise created by Metropolitan Corneanu’s action. With some Orthodox believers outraged by the metropolitan’s sharing Communion with Catholic bishops, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania issued a statement saying that at the next meeting of the Orthodox synod, in July, Metropolitan Corneanu “may be asked to give an appropriate explanation” for his action. The statement from the Orthodox patriarchate went on to say that ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church, “already quite fragile, cannot be helped, but are rather complicated,” by sharing in Communion. Metropolitan Corneanu– who was one of the first Orthodox bishops to admit that he had cooperated with the secret police under the Communist regime– has a record of friendship with Romanian Catholics. He was among the few Orthodox leaders prepared to return church properties that had been seized by the Communist government from Catholic ownership in 1948 and handed over to Orthodox control. http://patriot.rs/romanian-bishop-communes-with-roman-catholics/