OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 07:23:46 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?  (Read 21428 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 20, 2011, 09:25:56 PM »

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.


Frankly, it would be impolite to speak the same of a Catholic priest. For that matter, when one resorts to such rhetoric it weakens any argument you might posit.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 20, 2011, 09:36:59 PM »

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:
Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

I would hope that it is neither stupid nor childish.  Just as you claim we don't understand your ecclesiology viz-a-viz the Papacy, we also point out that you don't understand, well, our ecclesiology viz-a-viz much of anything.  Our 3-1 Model of the Church (Universal, Regional, Diocesan; each "Catholic") vs. your 2-1 Model (Universal, Diocesan; only the first is "Catholic"); episcopal sovereignty and unity; conciliarity as the highest expression of the work of the Spirit in the governance of the Church (a la the Synod of Jerusalem); ontological unity of the priesthood and Archpriesthood in the Priesthood and Archpriesthood of Christ (which comes up in the "indellible mark" discussions), etc.

I agree with Father here but I would note that the use of 'we' and 'your' would imply that we all possess such misunderstandings. I think that the posted and reposted paper of the North American Orthodox Catholic Dialouge from last October,found at http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html when read carefully, points out that scholars from both sides understand the ecclesiology of the other and disagree as to how to overcome the very real differences. They stated the obvious, without really producing a way to a solution:

Quote
7. The Role of the Papacy.  In such a communion of Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today.  Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:

a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting.  His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church.  The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would.  The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.

b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion.  The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3).  In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.

c) The fundamental worldwide ministry of the bishop of Rome would be to promote the communion of all the local Churches:  to call on them to remain anchored in the unity of the Apostolic faith, and to observe the Church’s traditional canons.  He would do this as a witness to the faith of Peter and Paul, a role inherited from his early predecessors who presided over the Church in that city where Peter and Paul gave their final witness.

d) His universal role would also be expressed in convoking and presiding over regular synods of patriarchs of all the Churches, and over ecumenical councils, when they should occur.  In the Western Church, this same presiding function would include convoking and leading regular episcopal synods.  In harmony with the Pope’s universal ecumenical ministry, the Roman curia’s relationship to local bishops and episcopal conferences in the Latin Church would become less centralized:  bishops, for instance, would have more control over the agenda and the final documents of synods, and the selection of bishops would again normally become a local process.

e) In cases of conflict between bishops and their primates that cannot be resolved locally or regionally, the bishop of Rome would be expected to arrange for a juridical appeal process, perhaps to be implemented by local bishops, as provided for in canon 3 of the Synod of Sardica (343).  In cases of dispute among primates, the bishop of Rome would be expected to mediate and to bring the crisis to brotherly resolution. And in crises of doctrine that might occasionally concern the whole Christian family, bishops throughout the world would have the right to appeal to him also for doctrinal guidance, much as Theodoret of Cyrus did to Pope Leo I in 449, during the controversy over the person of Christ that preceded the Council of Chalcedon (Ep. 113).

The positive thought for us Orthodox that comes out of this is that the Western scholars who signed off on this joint statement seem to have implicitly conceded that the traditional Roman view of the modern papacy is in error and can not serve as a model for a future unified Church of both East and West.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 09:40:42 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2011, 09:44:48 PM »

global protos

I don't see what is so necessarily wrong about this phrasing. It seems like it might just mean the Bishop who is the first in honor in the world communion of Orthodox Churches.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 20, 2011, 10:19:29 PM »


The positive thought for us Orthodox that comes out of this is that the Western scholars who signed off on this joint statement seem to have implicitly conceded that the traditional Roman view of the modern papacy is in error and can not serve as a model for a future unified Church of both East and West.

You give Catholic bishops more power than they have at this moment, which is nearly boundless, you'll be very sorry that you got what you wished for...well wait...It won't effect you at all, so you'd never notice.  However...I will be very sorry that we got what you wished for.

Most of the "modern papacy" business that I've seen on this Forum, in any event, is not real to me as a Catholic...I expect you have some of the same biases as I see here.  I don't fault you for that.

But before you wish more heavy handed bishops on us perhaps you ought to know more about due process in the Catholic Church and how it does not work...<smile>

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2011, 10:30:13 PM »


The positive thought for us Orthodox that comes out of this is that the Western scholars who signed off on this joint statement seem to have implicitly conceded that the traditional Roman view of the modern papacy is in error and can not serve as a model for a future unified Church of both East and West.

You give Catholic bishops more power than they have at this moment, which is nearly boundless, you'll be very sorry that you got what you wished for...well wait...It won't effect you at all, so you'd never notice.  However...I will be very sorry that we got what you wished for.

Most of the "modern papacy" business that I've seen on this Forum, in any event, is not real to me as a Catholic...I expect you have some of the same biases as I see here.  I don't fault you for that.

But before you wish more heavy handed bishops on us perhaps you ought to know more about due process in the Catholic Church and how it does not work...<smile>
Heavy emphasis on the "does not work" part. <frown>
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2011, 10:55:25 PM »


The positive thought for us Orthodox that comes out of this is that the Western scholars who signed off on this joint statement seem to have implicitly conceded that the traditional Roman view of the modern papacy is in error and can not serve as a model for a future unified Church of both East and West.

You give Catholic bishops more power than they have at this moment, which is nearly boundless, you'll be very sorry that you got what you wished for...well wait...It won't effect you at all, so you'd never notice.  However...I will be very sorry that we got what you wished for.

Most of the "modern papacy" business that I've seen on this Forum, in any event, is not real to me as a Catholic...I expect you have some of the same biases as I see here.  I don't fault you for that.

But before you wish more heavy handed bishops on us perhaps you ought to know more about due process in the Catholic Church and how it does not work...<smile>
Heavy emphasis on the "does not work" part. <frown>

Again you know better than any of the rest of us.

Have fun.
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 20, 2011, 11:04:23 PM »


The positive thought for us Orthodox that comes out of this is that the Western scholars who signed off on this joint statement seem to have implicitly conceded that the traditional Roman view of the modern papacy is in error and can not serve as a model for a future unified Church of both East and West.

You give Catholic bishops more power than they have at this moment, which is nearly boundless, you'll be very sorry that you got what you wished for...well wait...It won't effect you at all, so you'd never notice.  However...I will be very sorry that we got what you wished for.

Most of the "modern papacy" business that I've seen on this Forum, in any event, is not real to me as a Catholic...I expect you have some of the same biases as I see here.  I don't fault you for that.

But before you wish more heavy handed bishops on us perhaps you ought to know more about due process in the Catholic Church and how it does not work...<smile>

M.

I'm not so sure.

 When the Pope was still a Cardinal, he opined the RCC should restructure to more of the first millennium ecclesiology relationship, giving more regional control. Ratzinger's personal ideology seems to be very early Church in general. I'm not sure if these statements are purely out of his comfort zone.

Plus, he's been pretty adamant about unification in general. Its been my impression that he believes in Fatima (visited recently last year, even). So unification with the Russian Church in general may be very important to him. All personal speculation from various behavior, I admit, but still.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2011, 11:56:43 PM »


The positive thought for us Orthodox that comes out of this is that the Western scholars who signed off on this joint statement seem to have implicitly conceded that the traditional Roman view of the modern papacy is in error and can not serve as a model for a future unified Church of both East and West.

You give Catholic bishops more power than they have at this moment, which is nearly boundless, you'll be very sorry that you got what you wished for...well wait...It won't effect you at all, so you'd never notice.  However...I will be very sorry that we got what you wished for.

Most of the "modern papacy" business that I've seen on this Forum, in any event, is not real to me as a Catholic...I expect you have some of the same biases as I see here.  I don't fault you for that.

But before you wish more heavy handed bishops on us perhaps you ought to know more about due process in the Catholic Church and how it does not work...<smile>

M.

I'm not so sure.

 When the Pope was still a Cardinal, he opined the RCC should restructure to more of the first millennium ecclesiology relationship, giving more regional control. Ratzinger's personal ideology seems to be very early Church in general. I'm not sure if these statements are purely out of his comfort zone.

Plus, he's been pretty adamant about unification in general. Its been my impression that he believes in Fatima (visited recently last year, even). So unification with the Russian Church in general may be very important to him. All personal speculation from various behavior, I admit, but still.

I am offering you, for what it is worth, an insight into the current power of the bishop in both eastern and western canon law.  They are a law unto themselves.  Most people in or out of the Church do not realize how much...and what it takes to move against them legitimately and legally.

M.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #53 on: January 21, 2011, 12:00:45 AM »

Isa, as for the "God crucified" business, this is not in the Liturgy the Apostle Addai wrote, it is not in the tradition handed down by him to the Assyrian Church of the East, and the online version of the Doctrine of Addai (as opposed to the one kept orally by the ACOE) has a few interpolations and many mistrnaslation (the written version does). Example of an interpolation: it says in a paragraph that Palut (one of Addai's succesors) received laying on of hands of Serapion of Antioch who received from Zephyrinus which is clearly false according to the very text itself since he received it from Addai, here is Cureton's (the editor of the British manuscript) note to this false agenda driven interpolation :

Quote
86. a In p. 39, it is said that Addai made Palut an Elder.It would seem, therefore, that this whole paragraph, as Cureton observes, must have been introduced into the text at a later period, and that too by some careless, ignorant person

other interpolations are believed to be present in the written version of the Doctrine of the Apostle Addai.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #54 on: January 21, 2011, 12:00:46 AM »

Isa, I shall also be retiring from oc.net. At least temporarily. Be Well Brother.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #55 on: January 21, 2011, 05:43:03 AM »

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.
Many of you speak of our clergy like that all the time.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 21, 2011, 06:15:29 AM »

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.
Nor indeed, is it any way to speak to anyone.

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.
Many of you speak of our clergy like that all the time.
"Because "X" speaks about Roman Catholic Clergy badly, that means that Papist has the right to insult an Orthodox Priest directly."
Sigh.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 06:19:30 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #57 on: January 21, 2011, 01:19:15 PM »

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

Ah, no. Think about that image. That is multiple heads for one body. But that is not our ecclesiology. The universal Church has one Head and that is Christ Himself alone. The Bishops are simply the deputies of Christ who minister particular sections of His Church on His behalf.
Except for the fact that each Bishop as a deputy is head of his diocese. lol
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2011, 01:22:09 PM »

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.
Nor indeed, is it any way to speak to anyone.

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.
Many of you speak of our clergy like that all the time.
"Because "X" speaks about Roman Catholic Clergy badly, that means that Papist has the right to insult an Orthodox Priest directly."
Sigh.
I didn't say that Fr. George was stupid and childish. I said that his point was.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 21, 2011, 01:27:43 PM »

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

Ah, no. Think about that image. That is multiple heads for one body. But that is not our ecclesiology. The universal Church has one Head and that is Christ Himself alone. The Bishops are simply the deputies of Christ who minister particular sections of His Church on His behalf.
Except for the fact that each Bishop as a deputy is head of his diocese. lol

I thought that you were going after the one city-one bishop patrimony of the never changing Orthodox faith.  I thought the hydra was New York, or some other city.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2011, 01:38:40 PM »

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

Ah, no. Think about that image. That is multiple heads for one body. But that is not our ecclesiology. The universal Church has one Head and that is Christ Himself alone. The Bishops are simply the deputies of Christ who minister particular sections of His Church on His behalf.
Except for the fact that each Bishop as a deputy is head of his diocese. lol

I thought that you were going after the one city-one bishop patrimony of the never changing Orthodox faith.  I thought the hydra was New York, or some other city.

M.
Actually, there is that too, with all the overlaping jurisdicitions. What about the unchaning Orthodox faith? Where it is?
More than anything though, the same arguments that they use against the Papacy, can be used against each of their Bishops. If we follow their arguments to their conclusions.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2011, 01:45:32 PM »

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.
Nor indeed, is it any way to speak to anyone.

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.
Many of you speak of our clergy like that all the time.
"Because "X" speaks about Roman Catholic Clergy badly, that means that Papist has the right to insult an Orthodox Priest directly."
Sigh.
I didn't say that Fr. George was stupid and childish. I said that his point was.
Don't you think that's a bit of a technicality? What you said is that Fr. George is being stupid and childish in making his point. You can disagree with someone without having to resort to this type of rudeness. Fr. George disagrees with your points, but doesn't resort to rudeness to say so. Fr. George doesn't deserve to be treated like that.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2011, 02:02:50 PM »

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

Ah, no. Think about that image. That is multiple heads for one body. But that is not our ecclesiology. The universal Church has one Head and that is Christ Himself alone. The Bishops are simply the deputies of Christ who minister particular sections of His Church on His behalf.
Except for the fact that each Bishop as a deputy is head of his diocese. lol

I thought that you were going after the one city-one bishop patrimony of the never changing Orthodox faith.  I thought the hydra was New York, or some other city.

M.
Actually, there is that too, with all the overlaping jurisdicitions.
You mean like the Vatican has in Antioch?
Of course, seperate jurisdictions works better


What about the unchaning Orthodox faith? Where it is?

In your neck of the woods:
http://holytrinitysantafe.org/
http://stjuliana.com/
http://www.stelias.nm.goarch.org/

More than anything though, the same arguments that they use against the Papacy, can be used against each of their Bishops. If we follow their arguments to their conclusions.
Then why don't you try to make that argument?

I know of several Orthodox bishops who act as if they are infallible and judged by no one and fully empowered to act outside the context of his synod, but I don't know of one who claims that officially.  Do you?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 02:19:50 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2011, 02:23:48 PM »


I know of several Orthodox bishops who act as if they are infallible and judged by no one and fully empowered to act outside the context of his synod, but I don't know of one who claims that officially.  Do you?

The infallibility of the Pope is the Infallibility of the Church
Logged

ChristopherRA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 13



« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2011, 03:13:01 PM »

The infallibility of the Pope is the Infallibility of the Church

I feel the need to point out that you just claimed the pope is, or is on the same level as, Christ.  Which is what people have been saying through this whole thread.  I am glad you have seen the light!

Seriously though, the whole Church is the body of Christ, with He alone as it's head.  You CANNOT put the "infallibility of the Church", i.e. Christ, into one man without saying that that one man is on a level with Christ himself.  It isn't logically possible unless you deny that the Church as a whole is the body of Christ with Christ as it's head, or unless you believe that the "role" of Christ himself is being passed on in a similar fashion as the preisthood through Apostolic succession.

Christopher
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2011, 03:14:13 PM »

The infallibility of the Pope is the Infallibility of the Church

I feel the need to point out that you just claimed the pope is, or is on the same level as, Christ.  Which is what people have been saying through this whole thread.  I am glad you have seen the light!

Seriously though, the whole Church is the body of Christ, with He alone as it's head.  You CANNOT put the "infallibility of the Church", i.e. Christ, into one man without saying that that one man is on a level with Christ himself.  It isn't logically possible unless you deny that the Church as a whole is the body of Christ with Christ as it's head, or unless you believe that the "role" of Christ himself is being passed on in a similar fashion as the preisthood through Apostolic succession.

Christopher
Wrong. What she is saying is that when the Pope exercises the charism of infallibility, he is exercising a gift that belongs to the Church, not to one man himself. You couldn't have gotten it more backwards.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2011, 03:16:32 PM »

Catholics believe that Jesus is God.
Catholics don't believe that the Pope is God.
Therefore, Catholics don't believe the Pope is equal to Jesus.

Ok, the objections have been answered. Can ya'll stop bringing up the stupid idea that Catholics put the Pope on the same level as Christ now? Seriously, I am embarrassed for those of you who do it, because its so beneath any form of intelligent discussion.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2011, 03:58:06 PM »

The infallibility of the Pope is the Infallibility of the Church

I feel the need to point out that you just claimed the pope is, or is on the same level as, Christ.  Which is what people have been saying through this whole thread.  I am glad you have seen the light!

Seriously though, the whole Church is the body of Christ, with He alone as it's head.  You CANNOT put the "infallibility of the Church", i.e. Christ, into one man without saying that that one man is on a level with Christ himself.  It isn't logically possible unless you deny that the Church as a whole is the body of Christ with Christ as it's head, or unless you believe that the "role" of Christ himself is being passed on in a similar fashion as the preisthood through Apostolic succession.

Christopher
Wrong. What she is saying is that when the Pope exercises the charism of infallibility, he is exercising a gift that belongs to the Church, not to one man himself. You couldn't have gotten it more backwards.
Sure you can. Just read Pastor Aeternas

This "charism of infallibility" is external to the church, at least in the ecclesiology the Vatican espouses, as it is not confered in her sacraments, or rather I should say, it is not confered by your sacraments according to you.  All he needs to do is accept election by his inferiors, and the "gift" is his, to exercise at his beck and call. Given the Vatican's view of charisms as a personal possession, e.g. a priest can take the priesthood with him into schism or heresy and a bishop can take the episcopate into schism and heresy, it is to one man himself, as, by definition, he cannot go into schism or heresy according to you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2011, 04:05:03 PM »

The infallibility of the Pope is the Infallibility of the Church

I feel the need to point out that you just claimed the pope is, or is on the same level as, Christ.  Which is what people have been saying through this whole thread.  I am glad you have seen the light!

Seriously though, the whole Church is the body of Christ, with He alone as it's head.  You CANNOT put the "infallibility of the Church", i.e. Christ, into one man without saying that that one man is on a level with Christ himself.  It isn't logically possible unless you deny that the Church as a whole is the body of Christ with Christ as it's head, or unless you believe that the "role" of Christ himself is being passed on in a similar fashion as the preisthood through Apostolic succession.

Christopher
Wrong. What she is saying is that when the Pope exercises the charism of infallibility, he is exercising a gift that belongs to the Church, not to one man himself. You couldn't have gotten it more backwards.
Sure you can. Just read Pastor Aeternas

This "charism of infallibility" is external to the church, at least in the ecclesiology the Vatican espouses, as it is not confered in her sacraments, or rather I should say, it is not confered by your sacraments according to you.  All he needs to do is accept election by his inferiors, and the "gift" is his, to exercise at his beck and call. Given the Vatican's view of charisms as a personal possession, e.g. a priest can take the priesthood with him into schism or heresy and a bishop can take the episcopate into schism and heresy, it is to one man himself, as, by definition, he cannot go into schism or heresy according to you.

This is all outright falsehood.  No better than a Chick Attack.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #69 on: January 21, 2011, 04:08:47 PM »

Catholics believe that Jesus is God.
Catholics don't believe that the Pope is God.
Therefore, Catholics don't believe the Pope is equal to Jesus.
So you just act as if he is?

Quote
Ok, the objections have been answered.
Hardly.

Quote
And it came to pass, that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him, Cornelius came to meet him, and falling at his feet adored.   But Peter lifted him up, saying: Arise, I myself also am a man. Acts 10:25-6.

Can ya'll stop bringing up the stupid idea that Catholics put the Pope on the same level as Christ now?
We Catholics do believe it is a stupid idea, and when the followers of the Vatican cease to do so, we wil stop bringing it up.
Seriously, I am embarrassed for those of you who do it, because its so beneath any form of intelligent discussion.
What fis the techinical term for the fallacy this is demonstrating?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #70 on: January 21, 2011, 04:14:06 PM »

Catholics believe that Jesus is God.
Catholics don't believe that the Pope is God.
Therefore, Catholics don't believe the Pope is equal to Jesus.
So you just act as if he is?

Quote
Ok, the objections have been answered.
Hardly.

Quote
And it came to pass, that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him, Cornelius came to meet him, and falling at his feet adored.   But Peter lifted him up, saying: Arise, I myself also am a man. Acts 10:25-6.

Can ya'll stop bringing up the stupid idea that Catholics put the Pope on the same level as Christ now?
We Catholics do believe it is a stupid idea, and when the followers of the Vatican cease to do so, we wil stop bringing it up.
Seriously, I am embarrassed for those of you who do it, because its so beneath any form of intelligent discussion.
What fis the techinical term for the fallacy this is demonstrating?
Well, your post pretty much proves my point. Thank you.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #71 on: January 21, 2011, 04:15:01 PM »


What fis the techinical term for the fallacy this is demonstrating?

False Witness...an objective evil
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2011, 04:15:18 PM »

The infallibility of the Pope is the Infallibility of the Church

I feel the need to point out that you just claimed the pope is, or is on the same level as, Christ.  Which is what people have been saying through this whole thread.  I am glad you have seen the light!

Seriously though, the whole Church is the body of Christ, with He alone as it's head.  You CANNOT put the "infallibility of the Church", i.e. Christ, into one man without saying that that one man is on a level with Christ himself.  It isn't logically possible unless you deny that the Church as a whole is the body of Christ with Christ as it's head, or unless you believe that the "role" of Christ himself is being passed on in a similar fashion as the preisthood through Apostolic succession.

Christopher
Wrong. What she is saying is that when the Pope exercises the charism of infallibility, he is exercising a gift that belongs to the Church, not to one man himself. You couldn't have gotten it more backwards.
Sure you can. Just read Pastor Aeternas

This "charism of infallibility" is external to the church, at least in the ecclesiology the Vatican espouses, as it is not confered in her sacraments, or rather I should say, it is not confered by your sacraments according to you.  All he needs to do is accept election by his inferiors, and the "gift" is his, to exercise at his beck and call. Given the Vatican's view of charisms as a personal possession, e.g. a priest can take the priesthood with him into schism or heresy and a bishop can take the episcopate into schism and heresy, it is to one man himself, as, by definition, he cannot go into schism or heresy according to you.
How old are you? You remind me of liberal college professors... or, as I like to call them, Sophists.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ChristopherRA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 13



« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2011, 04:20:09 PM »

So the pope is supposed to hold the office of Peter?  Can any of you imagine Peter saying this: "I am supreme among the Apostles, and have authority over all the Church. I am infallible in my proclamations."  Of course not, cause that would be a silly, power hungry heresy and he would have be pulled down for his ego.

Christopher
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2011, 04:23:09 PM »

So the pope is supposed to hold the office of Peter?  Can any of you imagine Peter saying this: "I am supreme among the Apostles, and have authority over all the Church. I am infallible in my proclamations."  Of course not, cause that would be a silly, power hungry heresy and he would have be pulled down for his ego.

Christopher

The papacy has stood the test of time, Christopher.  More clever men, with far more subtle tongues, have come to tear down the Catholic Church, my Church, and have gone to their rest unfulfilled.

God bless you and all who do as you do.

M.
Logged

ChristopherRA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 13



« Reply #75 on: January 21, 2011, 04:23:28 PM »

How old are you? You remind me of liberal college professors... or, as I like to call them, Sophists.

And why is that?  The only thing he did in his post is reference your own dogmatic documents.
Logged
ChristopherRA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 13



« Reply #76 on: January 21, 2011, 04:25:11 PM »

The papacy has stood the test of time, Christopher.  More clever men, with far more subtle tongues, have come to tear down the Catholic Church, my Church, and have gone to their rest unfulfilled.

God bless you and all who do as you do.

M.

When battling heresy that divides the Body of Christ, subtlety is no virtue.
Logged
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 626


« Reply #77 on: January 21, 2011, 04:33:49 PM »

I think it's interesting Papist, that you call an Orthodox priest silly and childish (which you seem to do anytime you argue with someone) then post up a dragon as a representation of the Orthodox episcopal ecclesiastical function.  Imagine your response if anyone here did something similar to represent anything in Catholicism.  

Doubt you'd be saying "c'mon guys it's just for funsies".  
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 04:36:55 PM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #78 on: January 21, 2011, 04:33:58 PM »

How old are you? You remind me of liberal college professors... or, as I like to call them, Sophists.

And why is that?  The only thing he did in his post is reference your own dogmatic documents.
No, he didn't.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #79 on: January 21, 2011, 04:35:13 PM »

Sorry if I gave this impression. Just that the former Patriarch of the ACOE said that the begotten enemies of God believe that the "Church is built on Peter" , and also condemned the teaching that Christ is not ruling over us as our High Priest- we need no such thing as a "vicar of Christ", and this Pope business is harming the Roman Catholic Church amd preventing Church unity. The Office of Pope is not scriptural, where is the Bishop of Rome? I want him back please  not a "Pope".
But Catholics do believe that Christ is ruling over us as our High Priest.  

Debatable. It's a matter of perspective. Just as, from our perspective, the filioque compromises the doctrine of the Trinity, so the papacy is seen as compromising the High Priesthood of Christ
Wow. You and Isa are in competition for the most ridiculous posts of the month. If I were to follow you on this I would have say that your concept of the Bishop as shepherd of his flock would compromise Christ's role as the good shepherd.

It would be ironic if you felt that way, since we do have extremely similar views on the Bishop as shepherd.  But yes, his point is that from our perspective there is concern that the Papacy, as constructed currently, has taken Christ's place (nudged Him aside, rather than St. Ignatios' concept of "type and place") as the One Head of the Church.  We've given our reasons why; as I mentioned in another thread - from our POV, your lips say, "no," but your actions (and, in this case, dogma, etc.) say, "yes."
Which is simply stupid and childish on your part. When it comes t your Bishops your lips say "no" but your actions say "yes". Of course here is the image of your church:

Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

Ah, no. Think about that image. That is multiple heads for one body. But that is not our ecclesiology. The universal Church has one Head and that is Christ Himself alone. The Bishops are simply the deputies of Christ who minister particular sections of His Church on His behalf.
Except for the fact that each Bishop as a deputy is head of his diocese. lol

Head of his diocese, not head of the Church Universal. The only head of the Church Universal is Christ. Your image is essentially depicting numerous heads of the Church Universal, which is not our ecclesiology.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2011, 04:35:27 PM »

I think it's interesting Papist, that you call an Orthodox priest silly and childish (which you seem to do anytime you argue with someone) then post up a dragon as a representation of Orthodox ecclesiastics.  Imagine your response if anyone here did something similar to represent anything in Catholicism. 

Doubt you'd be saying "c'mon guys it's just for funsies".   
Usually EOs present create silly and childish caricatures of Catholic dogma.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 626


« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2011, 04:38:47 PM »

True.  I doubt you think the Orthodox Church is an eight headed beast.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2011, 04:39:13 PM »

I think it's interesting Papist, that you call an Orthodox priest silly and childish (which you seem to do anytime you argue with someone) then post up a dragon as a representation of the Orthodox episcopal ecclesiastical function.  Imagine your response if anyone here did something similar to represent anything in Catholicism.  

Doubt you'd be saying "c'mon guys it's just for funsies".  

LOL. Too true.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2011, 04:48:50 PM »

True.  I doubt you think the Orthodox Church is an eight headed beast.
Of course I don't think that about the Orthodox Church. I believe that the Orthodox Church is a true particular Church (while not necessarily being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church), maitaining true sacraments. In fact, whenever I pass by an Eastern Orthodox Church I always make the Sign of the Cross in adoration of Christ present in the tabernacle. I love your icons, your liturgy, much of your spirituality, and even a great deal of your theology.

The reason for the picture is that I was simply applying the silly arguments that many of your coreligionists make against the Catholic Church, back to the Eastern Orthodox Church. They think we make the Pope equal to Christ and have two heads. My point is that, according to that logic your Church would multiple heads in all of the Bishops. Of course I don't think that this is reality of your Church. Your head is Christ, just as he is our head. But I just wanted to expose the silliness of the arguments made against the Catholic Church.

NOTE: Even though I see beauty and much truth in your Church, I am not a branch theorist, and I believe that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 626


« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2011, 05:09:53 PM »

I'm glad this topic came up as I was wondering about something myself.  It was brought up earlier but didn't go anywhere.

In Catholicism, Apostolic Succession is understood to remain with the person forever (even if the person is defrocked.)  What's different in Orthodoxy?  Can a bishop or priest enter into schism or heresy and still be considered a cleric?  Or does the power that ordination bestows on a person become dissolved once one enters into the said above?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 05:10:46 PM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 21, 2011, 05:21:03 PM »

I'm glad this topic came up as I was wondering about something myself.  It was brought up earlier but didn't go anywhere.

In Catholicism, Apostolic Succession is understood to remain with the person forever (even if the person is defrocked.)  What's different in Orthodoxy?  Can a bishop or priest enter into schism or heresy and still be considered a cleric?  Or does the power that ordination bestows on a person become dissolved once one enters into the said above?

Apostolic Succession does not remain with a defrocked or heretical/excommunicate clergy... Where did you get that idea?

What remains is the personal relationship between Christ and the man that was forged during his ordination.  That never goes away.

Once the connection with Body of Christ or the Church is severed...there is no longer any clerical relationship between the ordained man and the Church.

Does the Orthodox Church take a laicized Catholic priest into the Church as an Orthodox priest without ordaining him?  Does the Orthodox Church ordain Catholic priests and priest-monks who choose to become Orthodox?

Answering those two questions should tell you something about our respective Church's mutual understandings concerning Holy Orders.

Mary
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 05:22:35 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #86 on: January 21, 2011, 05:28:53 PM »

I'm glad this topic came up as I was wondering about something myself.  It was brought up earlier but didn't go anywhere.

In Catholicism, Apostolic Succession is understood to remain with the person forever (even if the person is defrocked.)  What's different in Orthodoxy?  Can a bishop or priest enter into schism or heresy and still be considered a cleric?  Or does the power that ordination bestows on a person become dissolved once one enters into the said above?

Please see the teaching of Saint Basil

Message 25 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28315.msg446353.html#msg446353

-oOo-

Also the words of a Greek priest and univerity lecturer at University of Athens

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372.html#msg300372


In another thread it has been said that the Holy Mysteries of Chrismation and Holy Orders are inextinguishable.   I have always been taught that that is a Roman Catholic position.   What have the Orthodox members of the list been taught about this?

No Indelible Mark of the Priesthood in Patristic Teaching

"....no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in
Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that
a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood."

___________________________________________

"Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity: Some Theological and Canonical
Considerations"


By Professor Constantine Scouteris
School of Theology of the University of Athens

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #87 on: January 21, 2011, 05:34:36 PM »


Actually, there is that too, with all the overlaping jurisdicitions.


I think we once counted up the number of overlapping Catholic jurisdictions in Sydney.  If memory serves there is a total of 12 Catholic bishops with jurisdiction over the city, caused by the ethnic jurisdictions of Eastern Catholics.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2011, 05:36:12 PM »


Actually, there is that too, with all the overlaping jurisdicitions.


I think we once counted up the number of overlapping Catholic jurisdictions in Sydney.  If memory serves there is a total of 12 Catholic bishops with jurisdiction over the city, caused by the ethnic jurisdictions of Eastern Catholics.
I have no problem with overlapping jurisidictions for Catholics for two reasons:
1. They are of different theological/spiritual/liturgical tradtions
2. We are not the ones who claim that nothing ever changes, EVER!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #89 on: January 21, 2011, 05:39:53 PM »


I know of several Orthodox bishops who act as if they are infallible and judged by no one and fully empowered to act outside the context of his synod, but I don't know of one who claims that officially.  Do you?

The infallibility of the Pope is the Infallibility of the Church

The definition of infallibility makes it very clear that the infallibility of the Pope does not depend on nor derive from the Roman Catholic Church.  It is his personal possession as the successor of Peter.  "Non ex consensu ecclesiae" and all that....
Logged
Tags: Petrine Primacy Tome of Leo ecclesiology ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.199 seconds with 73 queries.