OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Wyatt on January 18, 2011, 04:19:10 PM

Title: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 18, 2011, 04:19:10 PM
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Melodist on January 18, 2011, 06:26:07 PM
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

I personally believe that the Holy Spirit can work however He wishes. That out of the way, the charisms that belong to every office that I'm aware of in the Church are received sacramentally. For example all bishops, priests, and deacons receive the charisms belonging to their offices at their ordination through the laying on of hands to that office and not simply by virtue of election to their office.

I don't believe that the EP has any special charism that does not belong to any other bishop. He does have certain responsibilities and prerogatives attached to his office, but my understanding is that they are an administrative structure set up for the good order of Church governance. His role as a bishop is charismatic through his ordination, but his role as patriarch is administrative within the context of his synod, and role as first among equals is administrative within the context of the heads of the other autocephalous churches. I don't know exactly what is specific to his role as first among patriarchs, but I believe it is purely administrative and not charismatic by virtue of the office of primate. I think I'll start another thread on that particular subject.

That being said, whether the Pope or the EP or anyone else, primacy among the patriarchs, or any other level of Church governance, should be viewed and exercised similarly, that is within the context of the brotherhood of bishops and not above it, beyond it, or detached from it.

That's just my understanding of it.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Fr. George on January 18, 2011, 06:49:16 PM
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

LOL.  You've oversimplified a step or two.

However, for RC ecclesiology it does because we believe St. Peter had a special role given to him by Christ and that there would naturally be a succession to that just as there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles down to the modern Episcopate.

By the way, your final sentence indicates, from our POV, that the Papacy is a separate clerical office, different than deacon, presbyter, and bishop - an indication that is, IME, universally denied by those defending the RC position viz-a-viz Papal Primacy.

The statement, "St. Peter had a special role given to him by Christ and that there would naturally be a succession to that just as there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles down to the modern Episcopate," is problematic from our POV, not only because it posits something we do not believe (i.e. that St. Peter had a special charism), but also because - if we accept that there was a charism - you're proposing that it is a special charism that is passed down, "like Apostolic succession," but that is not inherent in the Episcopacy (all parts of the Apostolic ministry and succession are passed down in the succession to the hierarchs).  It is a special office, with special prerogatives and powers, authorities and charisms - too many differences, from our POV, to call him a Bishop like the others.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 18, 2011, 08:02:29 PM
LOL.  You've oversimplified a step or two.
I'm glad you are so amused by my post when I was asking a serious question.

The statement, "St. Peter had a special role given to him by Christ and that there would naturally be a succession to that just as there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles down to the modern Episcopate," is problematic from our POV, not only because it posits something we do not believe (i.e. that St. Peter had a special charism), but also because - if we accept that there was a charism - you're proposing that it is a special charism that is passed down, "like Apostolic succession," but that is not inherent in the Episcopacy (all parts of the Apostolic ministry and succession are passed down in the succession to the hierarchs).  It is a special office, with special prerogatives and powers, authorities and charisms - too many differences, from our POV, to call him a Bishop like the others.
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way. How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Apotheoun on January 18, 2011, 08:21:37 PM
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Fr. George on January 18, 2011, 09:31:59 PM
How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?

Rhetorical flourish.  They weren't lying, but there was a certain degree of propaganda involved in many declarations of the Imperial Era; they certainly had a different understanding of rhetoric than we do.  We frequently encounter problems when we look back at some of their writings and interpret them with our particular understanding of language, how it's used, etc.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2011, 11:04:39 PM
LOL.  You've oversimplified a step or two.
I'm glad you are so amused by my post when I was asking a serious question.

The statement, "St. Peter had a special role given to him by Christ and that there would naturally be a succession to that just as there is Apostolic Succession from the Apostles down to the modern Episcopate," is problematic from our POV, not only because it posits something we do not believe (i.e. that St. Peter had a special charism), but also because - if we accept that there was a charism - you're proposing that it is a special charism that is passed down, "like Apostolic succession," but that is not inherent in the Episcopacy (all parts of the Apostolic ministry and succession are passed down in the succession to the hierarchs).  It is a special office, with special prerogatives and powers, authorities and charisms - too many differences, from our POV, to call him a Bishop like the others.
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office,
Obvious? How so?
Quote
but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority.
How is it not lost during the sede vacans/interregnum?
Quote
This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way. How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
The Council of Epheses said that Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria was a new Paul, and so was Pontiff Celestine of Rome.

The Council of Chalcedon said St. Peter spoke through Leo AFTER a committee of a hundred Fathers of the Council EXAMINED THE ORTHODOXY of his tome, i.e. they didn't just accept it because Pope St. Leo issued it ex cathedra Petri. And even then, they refused to just adopt his tome as their statement of Faith, but issued their own definition.  Rome continued to try to get the other Patriarchs to put the Tome on a par, if not higher, than the Definiton of Chalcedon, e.g. the demands of the Formula of Hormisdas. But no, at best accepted on a par with the Anathemas of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 18, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 19, 2011, 03:16:15 AM
How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?

Dear Wyatt,

I fear that many Catholics have been lead astray by the truncated version given by Roman Catholic apologists in order to bolster their claims for the Pope of Rome.  If we look at the whole text we see that it does not bolster his claims at all.

"The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe: into this we were baptized; into this we baptize: Blessed Cyril so taught: this is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting faith: into this we were baptized: into this we baptize: we all so believe: so believes Leo, the Pope: Cyril thus believed: Pope Leo so interpreted it"


After Cyril's Letter had been read the Council Fathers said:


"And when these letters [i.e. Cyril's letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written."


Then Leo's Letter was read and the Council Fathers said:


"After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away."

See the text at
http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

When we have the whole text in front of us, it gives a quite different impression than what the usual truncated Roman Catholic text does.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on January 19, 2011, 11:05:14 AM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2011, 01:21:52 PM
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Hey, I don't think that there are any ultramontantists in this forum. I guess you are talking to no one... A step towards insanity.  ;)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2011, 01:22:54 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 19, 2011, 02:10:25 PM
For full reference, since people are throwing around apologetic excerpts. Here is the whole thing, which others are quoting and/or referencing.


Letter XCVIII.
From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

Quote
The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of God and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo.

I.  They congratulate Leo on taking the foremost part in maintaining the Faith.

“Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation.”  This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured.  For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, “go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you.”  And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all.  Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement.  And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter:  and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us.  For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease?  Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem.

II.  They detail Dioscorus’ wicked acts.

And the adversary would have been like a wild beast outside the fold, roaring to himself and unable to seize any one, had not the late bishop of Alexandria thrown himself for a prey to him, who, though he had done many terrible things before, eclipsed the former by the latter deeds; for contrary to all the injunctions of the canons, he deposed that blessed shepherd of the saints at Constantinople, Flavian, who displayed such Apostolic faith, and the most pious bishop Eusebius, and acquitted by his terror-won votes Eutyches, who had been condemned for heresy, and restored to him the dignity which your holiness had taken away from him as unworthy of it, and like the strangest of wild beasts, falling upon the vine which he found in the finest condition, he uprooted it and brought in that which had been cast away as unfruitful, and those who acted like true shepherds he cut off, and set over the flocks those who had shown themselves wolves:  and besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against one who had at heart the unifying of the Church.  And instead of showing penitence for this, instead of begging mercy with tears, he exulted as if over virtuous actions, rejecting your holiness’ letter and resisting all the dogmas of the Truth.

III.  We have deposed Eutyches, treating him as mercifully as we could.

And we ought to have left him in the position where he had placed himself:  but, since we profess the teaching of the Saviour “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the Truth,” as a fact we took pains to carry out this merciful policy towards him, and called him in brotherly fashion to judgment, not as if trying to cut him off but affording him room for defence and healing; and we prayed that he might be victorious over the many charges they had brought against him, in order that we might conclude our meeting in peace and happiness and Satan might gain no advantage over us.  But he, being absolutely convicted by his own conscience, by shirking the trial gave countenance to the accusations and rejected the three lawful summonses he received.  In consequence of which, we ratified with such moderation as we could the vote which he had passed against himself by his blunders, stripping the wolf of his shepherd’s skin, which he had long been convicted of wearing for a pretence.  Thereupon our troubles ceased and straightway a time of welcome happiness set in:  and having pulled up one tare, we filled the whole world to our delight with pure grain:  and having received, as it were, full power to root up and to plant, we limited the up-rooting to one and carefully plant a crop of good fruit.  For it was God who worked, and the triumphant Euphemia who crowned the meeting as for a bridal, and who, taking our definition of the Faith as her own confession, presented it to her Bridegroom by our most religious Emperor and Christ-loving Empress, appeasing all the tumult of opponents and establishing our confession of the Truth as acceptable to Him, and with hand and tongue setting her seal to the votes of us all in proclamation thereof.  These are the things we have done, with you present in the spirit and known to approve of us as brethren, and all but visible to us through the wisdom of your representatives.

IV.  They announce their decision that Constantinople should take precedence next to Rome, and ask Leo’s consent to it.

And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told.  The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople as to provide for the good government of those cities, because of the frequent disorders that arise on the death of their bishops, both clergy and laity being then without a leader and disturbing church order.  And this has not escaped your holiness, particularly in the case of Ephesus, which has often caused you annoyance.  We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second:  for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk.  Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order.  For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account.  For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory.  Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting.  For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement.  But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xciii.html



Acts from the Fourth Ecumenical Council:

Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.

Quote
(L. and C., Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 338.)

When all were seated before the rails of the most holy altar, the most superb and glorious judges and the great (ὑπερφυὴς) senate said; At a former meeting the question was examined of the condemnation of the most reverend bishop Flavian of blessed memory and Eusebius, and it was patent to you all with what justice and accuracy the examination was conducted:  and it was proved that they had been cruelly and improperly condemned.  What course we should pursue in this matter became clear after your deliberations.  Now however the question to be enquired into, studied, and decided, is how the true faith is to be established, which is the chief end for which this Council has been assembled.  As we know that ye are to render to God a strict account not only for your own souls in particular, but as well for the souls of all of us who desire rightly to be taught all things that pertain to religion, and that all ambiguity be taken away, by the agreement and consent of all the holy fathers, and by their united exposition and doctrine; hasten therefore without any fear of pleasing or displeasing, to set forth (ἐκθέσθαι) the pure faith, so that they who do not seem to believe with all the rest, may be brought to unity through the acknowledging of the truth.  For we wish you to know that the most divine and pious lord of the whole world and ourselves hold the orthodox faith set forth by the 318 and by the 150 holy fathers, and what also has been taught by the rest of the most holy and glorious fathers, and in accordance with this is our belief.

The most reverend bishops cried; Any other setting forth (ἔκθεσιν ἄλλην) no one makes, neither will we attempt it, neither will we dare to set forth [anything new] (ἐκθεσθαι).  For the fathers taught, and in their writings are preserved, what things were set forth by them, and further than this we can say nothing.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol said:  The matters concerning Eutyches have been examined, and the most holy archbishop of Rome has given a form (τύπον) which we follow and to his letter we all [i.e. those in his neighbourhood] have subscribed.

The most reverend bishops cried:  These are the opinions of all of us.  The expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) already made are quite sufficient:  it is not lawful to make any other.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, If it pleases your reverence, let the most holy patriarch of each province, choosing one or two of his own province and going into the midst, and together considering the faith, make known to all what is agreed upon.  So that if, as we desire, all be of one mind, all ambiguity may be removed:  But if some entertain contrary opinions (which we do not believe to be the case) we may know what their opinions are.

The most reverend bishops cried out, we make no new exposition in writing.  This is the law, [i.e. of the Third Synod] which teaches that what has been set forth is sufficient.  The law wills that no other exposition should be made.  Let the sayings of the Fathers remain fast.

Florentius, the most reverend bishop of Sardis, said, since it is not possible for those who follow the teaching of the holy Synod of Nice, which was confirmed rightly and piously at Ephesus, to draw up suddenly a declaration of faith in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Celestine, and of the letter of the most holy Leo, we therefore pray your magnificence to give us time, so that we may be able to arrive at the truth of the matter with a fitting document, although so far as we are concerned, who have subscribed the letter of the most holy Leo, nothing further is needed.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol, said, The faith has been well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now once again by the most holy Leo:  and we pray that those things which were decreed by the 318 holy fathers, and by the most holy Leo be read.

The most glorious judges and great Senate said:  Let there be read the expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) of the 318 fathers gathered together at Nice.

Eunomius, the most reverend bishop of Nicomedia read from a book [the Exposition of faith of the 318 fathers.281]
The Exposition of faith of the Council held at Nice.
“In the consulate of Paul and Julian” etc.
“We believe in one God,” etc.
“But those who say,” etc.

The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe:  into this we were baptized; into this we baptize:  Blessed Cyril so taught:  this is the true faith:  this is the holy faith:  this is the everlasting faith:  into this we were baptized:  into this we baptize:  we all so believe:  so believes Leo, the Pope (ὁ πάπας):  Cyril thus believed:  Pope Leo so interpreted it.
The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let there be read what was set forth by the 150 holy fathers.

Aëtius, the reverend deacon of Constantinople read from a book [the creed of the 150 fathers.]
The holy faith which the 150 fathers set forth as consonant to the holy and great Synod of Nice.
“We believe in one God,” etc.
All the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of all of us:  we all so believe.

The reverend archdeacon Aëtius said, There remains the letter of Cyril of holy and blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city Alexandria, which he wrote to Nestorius, which was approved by all the most holy bishops assembled in the first Council at Ephesus, called to condemn the same Nestorius, and which was confirmed by the subscription of all.  There is also another letter of the same Cyril, of blessed memory, which he wrote to John, of blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city of Antioch, which likewise was confirmed.  If it be so ordered, I shall read these.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let the letters of Cyril of blessed memory be read.
Aëtius, the Archdeacon of the imperial city Constantinople read.
To the most reverend and most religious fellow-priest Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
[Καταφλυαροῦσι μὴν κ.τ.λ.  Lat. Obloquuntur quidem, etc.  This letter is found among the acts of the Council of Ephesus.]
Likewise the same Archdeacon Aëtius read [the letter of the same holy Cyril of blessed memory to John of Antioch, on the peace].
[This letter begins, Εὐφραινέθωσαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ κ.τ.λ.; and in the Latin Lætentur cæli.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iv.html
Quote
Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (Continued).
(L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 343.)

And when these letters [i.e. Cyril’s letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out:  We all so believe:  Pope Leo thus believes:  anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds:  this is the faith of Archbishop Leo:  Leo thus believes:  Leo and Anatolius so believe:  we all thus believe.  As Cyril so believe we, all of us:  eternal be the memory of Cyril:  as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith:  such is our faith:  this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written.

The most glorious judges and the great senate said:  Let there be read also the epistle of the most worthy Leo, Archbishop of Old Rome, the Imperial City.

Beronician, the most devout clerk of the sacred consistory, read from a book handed him by Aëtius, Archdeacon of the holy Church of Constantinople, the encyclical or synodical letter of the most holy Leo, the Archbishop, written to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vi.html
Quote
xtracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (continued).
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles.  So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe.  Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. (bolded because of previous reference, not for proclamation)  So taught the Apostles.  Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.  Everlasting be the memory of Cyril.  Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe.  This is the true faith.  Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.  This is the faith of the fathers.  Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]?  These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

[Some explanations were asked by the Illyrian bishops and the answers were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for, and some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all who had been kept out.  This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the session was dissolved by the judges.  (Col. 371.)]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 19, 2011, 04:09:51 PM
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Hey, I don't think
Quote
A step towards insanity.  ;)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 19, 2011, 04:54:48 PM
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Oh good, since I am not an ultramontanist I don't have to "note" any nonsense you spew.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on January 19, 2011, 05:15:18 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 19, 2011, 07:19:30 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

(http://www.fdin.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/92_mr_t_snickers.jpg)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 19, 2011, 08:29:25 PM
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

What it means is that there appears to be no visible means by which this seemingly sanctifying charism is conveyed, and thus no means of identifying when and how the Holy Spirit would be conveying it. To suggest that Christ would have instituted this without any visible means associated with it seems sort of ridiculous.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2011, 08:45:56 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.
Well, I hope he is ok.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 19, 2011, 08:53:01 PM
I stated in another thread that RCs believe that the Pope's charism comes to him by virtue of the Holy Spirit and was told that the only way that was possible was if the pontificate were in itself a fourth tier in Holy Orders. Is that not saying that the Holy Spirit is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work in any other way?

What it means is that there appears to be no visible means by which this seemingly sanctifying charism is conveyed, and thus no means of identifying when and how the Holy Spirit would be conveying it. To suggest that Christ would have instituted this without any visible means associated with it seems sort of ridiculous.
Would also explain why they have such trouble reading the tea leaves to see when the supreme pontiff has spoken ex cathedra.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 19, 2011, 09:12:23 PM
How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?

Heaven forbid! No, that was at the Council of Chalcedon.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 19, 2011, 09:43:31 PM
For full reference, since people are throwing around apologetic excerpts. Here is the whole thing, which others are quoting and/or referencing.


Letter XCVIII.
From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

Quote
The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of God and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo.

I.  They congratulate Leo on taking the foremost part in maintaining the Faith.

“Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation.”  This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured.  For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, “go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you.”  And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all.  Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement.  And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter:  and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us.  For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease?  Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem.

II.  They detail Dioscorus’ wicked acts.

And the adversary would have been like a wild beast outside the fold, roaring to himself and unable to seize any one, had not the late bishop of Alexandria thrown himself for a prey to him, who, though he had done many terrible things before, eclipsed the former by the latter deeds; for contrary to all the injunctions of the canons, he deposed that blessed shepherd of the saints at Constantinople, Flavian, who displayed such Apostolic faith, and the most pious bishop Eusebius, and acquitted by his terror-won votes Eutyches, who had been condemned for heresy, and restored to him the dignity which your holiness had taken away from him as unworthy of it, and like the strangest of wild beasts, falling upon the vine which he found in the finest condition, he uprooted it and brought in that which had been cast away as unfruitful, and those who acted like true shepherds he cut off, and set over the flocks those who had shown themselves wolves:  and besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against one who had at heart the unifying of the Church.  And instead of showing penitence for this, instead of begging mercy with tears, he exulted as if over virtuous actions, rejecting your holiness’ letter and resisting all the dogmas of the Truth.

III.  We have deposed Eutyches, treating him as mercifully as we could.

And we ought to have left him in the position where he had placed himself:  but, since we profess the teaching of the Saviour “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the Truth,” as a fact we took pains to carry out this merciful policy towards him, and called him in brotherly fashion to judgment, not as if trying to cut him off but affording him room for defence and healing; and we prayed that he might be victorious over the many charges they had brought against him, in order that we might conclude our meeting in peace and happiness and Satan might gain no advantage over us.  But he, being absolutely convicted by his own conscience, by shirking the trial gave countenance to the accusations and rejected the three lawful summonses he received.  In consequence of which, we ratified with such moderation as we could the vote which he had passed against himself by his blunders, stripping the wolf of his shepherd’s skin, which he had long been convicted of wearing for a pretence.  Thereupon our troubles ceased and straightway a time of welcome happiness set in:  and having pulled up one tare, we filled the whole world to our delight with pure grain:  and having received, as it were, full power to root up and to plant, we limited the up-rooting to one and carefully plant a crop of good fruit.  For it was God who worked, and the triumphant Euphemia who crowned the meeting as for a bridal, and who, taking our definition of the Faith as her own confession, presented it to her Bridegroom by our most religious Emperor and Christ-loving Empress, appeasing all the tumult of opponents and establishing our confession of the Truth as acceptable to Him, and with hand and tongue setting her seal to the votes of us all in proclamation thereof.  These are the things we have done, with you present in the spirit and known to approve of us as brethren, and all but visible to us through the wisdom of your representatives.

IV.  They announce their decision that Constantinople should take precedence next to Rome, and ask Leo’s consent to it.

And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told.  The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople as to provide for the good government of those cities, because of the frequent disorders that arise on the death of their bishops, both clergy and laity being then without a leader and disturbing church order.  And this has not escaped your holiness, particularly in the case of Ephesus, which has often caused you annoyance.  We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second:  for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk.  Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order.  For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account.  For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory.  Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting.  For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement.  But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xciii.html



Acts from the Fourth Ecumenical Council:

Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.

Quote
(L. and C., Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 338.)

When all were seated before the rails of the most holy altar, the most superb and glorious judges and the great (ὑπερφυὴς) senate said; At a former meeting the question was examined of the condemnation of the most reverend bishop Flavian of blessed memory and Eusebius, and it was patent to you all with what justice and accuracy the examination was conducted:  and it was proved that they had been cruelly and improperly condemned.  What course we should pursue in this matter became clear after your deliberations.  Now however the question to be enquired into, studied, and decided, is how the true faith is to be established, which is the chief end for which this Council has been assembled.  As we know that ye are to render to God a strict account not only for your own souls in particular, but as well for the souls of all of us who desire rightly to be taught all things that pertain to religion, and that all ambiguity be taken away, by the agreement and consent of all the holy fathers, and by their united exposition and doctrine; hasten therefore without any fear of pleasing or displeasing, to set forth (ἐκθέσθαι) the pure faith, so that they who do not seem to believe with all the rest, may be brought to unity through the acknowledging of the truth.  For we wish you to know that the most divine and pious lord of the whole world and ourselves hold the orthodox faith set forth by the 318 and by the 150 holy fathers, and what also has been taught by the rest of the most holy and glorious fathers, and in accordance with this is our belief.

The most reverend bishops cried; Any other setting forth (ἔκθεσιν ἄλλην) no one makes, neither will we attempt it, neither will we dare to set forth [anything new] (ἐκθεσθαι).  For the fathers taught, and in their writings are preserved, what things were set forth by them, and further than this we can say nothing.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol said:  The matters concerning Eutyches have been examined, and the most holy archbishop of Rome has given a form (τύπον) which we follow and to his letter we all [i.e. those in his neighbourhood] have subscribed.

The most reverend bishops cried:  These are the opinions of all of us.  The expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) already made are quite sufficient:  it is not lawful to make any other.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, If it pleases your reverence, let the most holy patriarch of each province, choosing one or two of his own province and going into the midst, and together considering the faith, make known to all what is agreed upon.  So that if, as we desire, all be of one mind, all ambiguity may be removed:  But if some entertain contrary opinions (which we do not believe to be the case) we may know what their opinions are.

The most reverend bishops cried out, we make no new exposition in writing.  This is the law, [i.e. of the Third Synod] which teaches that what has been set forth is sufficient.  The law wills that no other exposition should be made.  Let the sayings of the Fathers remain fast.

Florentius, the most reverend bishop of Sardis, said, since it is not possible for those who follow the teaching of the holy Synod of Nice, which was confirmed rightly and piously at Ephesus, to draw up suddenly a declaration of faith in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Celestine, and of the letter of the most holy Leo, we therefore pray your magnificence to give us time, so that we may be able to arrive at the truth of the matter with a fitting document, although so far as we are concerned, who have subscribed the letter of the most holy Leo, nothing further is needed.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol, said, The faith has been well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now once again by the most holy Leo:  and we pray that those things which were decreed by the 318 holy fathers, and by the most holy Leo be read.

The most glorious judges and great Senate said:  Let there be read the expositions (ἐκτεθέντα) of the 318 fathers gathered together at Nice.

Eunomius, the most reverend bishop of Nicomedia read from a book [the Exposition of faith of the 318 fathers.281]
The Exposition of faith of the Council held at Nice.
“In the consulate of Paul and Julian” etc.
“We believe in one God,” etc.
“But those who say,” etc.

The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe:  into this we were baptized; into this we baptize:  Blessed Cyril so taught:  this is the true faith:  this is the holy faith:  this is the everlasting faith:  into this we were baptized:  into this we baptize:  we all so believe:  so believes Leo, the Pope (ὁ πάπας):  Cyril thus believed:  Pope Leo so interpreted it.
The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let there be read what was set forth by the 150 holy fathers.

Aëtius, the reverend deacon of Constantinople read from a book [the creed of the 150 fathers.]
The holy faith which the 150 fathers set forth as consonant to the holy and great Synod of Nice.
“We believe in one God,” etc.
All the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of all of us:  we all so believe.

The reverend archdeacon Aëtius said, There remains the letter of Cyril of holy and blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city Alexandria, which he wrote to Nestorius, which was approved by all the most holy bishops assembled in the first Council at Ephesus, called to condemn the same Nestorius, and which was confirmed by the subscription of all.  There is also another letter of the same Cyril, of blessed memory, which he wrote to John, of blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city of Antioch, which likewise was confirmed.  If it be so ordered, I shall read these.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let the letters of Cyril of blessed memory be read.
Aëtius, the Archdeacon of the imperial city Constantinople read.
To the most reverend and most religious fellow-priest Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
[Καταφλυαροῦσι μὴν κ.τ.λ.  Lat. Obloquuntur quidem, etc.  This letter is found among the acts of the Council of Ephesus.]
Likewise the same Archdeacon Aëtius read [the letter of the same holy Cyril of blessed memory to John of Antioch, on the peace].
[This letter begins, Εὐφραινέθωσαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ κ.τ.λ.; and in the Latin Lætentur cæli.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iv.html
Quote
Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (Continued).
(L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 343.)

And when these letters [i.e. Cyril’s letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out:  We all so believe:  Pope Leo thus believes:  anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds:  this is the faith of Archbishop Leo:  Leo thus believes:  Leo and Anatolius so believe:  we all thus believe.  As Cyril so believe we, all of us:  eternal be the memory of Cyril:  as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith:  such is our faith:  this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written.

The most glorious judges and the great senate said:  Let there be read also the epistle of the most worthy Leo, Archbishop of Old Rome, the Imperial City.

Beronician, the most devout clerk of the sacred consistory, read from a book handed him by Aëtius, Archdeacon of the holy Church of Constantinople, the encyclical or synodical letter of the most holy Leo, the Archbishop, written to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vi.html
Quote
xtracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (continued).
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles.  So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe.  Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. (bolded because of previous reference, not for proclamation)  So taught the Apostles.  Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.  Everlasting be the memory of Cyril.  Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe.  This is the true faith.  Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.  This is the faith of the fathers.  Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]?  These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

[Some explanations were asked by the Illyrian bishops and the answers were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for, and some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all who had been kept out.  This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the session was dissolved by the judges.  (Col. 371.)]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html
My, my. All this Pope St. Cyril. Where's Pope Celestine?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 19, 2011, 09:46:14 PM
Isa, do you not recognize Pope Celestine as a Saint? I'm curious because I have seen him in the Coptic Synaxarium.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 19, 2011, 09:50:14 PM
Isa, do you not recognize Pope Celestine as a Saint? I'm curious because I have seen him in the Coptic Synaxarium.
I could have said Pope St. Celestine, though it would have been an anachronism: Rome hadn't appropriated the term.  Just putting the emphasis on the one whom the Fathers at Chalcedon emphasized and singled out as the one who defined the Faith at Ephesus, Pope St. Cyril, not Pope St. Celestine.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 19, 2011, 10:00:54 PM
Ah.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Apotheoun on January 19, 2011, 10:09:29 PM
St. Cyril's writings were used by the council Fathers as the standard for determining the orthodoxy of Leo's Tome, and I don't see any reason to pretend otherwise.

The following text is from the Orthodox Unity website, and gives some historical background to the events surrounding Leo's Tome and its acceptance in subordination to St. Cyril's writings:

Quote
Returning to Leo s Tome it is important to point out that at Chalcedon it was accepted only as a document against the heresy of Eutyches, in spite of the fact that both Leo and his legates believed it to be a good statement against Nestorius also. It is even more important to keep in mind that during its reading at Session II the three now famous Nestorian sounding passages were each one challenged as the document was being read. During each interruption it was attacked and defended by the use of parallel passages from Cyril. [ 11 ] After what must have been a somewhat stormy and long debate, bishop Atticos of Nikopolis in Old Epirus, Greece, made the motion that time out be taken to give the assembly the opportunity to carefully compare Leo s Tome with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril in order to make sure of what they were approving.[ 12 ] The imperial representatives chairing the meeting gave the bishops five days in which to do this and suggested the formation of a committee under the presidency of Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. [ 13 ] The committee reported back at the fourth session, at the beginning of which the imperial and senatorial representatives declared the unswerving faith of the emperor in the expositions of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus with its approval of the two canonical letters of Cyril, i.e., the Second and Third to Nestorius.[ 14 ] This profession of the imperial faith had been made also at the end of Session I, [ 15 ] and now in anticipation of the committee's report on the question of Leo s agreement with Cyril's Twelve Chapters it was repeated. The committee report [ 16 ] was included in the minutes in the form of a listing of the individual opinions of its members, all of whom expressed their belief that Leo's Tome agreed with Nicaea, Ephesus, and the letter of Cyril. Most of the bishops mentioned the (one) letter of Cyril, [ 17 ] which cannot be any other than the Twelve Chapters since this was the one the Illyrians and Palestinians were concerned about as is clear from the motion of the Illyrian Atticos which initiated the careful comparison of Leo's Tome with the letter of Cyril. Some of the members mentioned their belief that the Tome agreed with the two letters of Cyril, dearly referring to the ones of Ephesus mentioned as part of the imperial faith. It is extremely interesting to note that among the similar individual opinions given by the rest of the Assembly and recorded in the minutes is that of none other than Theodoret of Cyrus, [ 18 ] who claims that he finds the Tome of Leo in agreement with the letters of Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, certainly a tremendous leap from his position just before the Council. In the light of his strong hesitation at Session VIII to anathematize Nestorius, a hesitation which infuriated the assembly, one wonders about his sincerity, especially since he tried to defend his former acts by an exposition of how he never taught two Sons. He was interrupted by shouts of "Nestorian. [ 19 ]"

The acceptance of Leo s Tome in the light of and in subordination to the letters of Cyril is also clearly contained in the Chalcedonian definition itself. [ 20 ] It is declared that the Council accepts the Synodical (the Third letter to Nestorius is titled synodical, or since this is in the plural it could be a reference to the two of Ephesus, which in the minutes are called canonical, plus the one to John) letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to those of the East, "and to which (epistles) it reasonably adapted the letter of Leo ... (epistolas... hais kai ten epistolen tou Leontos... eikotos syncrmose...)." This is not a of a balance between Cyril and Leo, as many scholars would have us believe. Leo became very sensitive about the doubts raised about his tome, and especially disturbed did he become over determined opposition in certain quarters like Palestine where Juvenal was deposed for accepting the Tome. In a letter to Julian of Cos (cxvli, 3) in which he shows much concern with accusations of heresy against himself, he writes that,...if they think there is any doubt about our teaching, let them at least not reject the writings of such holy priests as Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria, with whom our statement of the faith so completely harmonizes that anyone who professes consent to them disagrees in nothing with us. No one can doubt the sincerity with which Leo wanted to be in agreement with those Alexandrine Fathers, but his defense of Theodoret compromised him. In a letter to the now restored Bishop of Cyrus he chides Theodoret for the tardy way in which he anathematized Nestorius (cxx, 5), yet in his opening remarks of this very same letter he speaks of "the victory you [Theodoret] and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Dioscoros relationship to Eutyches may have some parallels.

Source:  Orthodox Unity (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article06.php)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on January 19, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

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".
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on January 19, 2011, 10:53:08 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.
Well, I hope he is ok.

We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor.

-1 Corinthians 4:10
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 03:41:25 AM
DELETE. DUPLICATE
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 03:44:58 AM
I guess where I erred was in the way my post was worded. I did not mean "just like in the modern Episcopate." I should have said like or similar to. Obviously Pope is an office, but the one holding the office possesses Petrine authority. This, I suppose, is where we differ since to the Eastern Orthodox charisms are only received via Sacraments and not in any other way.
For the Eastern Churches the petrine ministry is found in each and every bishop, because all the bishops are the successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter; so there is no sense in which the bishop of Rome, or the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch for that matter, ontologically continue the petrine ministry in a unique way.

How do you explain the delegates at the Council of Ephesus proclaiming "St. Peter speaks through Leo"?
This statement - made by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon - is not understood in the Eastern Churches in an ontological sense, but was meant to convey the idea that Leo's Tome, i.e., after it had been diligently examined in committee in order to determine its agreement with the teaching of St. Cyril, was an Orthodox expression of the Church's Christological faith.
ULtramontanists take NOTE: the ex cathedra Tome of a pontiff of Rome was examined by an Ecumenical Council to see if it agree with the Faith of the Pope of Alexandria.
Oh good, since I am not an ultramontanist
Oh, good, then you
More at the linked thread.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2011, 01:32:08 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2011, 05:18:41 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

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
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2011, 05:28:39 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

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.

One of the most enlightening writings on the effect of the adoption of the filioque on the concept and practice of hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church is found in Philip Sherrard's "The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition "
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

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.

Not really. Setting up the Pope as the visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the locus of unity of the Church whereby unity with him is necessary for salvation all appear to us to upstage the High Priesthood of Christ. If you think that is so highly ridiculous then you should take a look around at the general sentiment of Eastern Christians toward the papacy.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 06:15:37 PM
Notice how the utter falsehood of a "Pope" was supported at the same moment they said St. Peter was speaking (ie: the faith of the Apostle Peter was being upheld) in condemning Nestorius. This is taken as proof to me that the faith of the Apostle Peter was not being upheld at that moment. Of course the Patriarch of the East did not attend this council thankfully.

Good Orthodox return to the faith by stating that Christ had two natures though, in this respect a pious local council.
You seem to have become more anti-Catholic since you have returned to the forum. Everything OK?

He's also more anti-Eastern Orthodox. Maybe he's just in a bad mood or something.

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.

One of the most enlightening writings on the effect of the adoption of the filioque on the concept and practice of hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church is found in Philip Sherrard's "The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition "

Much better translator and poet than he is a theologian.  And he has the usual protestant perceptions of the Catholic Church.  If you actually read him closely, he turns the same eye on Orthodoxy.   I do read his work, though he's a better poet than clear prose writer.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Fr. George on January 20, 2011, 06:25:38 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."
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2011, 06:31:09 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Fr. George on January 20, 2011, 06:40:29 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 20, 2011, 06:52:41 PM
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org) is not a Synod and neither is the Episcopal Assembly (http://www.episcopalassembly.org) a Synod.

Each Bishop in the USCCB is appointed by and subject to the Pope.  Each Hierarch in the Episcopal Assembly is elected by and accountable only to His respective Synod.

Each Cardinal in the College of Cardinals is personally selected by the Pope and/or his predecessors.  If you want to make the argument that each Cardinal was personally selected just as Jesus personally selected the 12 and the 70 Disciples, fair enough (although that would place the Pope as equivalent or superior to Jesus).  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit intended to elevate the Pope above the other Bishops as a result of some form of economy?   ???
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 07:29:41 PM
I don't really care what you see when you look at the Catholic Church.

But I do reserve the right to say:

This ain't it!!

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org) is not a Synod and neither is the Episcopal Assembly (http://www.episcopalassembly.org) a Synod.

Each Bishop in the USCCB is appointed by and subject to the Pope.  Each Hierarch in the Episcopal Assembly is elected by and accountable only to His respective Synod.

Each Cardinal in the College of Cardinals is personally selected by the Pope and/or his predecessors.  If you want to make the argument that each Cardinal was personally selected just as Jesus personally selected the 12 and the 70 Disciples, fair enough (although that would place the Pope as equivalent or superior to Jesus).  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit intended to elevate the Pope above the other Bishops as a result of some form of economy?   ???
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 20, 2011, 07:39:50 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Ortho_cat on January 20, 2011, 07:43:45 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:
(http://)
Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.

I'm sorry, but that is no way to speak to a member of our clergy.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 20, 2011, 08:19:25 PM
I don't really care what you see when you look at the Catholic Church.

But I do reserve the right to say:

This ain't it!!

Suit yourself.   ;)  The Pope, vicar of Christ and superior to Christ; hence, why need Christ who was a Prophet? a forerunner? (as the Muslims claim)    ;)

I said earlier that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch are under great temptations to unify with the Pope even to the point of discussing the absurdity of a global protos since they have to accept the Pope in his "man-made" elevated role before unification can proceed.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org) is not a Synod and neither is the Episcopal Assembly (http://www.episcopalassembly.org) a Synod.

Each Bishop in the USCCB is appointed by and subject to the Pope.  Each Hierarch in the Episcopal Assembly is elected by and accountable only to His respective Synod.

Each Cardinal in the College of Cardinals is personally selected by the Pope and/or his predecessors.  If you want to make the argument that each Cardinal was personally selected just as Jesus personally selected the 12 and the 70 Disciples, fair enough (although that would place the Pope as equivalent or superior to Jesus).  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit intended to elevate the Pope above the other Bishops as a result of some form of economy?   ???
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 08:45:38 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
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.

Oh geeze...and here I thought it was just New York!!
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: podkarpatska 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:
(http://)
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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: podkarpatska 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry 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>
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on January 21, 2011, 12:00:46 AM
Isa, I shall also be retiring from oc.net. At least temporarily. Be Well Brother.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ozgeorge 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
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
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ozgeorge 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
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
(http://www.languageandconflict.info/images/other/great_schism.jpg)

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?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria 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
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ChristopherRA 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
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry 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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/PopeKissing_Feet.JPG)
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?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/PopeKissing_Feet.JPG)
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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 04:15:01 PM

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

False Witness...an objective evil
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ChristopherRA 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
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ChristopherRA 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ChristopherRA 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos 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".  
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 21, 2011, 04:38:47 PM
True.  I doubt you think the Orthodox Church is an eight headed beast.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos 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?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria 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
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit 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
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit 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.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist 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!
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit 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....
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 05:59:48 PM

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

False Witness...an objective evil

I don't think False Witness is the correct term for this fallacy:
Seriously, I am embarrassed for those of you who do it, because its so beneath any form of intelligent discussion.

As for objective evil, we are being enlighened by the wisdom of your supreme pontiff's Exsurge Domine
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

that no such thing can be said to exist, as murder can be OK if he says so.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:03:34 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.
because they serve up Vatican sophistry? of which one of my favorite examples:
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."....

...So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:05:42 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.
The Orthodox episcopate of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has stood the test of time, Christopher.  More clever men (and women, I'm sure), with far more subtle tongues, have come to tear down the Catholic Church, our Church, and have gone to their rest unfulfilled.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:06:36 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.
That's the problem: we are just supposed to submit to them, not read them.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 06:14:58 PM
I am happy to know that no Orthodox Christian has ever waged war, or fought in a war.  It is a credit to the faith that you are that pure.


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

False Witness...an objective evil

I don't think False Witness is the correct term for this fallacy:
Seriously, I am embarrassed for those of you who do it, because its so beneath any form of intelligent discussion.

As for objective evil, we are being enlighened by the wisdom of your supreme pontiff's Exsurge Domine
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

that no such thing can be said to exist, as murder can be OK if he says so.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 06:15:53 PM
 :D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

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.
The Orthodox episcopate of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has stood the test of time, Christopher.  More clever men (and women, I'm sure), with far more subtle tongues, have come to tear down the Catholic Church, our Church, and have gone to their rest unfulfilled.

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:19:15 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),
There is where your Vatican ecclesiology first fails you: you cannot be a "true particular Church" unless you are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in particular.
maitaining true sacraments.
and here Vatican ecclesiology compounds your error: if you are not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, you cannot maintain true sacraments/Holy Mysteries.
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 do that by one of the Vatican's churches, but that's just my personal opinion.

I love your icons, your liturgy, much of your spirituality, and even a great deal of your theology.

Thank you.

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.
No, Pastor Aeternas did that.

My point is that, according to that logic your Church would multiple heads in all of the Bishops.

Only if we claimed them as visible heads of the Church, which we don't.

Of course I don't think that this is reality of your Church. Your head is Christ, just as he is our head.
Actually, He's not the head on your eccelsiastical body, which is the source of the problem.

But I just wanted to expose the silliness of the arguments made against the Catholic Church.
You are having a problem because the arguments against the Vatican aren't silly.

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.
 
She is. And she doesn't have the supreme pontiff of the Vatican as her head.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:20:18 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

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.
The Orthodox episcopate of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has stood the test of time, Christopher.  More clever men (and women, I'm sure), with far more subtle tongues, have come to tear down the Catholic Church, our Church, and have gone to their rest unfulfilled.

The ones in the Orthodox Diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:24:15 PM
I am happy to know that no Orthodox Christian has ever waged war, or fought in a war.  It is a credit to the faith that you are that pure.


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

False Witness...an objective evil

I don't think False Witness is the correct term for this fallacy:
Seriously, I am embarrassed for those of you who do it, because its so beneath any form of intelligent discussion.

As for objective evil, we are being enlighened by the wisdom of your supreme pontiff's Exsurge Domine
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

that no such thing can be said to exist, as murder can be OK if he says so.
Produce a statement of the Orthodox Church waging and condoning and blessing war, and you will have a point. Otherwise, you are trying to make apple juice from oranges.

Not a matter of my or any Orthodox's purity, but the purity of the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:30:36 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?

The Vatican's valid but illicit nonsense. We've discussed this several times.

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.
Many members of your eccelsiastical community have been received by Orthodox baptism into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. How does that answer both of your questions?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:33:49 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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 06:35:28 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),
There is where your Vatican ecclesiology first fails you: you cannot be a "true particular Church" unless you are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in particular.
maitaining true sacraments.
and here Vatican ecclesiology compounds your error: if you are not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, you cannot maintain true sacraments/Holy Mysteries.
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 do that by one of the Vatican's churches, but that's just my personal opinion.

I love your icons, your liturgy, much of your spirituality, and even a great deal of your theology.

Thank you.

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.
No, Pastor Aeternas did that.

My point is that, according to that logic your Church would multiple heads in all of the Bishops.

Only if we claimed them as visible heads of the Church, which we don't.

Of course I don't think that this is reality of your Church. Your head is Christ, just as he is our head.
Actually, He's not the head on your eccelsiastical body, which is the source of the problem.

But I just wanted to expose the silliness of the arguments made against the Catholic Church.
You are having a problem because the arguments against the Vatican aren't silly.

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.
 
She is. And she doesn't have the supreme pontiff of the Vatican as her head.
Like I said, you must be 12 years old.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2011, 06:36:09 PM
As for objective evil, we are being enlighened by the wisdom of your supreme pontiff's Exsurge Domine
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

that no such thing can be said to exist, as murder can be OK if he says so.


The power of the Pope to dispense death is something which belongs to him by right of his succession from the Apostle Peter who himself brought about the death of Ananias and Sapphira.

It is a part of his powers as the possessor of the Keys.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 06:36:50 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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always. We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 06:37:25 PM
Like I said, you must be 12 years old.

And using ad hominem in that way isn't indicative of a 12-year-old mentality?  :-\
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 06:40:38 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 06:41:43 PM
I am happy to know that no Orthodox Christian has ever waged war, or fought in a war.  It is a credit to the faith that you are that pure.


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

False Witness...an objective evil

I don't think False Witness is the correct term for this fallacy:
Seriously, I am embarrassed for those of you who do it, because its so beneath any form of intelligent discussion.

As for objective evil, we are being enlighened by the wisdom of your supreme pontiff's Exsurge Domine
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

that no such thing can be said to exist, as murder can be OK if he says so.
Produce a statement of the Orthodox Church waging and condoning and blessing war, and you will have a point. Otherwise, you are trying to make apple juice from oranges.

Slide....

No blessing of the troops either I suppose.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 06:44:07 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2011, 06:49:10 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Don't worry!  The Pope knows.  He knows that when  he concludes Christological Agreements with the Oriental Orthodox episcopate he is not concluding one with the Eastern Orthodox episcopate.

I guess that is why he is elected Pope -because he is smarter then the average Catholic and he knows these things.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 06:51:24 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Don't worry!  The Pope knows.  He knows that when  he concludes Christological Agreements with the Oriental Orthodox episcopate he is not concluding one with the Eastern Orthodox episcopate.

I guess that is why he is elected Pope -because he is smarter then the average Catholic and he knows these things.
He definitely is. :) Pope Benedict is quite the brilliant and prolific writer.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2011, 06:53:19 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 06:55:23 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?
(http://www.languageandconflict.info/images/other/great_schism.jpg)
Quote
In the list of popes given in the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, the following note is attached to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963–965):

At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope

I don't recall, are the SSPX in now or not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soceity_of_St._Pius_X#Canonical_situation
And those fans of "St. Josaphat" the Malevolent
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/St_Josaphat_Saint_of_Ruthenia.jpg)
Quote
The Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych (SSJK) is a society of traditionalist priests and seminarians originating from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church which is led by the excommunicated priest Basil Kovpak. It is based in Riasne, Lviv, Western Ukraine.[1] In Lviv, the Society maintains a seminary, at which currently thirty students reside, and takes care of a small convent of Basilian sisters.[2] The SSJK is affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X and Holy Orders are conferred by the latter society's bishops in the Roman Rite. The SSJK clergymen, however, exclusively follow a version of Slavonic Byzantine Rite in the Ruthenian recension. As a Breakaway Catholic Church, the Society operates in direct defiance of the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Society_of_Saint_Josaphat
(http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/f/f0/Ombrellino-keys.svg/250px-Ombrellino-keys.svg.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclavism

Then those Old Catholics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

Not to mention all your Protestant spawn.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2011, 06:55:35 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Don't worry!  The Pope knows.  He knows that when  he concludes Christological Agreements with the Oriental Orthodox episcopate he is not concluding one with the Eastern Orthodox episcopate.

I guess that is why he is elected Pope -because he is smarter then the average Catholic and he knows these things.
He definitely is. :) Pope Benedict is quite the brilliant and prolific writer.

So when you said "No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is" you didn't really mean no one.  You just meant that you can't?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 06:56:40 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 06:56:57 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Here is the list of particular churches which the Orthodox Episcopate consists of:

-The Patriarchate of Alexandria under HH Pope Shenouda III
-The Patriarchate of Antioch under HH Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I
     -The Catholicosate of the East under HB Catholicos Baselios Thomas I, autonomous part of the Patriarchate of Antioch
-The Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin under HH Catholicos Karekin II
     -The Patriarchate of Constantinople under HB Patriarch Mesrob II, autonomous part of the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin
     -The Patriarchate of Jerusalem under HB Torkom Manoogian, autonomous part of the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin
-The Catholicosate of Cilicia under HH Catholicos Aram I
-The Church of Ethiopia under HH Patriarch Paulos
-The Church of Eritrea under HH Patriarch Antonios
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 06:57:18 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Don't worry!  The Pope knows.  He knows that when  he concludes Christological Agreements with the Oriental Orthodox episcopate he is not concluding one with the Eastern Orthodox episcopate.

I guess that is why he is elected Pope -because he is smarter then the average Catholic and he knows these things.
He definitely is. :) Pope Benedict is quite the brilliant and prolific writer.

So when you said "No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is" you didn't really mean no one.  You just meant that you can't?

I know where it is. But I don't think you guys do.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 06:58:17 PM


Not to mention all your Protestant spawn.
You mean your coreligionists?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.

Out of those groups which call themselves Orthodox we can determine which is truly Orthodox just as much as out of those groups which call themselves Catholic you think you can determine which one is truly Catholic.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 07:00:06 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.

Out of those groups which call themselves Orthodox we can determine which is truly Orthodox just as much as out of those groups which call themselves Catholic you think you can determine which one is truly Catholic.
I know which are. But your own heirarchs don't even agree with you about who has valid sacraments, sir.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2011, 07:00:20 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.

But of course they are Catholic Episcopates.  It's in their names - the old CATHOLIC Church, the Polish National CATHOLIC Church.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 07:01:21 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.

But of course they are Catholic Episcopates.  It's in their names - the old CATHOLIC Church, the Polish National CATHOLIC Church.
So? BTW, ya'll are over in another thread about not being called Father by a particular OO member of the forum.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 07:01:33 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.

Out of those groups which call themselves Orthodox we can determine which is truly Orthodox just as much as out of those groups which call themselves Catholic you think you can determine which one is truly Catholic.
I know which are. But your own heirarchs don't even agree with you about who has valid sacraments, sir.

Do yours?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 21, 2011, 07:02:11 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.

Out of those groups which call themselves Orthodox we can determine which is truly Orthodox just as much as out of those groups which call themselves Catholic you think you can determine which one is truly Catholic.
I know which are. But your own heirarchs don't even agree with you about who has valid sacraments, sir.

Do yours?
I am in agreement with my Communion.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 07:03:02 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.

Out of those groups which call themselves Orthodox we can determine which is truly Orthodox just as much as out of those groups which call themselves Catholic you think you can determine which one is truly Catholic.
I know which are. But your own heirarchs don't even agree with you about who has valid sacraments, sir.

Do yours?
I am in agreement with my Communion.

Do all of your hierarchs agree with you concerning who does and does not have valid Sacraments?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 07:03:20 PM


Not to mention all your Protestant spawn.
You mean your coreligionists?

 :D  Always want it both ways.

If the spawn are set in their ways then they belong to Catholics...

But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 07:07:35 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 07:18:19 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 07:19:32 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...

This is nothing more than your wishful fantasy.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Father H on January 21, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Not true.  Look at the agreed statements on Christology:
There are two "families," one is recognized as:
1.  "The Orthodox Church"
the other is recognized as:
2.  "The Oriental Orthodox Churches"

Thus the Orthodox Episcopate by the agreed statement between to two is Patriarch Bartholomew, Pope Theodore, Patriarch Ignatius, Patriarch Theophilos, etc. 

:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Here is the list of particular churches which the Orthodox Episcopate consists of:

-The Patriarchate of Alexandria under HH Pope Shenouda III
-The Patriarchate of Antioch under HH Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I
     -The Catholicosate of the East under HB Catholicos Baselios Thomas I, autonomous part of the Patriarchate of Antioch
-The Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin under HH Catholicos Karekin II
     -The Patriarchate of Constantinople under HB Patriarch Mesrob II, autonomous part of the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin
     -The Patriarchate of Jerusalem under HB Torkom Manoogian, autonomous part of the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin
-The Catholicosate of Cilicia under HH Catholicos Aram I
-The Church of Ethiopia under HH Patriarch Paulos
-The Church of Eritrea under HH Patriarch Antonios
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Father H on January 21, 2011, 07:38:28 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D
We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...

This forum is not Orthodoxy, just as the RC forums are not Roman Catholicism, nor do they represent it.  And anyone who would look at the RC forums as representing the Vatican's position is just as delusional as one who would look at this forum as representing Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 21, 2011, 07:42:44 PM
Not true.  Look at the agreed statements on Christology:
There are two "families," one is recognized as:
1.  "The Orthodox Church"
the other is recognized as:
2.  "The Oriental Orthodox Churches"

Thus the Orthodox Episcopate by the agreed statement between to two is Patriarch Bartholomew, Pope Theodore, Patriarch Ignatius, Patriarch Theophilos, etc.  

:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Here is the list of particular churches which the Orthodox Episcopate consists of:

-The Patriarchate of Alexandria under HH Pope Shenouda III
-The Patriarchate of Antioch under HH Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I
     -The Catholicosate of the East under HB Catholicos Baselios Thomas I, autonomous part of the Patriarchate of Antioch
-The Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin under HH Catholicos Karekin II
     -The Patriarchate of Constantinople under HB Patriarch Mesrob II, autonomous part of the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin
     -The Patriarchate of Jerusalem under HB Torkom Manoogian, autonomous part of the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin
-The Catholicosate of Cilicia under HH Catholicos Aram I
-The Church of Ethiopia under HH Patriarch Paulos
-The Church of Eritrea under HH Patriarch Antonios

I've said it numerous times before and I will say it again: the Agreed Statements are in error!
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 07:48:22 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D
We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...

This forum is not Orthodoxy, just as the RC forums are not Roman Catholicism, nor do they represent it.  And anyone who would look at the RC forums as representing the Vatican's position is just as delusional as one who would look at this forum as representing Orthodoxy.

Dear Father,

I have spent nearly 17 years on Catholic and Orthodox Internet venues of all kinds.  Plus my real life contacts as a friend of Orthodoxy and a catechist in my own confession...even to spending several full liturgical cycles with the Orthodox liturgy.

I think this Forum does a very good job of representing the broad spectrum of Orthodox believers, particularly with reference to how Orthodoxy in general presents itself in this country vis a vis the Catholic Church.  Some of it is wonderful and real.  Much of it is false.  Some of it is insincere.  Much of it is genuine, even when the representation of Catholic teaching are dead wrong.

Mary
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2011, 08:20:28 PM
I think this Forum does a very good job of representing the broad spectrum of Orthodox believers, particularly with reference to how Orthodoxy in general presents itself in this country vis a vis the Catholic Church.  Some of it is wonderful and real.  Much of it is false.  Some of it is insincere.  Much of it is genuine, even when the representation of Catholic teaching are dead wrong.

This concerns me as well.  Catholics come on here and say things such as the Orthodox allow abortion when they must know that is not true and so they are not being sincere with these assertions.  Other Catholics insist that our priests allow unrestrained sex when they must know that is also not true (just consider the large number of fasting days.)  Others try, and this is very insincere, to turn Orthodox liturgical texts against the Orthodox and argue that we used to believe in the Immaculate Conception and then rejected it out of anti-Catholic spite..... these are some examples of the insincerity which we can encounter on the forum.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 08:31:50 PM
I think this Forum does a very good job of representing the broad spectrum of Orthodox believers, particularly with reference to how Orthodoxy in general presents itself in this country vis a vis the Catholic Church.  Some of it is wonderful and real.  Much of it is false.  Some of it is insincere.  Much of it is genuine, even when the representation of Catholic teaching are dead wrong.

This concerns me as well.  Catholics come on here and say things such as the Orthodox allow abortion when they must know that is not true and so they are not being sincere with these assertions.  Other Catholics insist that our priests allow unrestrained sex when they must know that is also not true (just consider the large number of fasting days.)  Others try, and this is very insincere, to turn Orthodox liturgical texts against the Orthodox and argue that we used to believe in the Immaculate Conception and then rejected it out of anti-Catholic spite..... these are some examples of the insincerity which we can encounter on the forum.

I am very sincere when I say that I have met, face to face, Orthodox bishops who allow abortion in certain cases.

I am also very sincere when I use Orthodox texts to indicate that the Mother of God is more holy than the average Joe or Josephine when many Orthodox claim she is no different from any of us in her need to work hard to become holy.  What is not sincere is when my use of those texts is misrepresented each and every time...even after I've explained myself.

I am also very sincere when I say that I think you have a serious personal difficulty with sexual sin based on your family history and things you have said to me both publicly and privately...so you have a tendency to be exceptionally lenient.  Perhaps you should not have engaged me in those kinds of discussions over the years.

I know there are many things I confided in you that I now regret.

Mary
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ChristopherRA on January 21, 2011, 08:32:28 PM
Hey guys, I have an idea, lets all go to the RC forums, register there and start opening threads on heated topics designed to produce a reaction, and then insult their priests that respond to the thread, and call them all 12 year olds when they logically rebut our arguments!
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 21, 2011, 09:01:16 PM
Hey guys, I have an idea, lets all go to the RC forums, register there and start opening threads on heated topics designed to produce a reaction, and then insult their priests that respond to the thread, and call them all 12 year olds when they logically rebut our arguments!

Already done.

I think I saw it on Simpsons, too.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 09:21:56 PM
Hey guys, I have an idea, lets all go to the RC forums, register there and start opening threads on heated topics designed to produce a reaction, and then insult their priests that respond to the thread, and call them all 12 year olds when they logically rebut our arguments!

Already done.
Done where? All "RC forums" I've seen ban Orthodox posters just for sticking to the Orthodox view.

Can you link to any forum post where an Orthodox called you all 12 year olds?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 09:34:23 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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always.

No, I just added clarity, as always.

We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
We would have had to start believing in Purgatory in order to be able to stop believing in it, which would be two changes. And our refusal to abandon the teaching of the Fathers on Ancetral sin in order to adopt the Scholastics' misunderstaning thereof, doesn't constitute a change. So you are right, you don't change our teaching the way our Church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin: we never believed in Purgatory and stuck to the Faith delieverd once and for all to the saints by the Apostles, and your ecclesiastical organization changes your teachings by fiat of a one man church, claiming new and novel teachings that the Apostles never dreamed of were "always beleived" two thousand years after the fact. Supreme Pontiff Winston Smith, what would St. Lerins say?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 21, 2011, 09:36:42 PM
Hey guys, I have an idea, lets all go to the RC forums, register there and start opening threads on heated topics designed to produce a reaction, and then insult their priests that respond to the thread, and call them all 12 year olds when they logically rebut our arguments!

Already done.
Done where? All "RC forums" I've seen ban Orthodox posters just for sticking to the Orthodox view.

Can you link to any forum post where an Orthodox called you all 12 year olds?

Ha... Ha... Ha ha...  <- like this
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 09:59:20 PM
I am happy to know that no Orthodox Christian has ever waged war, or fought in a war.  It is a credit to the faith that you are that pure.


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

False Witness...an objective evil

I don't think False Witness is the correct term for this fallacy:
Seriously, I am embarrassed for those of you who do it, because its so beneath any form of intelligent discussion.

As for objective evil, we are being enlighened by the wisdom of your supreme pontiff's Exsurge Domine
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

that no such thing can be said to exist, as murder can be OK if he says so.
Produce a statement of the Orthodox Church waging and condoning and blessing war, and you will have a point. Otherwise, you are trying to make apple juice from oranges.

Slide....

No blessing of the troops either I suppose.
These troops?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_d3Tzjzhz9V8/TD5eqN519_I/AAAAAAAAA6g/LMVnmYiP4Q0/s1600/ustase-catholic.jpg)(http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/NaziPriestsSaluteHitler.jpg)(http://rationalrevolution.net/images/lateran.jpg)(http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/mussolini-signs.jpg)(http://ethnikoi.org/celibatenazis.jpg)(http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/SODimages2/071_CrusaderKnight.jpg)(http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/133540/1/Funeral-Of-Godfrey-Of-Bouillon-$28c.1060-1100$29-In-Jerusalem,-23rd-July-1100,-1838.jpg)(http://veneremurcernui.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/dba-army-151-teutonic-knights.jpg)
No.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jPc5hebaTs8/SpogpIDXtMI/AAAAAAAAFS4/y7fApuiSa1g/s400/0830bAlexanderNevsky.jpg)

You will let us know if you find anything of the sort, won't you?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 10:00:29 PM
Hey guys, I have an idea, lets all go to the RC forums, register there and start opening threads on heated topics designed to produce a reaction, and then insult their priests that respond to the thread, and call them all 12 year olds when they logically rebut our arguments!

Already done.
Done where? All "RC forums" I've seen ban Orthodox posters just for sticking to the Orthodox view.

Can you link to any forum post where an Orthodox called you all 12 year olds?

Ha... Ha... Ha ha...  <- like this
IOW you can't.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 10:05:24 PM


Not to mention all your Protestant spawn.
You mean your coreligionists?
No Orthodox bishop laid hands on Luther, Zwingli, Calvin or Cramner. All products of the Vatican's scholasticism.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 10:07:11 PM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Don't worry!  The Pope knows.  He knows that when  he concludes Christological Agreements with the Oriental Orthodox episcopate he is not concluding one with the Eastern Orthodox episcopate.

I guess that is why he is elected Pope -because he is smarter then the average Catholic and he knows these things.
He definitely is. :) Pope Benedict is quite the brilliant and prolific writer.

So when you said "No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is" you didn't really mean no one.  You just meant that you can't?

I know where it is. But I don't think you guys do.
Not here
Quote
The Holy See's Annuario Pontificio gives the following list of Eastern Catholic Churches with residence and of countries (or other political areas, consisting of more than country) in which they possess an episcopal ecclesiastical jurisdiction (date of union or foundation in parenthesis, membership in brackets):

Alexandrian liturgical tradition:
Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Cairo, [163,849], Egypt (1741)
Ethiopian Catholic Church (metropolia): Addis Ababa, [208,093], Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
Antiochian or West Syrian liturgical tradition:
Maronite Church[38] (patriarchate): Bkerke, [3,105,278], Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
Syriac Catholic Church (patriarchate): Beirut,[131,692], Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church[39] (major archepiscopate): Trivandrum, [412,640], India, United States (1930)
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church[40] (patriarchate): Beirut, [375,182], Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church[41] (patriarchate): Baghdad, [418,194], Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church[42](major archepiscopate): Ernakulam, [3,902,089], India, Middle East, Europe, America (Never separated)
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
Albanian Catholic Church (apostolic administration): [3,510], Albania (1628)
Belarusian Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): [10,000], Belarus (1596)
Bulgarian Catholic Church[43] (apostolic exarchate): Sofia, [10,107], Bulgaria (1861)
Eparchy of Križevci[44] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Križevci, Ruski Krstur [21,480] + [22,653], Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro (1611)
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church[45] (two apostolic exarchates): Athens, [2,325], Greece, Turkey (1829)
Hungarian Catholic Church[46] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Nyiregyháza, [290,000], Hungary (1646)
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): [63,240], Italy (Never separated)
Macedonian Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Skopje, [11,491], Republic of Macedonia (1918)
Melkite Greek Catholic Church[47] (patriarchate): Damascus, [1,346,635], Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
Romanian Church United with Rome[48] (major archiepiscopate): Blaj, [776,529] Romania, United States (1697)
Russian Catholic Church[49](two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
Ruthenian Catholic Church[50] (a sui juris metropolia [51], an eparchy [52], and an apostolic exarchate [53]): Uzhhorod, Pittsburgh, [594,465], United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
Slovak Catholic Church (metropolia): Prešov, [243,335], Slovakia, Canada (1646)
Ukrainian Catholic Church[54] (major archiepiscopate): Kiev, [4,223,425], Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 10:16:49 PM


Not to mention all your Protestant spawn.
You mean your coreligionists?

 :D  Always want it both ways.

If the spawn are set in their ways then they belong to Catholics...

But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  
No, if they are looking to Orhtodoxy and are received, then they belong to the Catholics. "talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved..." No, that's the Vatican's style. We don't have much in common with any of the Protestants in any of their forms, nor alike in our thinking.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 10:22:11 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.
Don't confuse her with the facts....

even "talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved..."  between OO and EO is problematic, let alone the Protestants.

Odd. Elijammaria likes to "talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved... " when it comes to the Vatican's talks with the Orthodox. She gets rather upset when we disagree with her on that.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 10:22:56 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 10:35:32 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts. 

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 10:39:42 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.
Don't confuse her with the facts....

even "talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved..."  between OO and EO is problematic, let alone the Protestants.

Odd. Elijammaria likes to "talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved... " when it comes to the Vatican's talks with the Orthodox. She gets rather upset when we disagree with her on that.

You have to be someone I care for personally before you can upset me by telling me the Church teaches something I know she does not teach.  Otherwise its just one more dead end... :)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 10:57:37 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.  

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 21, 2011, 10:58:01 PM
Hey guys, I have an idea, lets all go to the RC forums, register there and start opening threads on heated topics designed to produce a reaction, and then insult their priests that respond to the thread, and call them all 12 year olds when they logically rebut our arguments!

Already done.
Done where? All "RC forums" I've seen ban Orthodox posters just for sticking to the Orthodox view.

Can you link to any forum post where an Orthodox called you all 12 year olds?

Ha... Ha... Ha ha...  <- like this
IOW you can't.

In other words it was a joke. Lighten up.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 11:27:48 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.  

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 11:29:20 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.  

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.
More hearsay.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 21, 2011, 11:34:57 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.
Never going to happen. If one doe not create reasons why they hate the Catholic Church then they have no reason not to join it. This is what happened to me in 2006. I began realizing little by little that everything I hated about the Catholic Church actually had nothing to do with the Catholic Church at all, but rather it was just my perception of it as seen through the lens of Protestantism. Apparently some Eastern Orthodox Christians look through a similar lens when assessing our Church.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 21, 2011, 11:37:07 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.  

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.
More hearsay.

Not at all. 
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2011, 11:45:51 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.
Never going to happen. If one doe not create reasons why they hate the Catholic Church then they have no reason not to join it. This is what happened to me in 2006. I began realizing little by little that everything I hated about the Catholic Church actually had nothing to do with the Catholic Church at all, but rather it was just my perception of it as seen through the lens of Protestantism. Apparently some Eastern Orthodox Christians look through a similar lens when assessing our Church.
We don't have Protestant lens. We look at the Vatican with the eyes of the Fathers.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Apotheoun on January 21, 2011, 11:50:54 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.
Never going to happen. If one doe not create reasons why they hate the Catholic Church then they have no reason not to join it. This is what happened to me in 2006. I began realizing little by little that everything I hated about the Catholic Church actually had nothing to do with the Catholic Church at all, but rather it was just my perception of it as seen through the lens of Protestantism. Apparently some Eastern Orthodox Christians look through a similar lens when assessing our Church.
We don't have Protestant lens. We look at the Vatican with the eyes of the Fathers.
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Alpo on January 22, 2011, 12:00:20 AM
If one doe not create reasons why they hate the Catholic Church then they have no reason not to join it.

I most certainly don't want to get into these never-ending polemics but that is an absurd thing to say. Why one couldn't disagree with something without hating it?

I don't hate the Catholic church. The most negative feelings I have towards it are sadness and disappointment. But my overall feelings are rather positive.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 22, 2011, 12:15:54 AM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.  

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.
More hearsay.

Not at all. 

This?

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2010/10/blessing-of-orthodoxy-or-death-banner.html
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 22, 2011, 12:21:09 AM
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

What are you talking about?  In Catholicism, a priest is always a priest and it IS an indelible character.  Rome permits Last Rites to be performed by a defroked Catholic priest.  Saying Mass or any other function is "illicit but valid".

 I know this is not the case in Orthodoxy.  What I was asking is, since Catholics see A.S. as a personal grace given to them through ordination, how do Orthodox see A.S.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 22, 2011, 12:23:51 AM
Hey guys, I have an idea, lets all go to the RC forums, register there and start opening threads on heated topics designed to produce a reaction, and then insult their priests that respond to the thread, and call them all 12 year olds when they logically rebut our arguments!

Already done.
Done where? All "RC forums" I've seen ban Orthodox posters just for sticking to the Orthodox view.

Can you link to any forum post where an Orthodox called you all 12 year olds?

SHOCK...


not
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 12:24:35 AM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.  

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.
More hearsay.

Not at all. 

This?

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2010/10/blessing-of-orthodoxy-or-death-banner.html
I didn't see a swastika. Must be small.

As someone posted there, looks like a pirate flag.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ignatius on January 22, 2011, 12:35:05 AM

We don't have Protestant lens. We look at the Vatican with the eyes of the Fathers.

Clearly not 'all' of them.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 12:42:32 AM
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

What are you talking about?  In Catholicism, a priest is always a priest and it IS an indelible character.  Rome permits Last Rites to be performed by a defroked Catholic priest.  Saying Mass or any other function is "illicit but valid".

 I know this is not the case in Orthodoxy.  What I was asking is, since Catholics see A.S. as a personal grace given to them through ordination, how do Orthodox see A.S.

What are you talking about?   
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 12:55:10 AM
:D  Which Orthodox episcopate would that be?

LOL. That is an excellent question. The EOs? OO? Traditionalist/Old Calanderist EOs?

You do realize that these names are ecumenist modernizations and that historically these groups would not mutually recognize each other as Orthodox?

Historically, from any given of these perspectives, there is only one Orthodox episcopate. It just depends on who you're asking, or who you decide to side with as the most reasonable perspective.
No one seems to be able to determine where this Orthodox Episcopate is.

Aren't there several Catholic Episcopates?  I believe that the Vatican accepts the Episcopate of the Old Catholics as fully valid.

And I think there are even more Catholic Episcopates - the Polish National Church?
Nope. They may have valid sacraments, but they are most certainly not Catholic. That being said, we know where the episcopte is. I am not sure if any of you do.

But of course they are Catholic Episcopates.  It's in their names - the old CATHOLIC Church, the Polish National CATHOLIC Church.
So? BTW, ya'll are over in another thread about not being called Father by a particular OO member of the forum.

That's a very peculiar way to interpret my question in the OO section of the forum.  I asked if Chris' signature about non  recognition of EO clergy is actually the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox. I was told by Father Peter (Coptic Orthodox) that it is not the teaching.

It had absolutely nothing to do with whether I get called "Father" or not.  It was a question about Oriental theology.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 12:59:01 AM

We don't have Protestant lens. We look at the Vatican with the eyes of the Fathers.

Clearly not 'all' of them.
Yes, all of the Orthodox consensus of the Fathers of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 01:15:11 AM
I think this Forum does a very good job of representing the broad spectrum of Orthodox believers, particularly with reference to how Orthodoxy in general presents itself in this country vis a vis the Catholic Church.  Some of it is wonderful and real.  Much of it is false.  Some of it is insincere.  Much of it is genuine, even when the representation of Catholic teaching are dead wrong.

This concerns me as well.  Catholics come on here and say things such as the Orthodox allow abortion when they must know that is not true and so they are not being sincere with these assertions.  Other Catholics insist that our priests allow unrestrained sex when they must know that is also not true (just consider the large number of fasting days.)  Others try, and this is very insincere, to turn Orthodox liturgical texts against the Orthodox and argue that we used to believe in the Immaculate Conception and then rejected it out of anti-Catholic spite..... these are some examples of the insincerity which we can encounter on the forum.

I am very sincere when I say that I have met, face to face, Orthodox bishops who allow abortion in certain cases.

I am also very sincere when I use Orthodox texts to indicate that the Mother of God is more holy than the average Joe or Josephine when many Orthodox claim she is no different from any of us in her need to work hard to become holy.  What is not sincere is when my use of those texts is misrepresented each and every time...even after I've explained myself.

I am also very sincere when I say that I think you have a serious personal difficulty with sexual sin based on your family history and things you have said to me both publicly and privately...so you have a tendency to be exceptionally lenient.  Perhaps you should not have engaged me in those kinds of discussions over the years.

I know there are many things I confided in you that I now regret.


Mary

Mary, you have shocked me.  I have never made use of any privately conveyed information from you in any way, neither overtly nor covertly.

As to the above statements about my family history - a father who was a sexual profligate and simply could not stop loving women - that is hardly likely to have turned me into a sexual libertine and in fact his sons, my brothers, all have strong moral codes. My father was also very rich - so I hope you won' t now say that I have "a serious personal difficulty with financial sin and lust for money based on your family history.."

I have no confusion about sexual sin and leniency, so what you write above is just nasty innuendo.  In line of course with your constant attempts to destroy me on this forum.

Can anyone imagine if an Orthodox person went on a Catholic forum and made such statements against a priest as you have made, saying that they have "serious personal difficulty with sexual sin based on your family history..."   !!?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 22, 2011, 06:00:42 AM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Apotheoun on January 22, 2011, 07:44:20 AM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 10:24:28 AM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia.
LOL. Like this?
Quote
No wrongful presumption may avail to deceive the ignorant, nor any dissimulation to excuse those who know.  The primate of Rome against God, against the peace of the Church, to the contempt and injury of all priests, exceeded the bounds of modesty and of his own measure, and unlawfully usurped in synod the proud and pestiferous title of œcumenical, that is to say, universal.  When our Fathers of blessed memory became aware of this, rhey annulled by a fully valid censure all the proceedings of that same synod, taking him to task with most severe rebuke, and warning him to abstain from that new and temerarious name of superstition; even so as to forbid his deacon to go in procession with him, unless he should amend so great a wickedness.  And we, adhering in all respects to the zeal of their rectitude, observe their ordinances, under the protection of God, irrefragably, since it is fitting that he should walk without stumbling along the straight way of his predecessor, whom the tribunal of the eternal Judge awaits for rendering an account of the same place of government.  In which matter, lest we should seem to omit anything that pertains to the peace of the Church, we once and again addressed the same most holy pope by letter, bidding him relinquish that name of pride, and incline the elation of his heart to the humility which our Master and Lord has taught us.  And having found that he paid no regard, we have not desisted, in our desire of concord, from addressing the like admonitions to our most blessed brothers and fellow-priests, his successors.  But since it is the case, as we see, now that the end of this world is near at hand, that the enemy of the human race has already appeared in his harbingers, so as to have as his precursors, through this title of pride, the very priests who ought to have opposed him by living well and humbly, I exhort and entreat that not one of you ever accept this name, that not one consent to it, that not one write it, that not one admit it wherever it may have been written, or add his subscription to it; but, as becomes ministers of Almighty God, that each keep himself from this kind of poisoned infection, and give no place to the cunning lier-in-wait, since this thing is being done to the injury and rendering asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the contemning of all of you.  For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.
And although our most pious rulers allow nothing unlawful to be done, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances,—though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic Sees nothing that might be passed would have any force, nevertheless, before Almighty God I conjure and warn you, that the assent of none of you be obtained by any blandishments, any bribes, any threats whatever; but, having regard to the eternal judgment, acquit ye yourselves salubriously and unanimously in opposition to wrongful aims; and, supported by pastoral constancy and apostolical authority, keep out the robber and the wolf that would rush in, and give no way to him that rages for the tearing of the Church asunder; nor allow, through any cajolery, a synod to be held on this subject, which indeed would not be a legitimate one, nor to be called a synod.  We also at the same time admonish you, that if haply nothing should be done with mention of this preposterous name, but a synod be by any chance assembled on another matter, ye be in all respects cautious, circumspect, watchful, and careful, lest anything should therein be decreed against any place or person prejudicially, or unlawfully, or in opposition to the canons.  But, if any question arises to be treated with advantage, let the question in hand take such a form that it may not upset any ancient ordinances.  Wherefore we once more admonish you before God and His Saints, that you observe all these things with the utmost attention, and with the entire bent of your minds.  For if any one, as we do not believe will be the case, should disregard in any part this present writing, let him know that he is segregated from the peace of the blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.  Let, then, your Fraternity so act that when the Shepherd of shepherds comes in judgment, you may not be found guilty with respect to the place of government which you have received.

And indeed on the receipt of the synodical epistle of our brothers and fellow-bishops it was not worth my while to make a difficulty on account of the profane title at the risk of disturbing the unity of holy Church:  but nevertheless I took care to admonish him with respect to this same superstitious and proud title, saying that he could not have peace with us unless he corrected the elation of the aforesaid expression, which the first apostate invented.  You, however, ought not to say that this is a matter of no consequence, since, if we bear it with equanimity, we are corrupting the faith of the Universal Church; for you know how many not only heretics but heresiarchs have issued from Rome.  And, not to speak of the injury done to your dignity, if one bishop is called Universal, the Universal Church comes to ruin, if the one who is universal falls.  But far, far be this levity from my ears.  Yet I trust in Almighty God that what He has promised He will soon fulfil; Whosoever exalteth himself shall be humbled (Luke xiv. 11).

When the excellent preacher says, As long as I am the apostle of the Gentiles I will honour my ministry (Rom. xi. 13); saying again in another place, We became as babes among you (1 Thess. ii. 7), he undoubtedly shews an example to us who come after him, that we should retain humility in our minds, and yet keep in honour the dignity of our order, so that neither should our humility be timid nor our elevation proud.  Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory, our brother and fellow-bishop in the city of Rome, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop.  Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostles the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.  Moreover he forbade the deacon who attended us the most pious Lords for the business of the Church to celebrate the solemnities of mass with our aforesaid fellow-priest.  I also, being of the same mind with him, have sent similar letters to our aforesaid fellow-priest, copies of which I have thought it right to send to your Blessedness, with this especial purpose, that we may first assail with moderate force the mind of our before-named brother concerning this matter, wherein by a new act of pride, all the bowels of the Universal Church are disturbed.  But, if he should altogether refuse to be bent from the stiffness of his elation, then, with the succour of Almighty God, we may consider more particularly what ought to be done.

For, as your venerable Holiness knows, this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve.   But no one of his predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated.  But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren.  While, then, we are unwilling to receive this honour when offered, think how disgraceful it is for any one to have wished to usurp it to himself perforce.
Wherefore let not your Holiness in your epistles ever call any one Universal, lest you detract from the honour due to yourself in offering to another what is not due.  Nor let any sinister suspicion make your mind uneasy with regard to our most serene lords, inasmuch as he fears Almighty God, and will in no way consent to do anything against the evangelical ordinances, against the most sacred canons.
Hence also we are not far from you, since in Him who is everywhere we are one.  Let us then give thanks to Him who, having abolished enmities, has caused that in His flesh there should be in the whole world one flock, and one sheepfold under Himself the one shepherd; and let us be ever mindful how the preacher of truth admonishes us, saying, Be careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Ephes. iv. 3), and, Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Hebr. xii. 14).  And he says also to other disciples, If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, having peace with all men (Rom. xii. 18).  For he sees that the good cannot have peace with the bad; and therefore, as ye know, he premised, If it be possible.

But, because peace cannot be established except on two sides, when the bad fly from it, the good ought to keep it in their inmost hearts.  Whence also it is admirably said, As much as lieth in you; meaning that it should remain in us even when it is repelled from the hearts of evil men.  And such peace we truly keep, when we treat the faults of the proud at once with charity and with persistent justice, when we love them and hate their vices.  For man is the work of God; but vice is the work of man.  Let us then distinguish between what God and what man has made, and neither hate the man on account of his error nor love the error on account of the man.

Let us then with united mind attack the evil of pride in the man, that from his enemy, that is to say his error, the man himself may first be freed.  Our Almighty Redeemer will supply strength to charity and justice; He will supply to us, though placed far from each other, the unity of His Spirit; even He by whose workmanship the Church, having been constructed as it were after the manner of the ark with the four sides of the world, and bound together with the compacture of incorruptible planks and the pitch of charity, is disturbed by no opposing winds, by the swelling of no billow coming from without.

But inasmuch as, with His grace steering us, we ought to seek that no wave coming upon us from without may throw us into confusion, so ought we to pray with all our hearts, dearest brethren, that the right hand of His providence may draw out the accumulation of internal bilgewater within us.  For indeed our adversary the devil, who, in his rage against the humble, as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. v. 8), no longer, as we perceive, walks about the folds but so resolutely fixes his teeth in certain necessary members of the Church that, unless with the favour of the Lord, the heedful crowd 180bof shepherds unanimously run to the rescue, no one can doubt that he will soon tear all the sheepfold; which God forbid.  Consider, dearest brethren, who it is that follows close at hand, of whose approach such perverse beginnings are breaking out even in priests.  For it is because he is near of whom it is written, He is king over all the sons of pride (Job xli. 25)—not without sore grief I am compelled to say it—that our brother and fellow-bishop John, despising the Lord’s commands, apostolical precepts, and rules of Fathers, attempts through elation to be his forerunner in name.

But may Almighty God make known to your Blessedness with what sore groaning I am tormented by this consideration; that he, the once to me most modest man, he who was beloved of all, he who seemed to be occupied in alms, deeds, prayers, and fastings, out of the ashes he sat in, out of the humility he preached, has grown so boastful as to attempt to claim all to himself, and through the elation of a pompous expression to aim at subjugating to himself all the members of Christ, which cohere to one Head only, that is to Christ.  Nor is it surprising that the same tempter who knows pride to be the beginning of all sin, who used it formerly before all else in the case of the first man, should now also put it before some men at the end of virtues, so as to lay it as a snare for those who to some extent seemed to be escaping his most cruel hands by the good aims of their life, at the very goal of good work, and as it were in the very conclusion of perfection.

Wherefore we ought to pray earnestly, and implore Almighty God with continual supplications, that He would avert this error from that man’s soul, and remove this mischief of pride and confusion from the unity and humility of the Church.  And with the favour of the Lord we ought to concur, and make provision with all our powers, lest in the poison of one expression the living members in the body of Christ should die.  For, if this expression is suffered to be allowably used, the honour of all patriarchs is denied:  and while he that is called Universal perishes per chance in his error, no bishop will be found to have remained in a state of truth.

It is for you then, firmly and without prejudice, to keep the Churches as you have received them, and not to let this attempt at a diabolical usurpation have any countenance from you.  Stand firm; stand secure; presume not ever to issue or to receive writings with the falsity of the name Universal in them.  Bid all the bishops subject to your care abstain from the defilement of this elation, that the Universal Church may acknowledge you as Patriarchs not only in good works but also in the authority of truth.  But, if perchance adversity is the consequence, we ought to persist unanimously, and show even by dying that in case of harm to the generality we do not love anything of our own especially.  Let us say with Paul, To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Philip. i. 21).  Let us hear what the first of all pastors says; If ye suffer anything for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye (1 Pet. iii. 14).  For believe me that the dignity which we have received for the preaching of the truth we shall more safely relinquish than retain in behalf of the same truth, should case of necessity require it.  Finally, pray for me, as becomes your most dear Blessedness, that I may shew forth in works what I am thus bold to say to you.

Almighty God, who holds in His right hand the heart of your Piety, both protects us through you and prepares for you rewards of eternal remuneration for temporal deeds.  For I have learnt from the letters of my responsalis with what justice your Serenity is interested in the cause of the blessed Prince of the apostles Peter against certain persons who are proudly humble and feignedly kind.  And I trust in the bounty of our Redeemer that for these your good offices with the most serene lord and his most pious sons you will receive retribution also in the heavenly country.  Nor is there any doubt that you will receive eternal benefits, being loosed from the chains of your sins, if in the cause of his Church you have made him your debtor to whom the power of binding and of loosing has been given.  Wherefore I still beg you to allow no man’s hypocrisy to prevail against the truth, since there are some who, according to the saying of the excellent preacher, by sweet words and fair speeches seduce the hearts of the innocent,—men who are vile in raiment, but puffed up in heart.  And they affect to despise all things in this world, and yet seek to acquire for themselves all the things that are of this world.  They confess themselves unworthy before all men, but cannot be content with private titles, since they covet that whereby they may seem to be more worthy than all.  Let therefore your Piety, whom Almighty God has appointed with our most serene Lord to be over the whole world, through your favouring of justice render service to Him from whom you have received your right to so great a dominion, that you may rule over the world that is committed to you so much the more securely as you more truly serve the Author of all things in the execution of truth.

Furthermore, I inform you that I have received a letter from the most pious lord desiring me to be pacific towards my brother and fellow-priest.  And indeed so it became the religious lord to give injunctions to priests.  But, when this my brother with new presumption and pride calls himself universal bishop, having caused himself in the time of our predecessor of holy memory to be designated in synod by this so proud a title, though all the acts of that synod were abrogated, bbeing disallowed by the Apostolic Sees,—the most serene lord gives me a somewhat distressing intimation, in that he has not rebuked him who is acting proudly, but endeavours to bend me from my purpose, who in this cause of defending the truth of the Gospels and Canons, of humility and rectitude; whereas my aforesaid brother and fellow-priest is acting against evangelical principles and also against the blessed Apostle Peter, and against all the churches, and against the ordinances of the Canons.  But the Lord, in whose hands are all things, is almighty; of Him it is written, There is no wisdom nor prudence nor counsel against the Lord (Prov. xxi. 30).  And indeed my often before mentioned most holy brother endeavours to persuade my most serene lord of many things:  but well I know that all those prayers of his and all those tears will not allow my lord to be in any thing cajoled by any one against reason or his own soul.

Still it is very distressing, and hard to be borne with patience, that my aforesaid brother and fellow-bishop, despising all others, should attempt to be called sole bishop.  But in this pride of his what else is denoted than that the times of Antichrist are already near at hand?  For in truth he is imitating him who, scorning social joy with the legions of angels, attempted to start up to a summit of singular eminence, saying, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven, I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North, and will ascend above the heights of the clouds, and I will be like the most High (Isai. xiv. 13).  Wherefore I beseech you by Almighty God not to allow the times of your Piety to be polluted by the elation of one man, nor in any way to give any assent to so perverse a title, and that in this case your Piety may by no means despise me; since, though the sins are so great that he ought to suffer such things, yet there are no sins of the Apostle Peter that he should deserve in your times to suffer thus.  Wherefore again and again I beseech you by Almighty God that, as the princes your ancestors have sought the favour of the holy Apostle Peter, so you also take heed both to seek it for yourselves and to keep it, and that his honour among you be in no degree lessened on account of our sins who unworthily serve him, seeing that he is able both to be your helper now in all things and hereafter to remit your sins.

Further, a bishop of the city of Thessalonica has been ordained without the knowledge of me and my responsalis, and a thing has been done which never happened under any former princes.  When I heard of this, I at once sent word to that prevaricator, who had been irregularly ordained, that he must not presume by any means to celebrate the solemnities of mass, unless we should have first ascertained from our most serene lords that they had ordered this to be done; and this I commanded him under pain of excommunication.  And yet, scorning and despising me, supported by the audacity of certain secular persons, to whom he is said to give many bribes so as to impoverish his Church, he presumes up to this time to celebrate mass, and has refused to come to me according to the order of my lords.  Now I, obeying the injunction of their Piety, have from my heart forgiven this same Maximus, who had been ordained without my knowledge, his presumption in passing over me and my responsalis in his ordination, even as though he had been ordained with my authority.  But his other wrong doings—to wit his bodily transgressions, which I have heard of, and his having been elected through bribery, and his having presumed to celebrate mass while excommunicated—these things, for the sake of God, I cannot pass over without enquiry.  But I hope, and implore the Lord, that no fault may be found in him with respect to these things that are reported, and that his case may be terminated without peril to my soul.  Nevertheless, before this has been ascertained, my most serene lord, in the order that has been despatched, has enjoined me to receive him with honour when he comes.  And it is a very serious thing that a man of whom so many things of such a nature are reported should be honoured before such things have been enquired into and sifted, as they ought in the first place to be.  And, if the causes of the bishops who are committed to me are settled before my most pious lords under the patronage of others, what shall I do, unhappy that I am, in this Church?  But that my bishops despise me, and have recourse to secular Judges against me, I give thanks to Almighty God that I attribute it to my sins.  This however I briefly intimate, because I am waiting for a little while; and, if he should long delay coming to me, I shall in no wise hesitate to exercise strict canonical discipline in his case.  But I trust in Almighty God, that He will give long life to our most pious Lords, and order things for us under your hand, not according to our sins, but according to the gifts of His grace.  These things, then, I suggest to my most tranquil lady, since I am not ignorant with how great zeal for rectitude the most pure conscience of her Serenity is moved.

I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow-bishop that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title.  As to this, the piety of my lords has charged me in their orders, saying that offence ought not to be engendered among us for the appellation of a frivolous name.  But I beseech your Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful.  Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious?  If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster.  Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.  Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.  But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled (Luke xiv. 11; xviii. 14), I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more inflated.  Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any offence by the appellation of a frivolous name.  For I, a sinner, who by the help of God retain humility, need not to be admonished to humility.  Now may Almighty God long guard the life of our most serene Lord for the peace of holy Church and the advantage of the Roman republic.  For we are sure, that if you live who fear the Lord of heaven, you will allow no proud doings to prevail against the truth.

Contrast:
Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Pius IX, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Temporal Domains of the Holy Roman Church, Servant of the Servants of God
Quote
Pope Nicholas I is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" ["supreme pontiff and universal pope] by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin "Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes.
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The title "Patriarch of the West" has been since dropped. Not universal enough.

We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
As someone wiser and more irenic than I has said "your words say "no" but your actions say "yes."
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 11:51:46 AM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 11:53:24 AM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 12:11:33 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage. 
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 12:17:44 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage. 
Watching your projections, it would seem that Ultramontanist lens is what you pop into the projector, whether it's your heritate or not.  Look for a lens predating 1646.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 12:22:29 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage.  
Watching your projections, it would seem that Ultramontanist lens is what you pop into the projector, whether it's your heritate or not.  Look for a lens predating 1646.

There is a better one which lasts the ages.  You are not the last word on the truth, though you make it your business to try to present that kind of image.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 12:39:59 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage. 
Watching your projections, it would seem that Ultramontanist lens is what you pop into the projector, whether it's your heritate or not.  Look for a lens predating 1646.

There is a better one that that which lasts the ages.
Yes, the lens ground in 325, polished in 381 and focused in 879.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050817074822/http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html


You are not the last word on the truth, though you make it your business to try to present that kind of image.
I have neither the first nor the last word, but merely repeat the words of He Who does.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 12:47:33 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage.  
Watching your projections, it would seem that Ultramontanist lens is what you pop into the projector, whether it's your heritate or not.  Look for a lens predating 1646.

There is a better one that that which lasts the ages.
Yes, the lens ground in 325, polished in 381 and focused in 879.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050817074822/http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html


You are not the last word on the truth, though you make it your business to try to present that kind of image.
I have neither the first nor the last word, but merely repeat the words of He Who does.

Not even the Catholic pope claims that much authority, though it is argued that he does.

Here is another way that Orthodoxy and the Protestants are hand-in-glove.  Everybody thinks they speak for Christ...no matter what it is they say.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 01:16:32 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage.  
Watching your projections, it would seem that Ultramontanist lens is what you pop into the projector, whether it's your heritate or not.  Look for a lens predating 1646.

There is a better one that that which lasts the ages.
Yes, the lens ground in 325, polished in 381 and focused in 879.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050817074822/http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html


You are not the last word on the truth, though you make it your business to try to present that kind of image.
I have neither the first nor the last word, but merely repeat the words of He Who does.

Not even the Catholic pope claims that much authority, though it is argued that he does.
Yes, it is argued trhoughout Pastor Aetenas.

Here is another way that Orthodoxy and the Protestants are hand-in-glove.  Everybody thinks they speak for Christ...no matter what it is they say.
And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 22, 2011, 01:22:02 PM
And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 22, 2011, 01:26:21 PM
I think this Forum does a very good job of representing the broad spectrum of Orthodox believers, particularly with reference to how Orthodoxy in general presents itself in this country vis a vis the Catholic Church.  Some of it is wonderful and real.  Much of it is false.  Some of it is insincere.  Much of it is genuine, even when the representation of Catholic teaching are dead wrong.

This concerns me as well.  Catholics come on here and say things such as the Orthodox allow abortion when they must know that is not true and so they are not being sincere with these assertions.  Other Catholics insist that our priests allow unrestrained sex when they must know that is also not true (just consider the large number of fasting days.)  Others try, and this is very insincere, to turn Orthodox liturgical texts against the Orthodox and argue that we used to believe in the Immaculate Conception and then rejected it out of anti-Catholic spite..... these are some examples of the insincerity which we can encounter on the forum.

I am very sincere when I say that I have met, face to face, Orthodox bishops who allow abortion in certain cases.

I am also very sincere when I use Orthodox texts to indicate that the Mother of God is more holy than the average Joe or Josephine when many Orthodox claim she is no different from any of us in her need to work hard to become holy.  What is not sincere is when my use of those texts is misrepresented each and every time...even after I've explained myself.

I am also very sincere when I say that I think you have a serious personal difficulty with sexual sin based on your family history and things you have said to me both publicly and privately...so you have a tendency to be exceptionally lenient.  Perhaps you should not have engaged me in those kinds of discussions over the years.

I know there are many things I confided in you that I now regret.


Mary

Mary, you have shocked me.  I have never made use of any privately conveyed information from you in any way, neither overtly nor covertly.

As to the above statements about my family history - a father who was a sexual profligate and simply could not stop loving women - that is hardly likely to have turned me into a sexual libertine and in fact his sons, my brothers, all have strong moral codes. My father was also very rich - so I hope you won' t now say that I have "a serious personal difficulty with financial sin and lust for money based on your family history.."

I have no confusion about sexual sin and leniency, so what you write above is just nasty innuendo.  In line of course with your constant attempts to destroy me on this forum.

Can anyone imagine if an Orthodox person went on a Catholic forum and made such statements against a priest as you have made, saying that they have "serious personal difficulty with sexual sin based on your family history..."   !!?

Father,

You know someone has nothing left to argue, no point to make, nor any intelligent thing to say when one resorts to this kind of behavior.  
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.
The Fathers decided otherwise at Chalcedon.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 01:43:39 PM
And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2011, 03:02:55 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Can you back that statement up?  What makes your Church immune from what you define as "modern protestant paranoia?"  If such a term as "modern protestant paranoia" existed, there is only one institution to blame ... the Roman Catholic Papacy.

1517 - Protestant Reformation
1595 - Brest (78 years - 3 generations - after Reformation)
1646 - Uzhhrod (129 years - 5 generations - after Reformation)

So, your former Orthodox Bishops "protested" against what they perceived as Russian ascendance and allied themselves (willingly or under threat of death) with Rome instead.  Thus, you are familiar with the idea of "modern protestant paranoia" because that is the foundation of your Church and you are transferring that "hot potato" to us ... which we reject.   ;)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 03:08:27 PM
And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.
Your magisterium claims otherwise
First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.


1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.


9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema
.

Now when Blessed John Paul II

did they make that official?
was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.
Good! Now we have someone who can tell us when the supreme pontiff speaks "ex cathedra."

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 03:09:34 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Can you back that statement up?  What makes your Church immune from what you define as "modern protestant paranoia?"  If such a term as "modern protestant paranoia" existed, there is only one institution to blame ... the Roman Catholic Papacy.

1517 - Protestant Reformation
1595 - Brest (78 years - 3 generations - after Reformation)
1646 - Uzhhrod (129 years - 5 generations - after Reformation)

So, your former Orthodox Bishops "protested" against what they perceived as Russian ascendance and allied themselves (willingly or under threat of death) with Rome instead.  Thus, you are familiar with the idea of "modern protestant paranoia" because that is the foundation of your Church and you are transferring that "hot potato" to us ... which we reject.   ;)
Don't forget 1204.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2011, 03:17:51 PM
Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Not a good example - there were no women among the 12 and the 70 Disciples.  Jesus did not select his women disciples; women accepted Jesus as the Son of God and voluntarily followed him.

Meanwhile, the Pope hand-selects all Bishops and Cardinals following in the tradition of Jesus of selecting the 12 and the 70 Disciples.  Even after Judas Iscariot perished, the 11 Disciples gathered together and selected the replacement ... a tradition which is continued in the 15 Holy Synods of the Orthodox Churches vs. the 200 "yes men" of the Papal Conclave who are guided more by secular needs then by the Holy Spirit.  

Example 1, we (e.g. the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church) need to end Communism - let's select a Polish Pope who officiates Mass before 2 million people in Krakow and implores them not be afraid of a declining Communist power.  Two years later, the Solidarity Movement begins.  A decade later, the Berlin Wall falls.  Six years after death, Pope John Paul II will be beatified and only one more person needs to come forward with a miracle, which occurred after his death, to canonize him as St. Pope John Paul II.  

Example 2, with the Cold War at its peak, we need to end the Schism with the Eastern Churches (especially Russia under the Communist thumb) - let's elect Cardinals who know a little bit about the Eastern Churches and trick them into unifying with us, under us.  As a result ... one Pope lifted the anathemas in 1964 and the current Pope has expanded discussions with the Orthodox about "global protos" forcing the Orthodox to quickly convene "Episcopal Assemblies" because the Russian Orthodox stormed out of Ravenna in 2007.

Yup, the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the Roman Catholic Church.   ;)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 22, 2011, 03:31:44 PM
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").
Is it not true that Papal claims were being made in the West prior to the Great Schism, and yet it did not divide the Church at that point in time. Since the West had a different understanding of the primacy of Rome from early on, why are we to assume that the Eastern view is automatically the correct one?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 22, 2011, 03:31:44 PM
And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?
And yet it has been my experience that the Vicar of Christ tends to be more humble than many fundamentalists who elevate their understanding of Scripture above that of the Pope's. In Protestantism everyone is their own Pope, but not even Pope because they are worse. Everyone is their own Superpope in the fundamentalist Protestant sects.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2011, 03:36:24 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Can you back that statement up?  What makes your Church immune from what you define as "modern protestant paranoia?"  If such a term as "modern protestant paranoia" existed, there is only one institution to blame ... the Roman Catholic Papacy.

1517 - Protestant Reformation
1595 - Brest (78 years - 3 generations - after Reformation)
1646 - Uzhhrod (129 years - 5 generations - after Reformation)

So, your former Orthodox Bishops "protested" against what they perceived as Russian ascendance and allied themselves (willingly or under threat of death) with Rome instead.  Thus, you are familiar with the idea of "modern protestant paranoia" because that is the foundation of your Church and you are transferring that "hot potato" to us ... which we reject.   ;)
Don't forget 1204.

1456 - 61 years before the Protestant Reformation - Ecumenical Patriarchate becomes ethnarch to the "Rum," a "modern protestant" event.  Those who didn't want to be identified with Hellenism or with Russia ... join Rome instead.   :o
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2011, 03:41:27 PM
And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?
And yet it has been my experience that the Vicar of Christ tends to be more humble than many fundamentalists who elevate their understanding of Scripture above that of the Pope's. In Protestantism everyone is their own Pope, but not even Pope because they are worse. Everyone is their own Superpope in the fundamentalist Protestant sects.

Billy Graham was replaced by his son, Franklin Graham.
Joel Osteen's father was replaced by his son, Joel Osteen.
Pat Robertson will be replaced by his son, Gordon Robertson.

No Synods gathered to elect these replacements - they were passed down as a business/family inheritance.

No Synod elected Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Dr. Jack van Impe, et al.

I've counted 9 different interpretations of Scripture among the names listed although none of them are heads of state (Pat Robertson and the 700 Club comes the closest to emulating a head of state) like the Pope.   ;)

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 03:41:59 PM
And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?
And yet it has been my experience that the Vicar of Christ tends to be more humble than many fundamentalists who elevate their understanding of Scripture above that of the Pope's. In Protestantism everyone is their own Pope, but not even Pope because they are worse. Everyone is their own Superpope in the fundamentalist Protestant sects.
Take that up with them.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 03:45:50 PM
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").
Is it not true that Papal claims were being made in the West prior to the Great Schism, and yet it did not divide the Church at that point in time. Since the West had a different understanding of the primacy of Rome from early on, why are we to assume that the Eastern view is automatically the correct one?
Where were all the Ecumenical Councils held? And whence came most of the bishops at the Ecumenical Councils? And what language were the Ecumenical Councils conducted in? Hint: it is the same language that the Vatican forbids the filioque being recited in: it results in heresy even by Vatican standards.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2011, 03:49:34 PM
Where were all the Ecumenical Councils held? And whence came most of the bishops at the Ecumenical Councils? And what language were the Ecumenical Councils conducted in? Hint: it is the same language that the Vatican forbids the filioque being recited in: it results in heresy even by Vatican standards.

Is that still true today especially in the 2 Churches in Athens where Greek Catholicism is celebrated, presumably, in Greek?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 22, 2011, 03:56:44 PM
Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Not a good example - there were no women among the 12 and the 70 Disciples.  Jesus did not select his women disciples; women accepted Jesus as the Son of God and voluntarily followed him.

Meanwhile, the Pope hand-selects all Bishops and Cardinals following in the tradition of Jesus of selecting the 12 and the 70 Disciples.  Even after Judas Iscariot perished, the 11 Disciples gathered together and selected the replacement ... a tradition which is continued in the 15 Holy Synods of the Orthodox Churches vs. the 200 "yes men" of the Papal Conclave who are guided more by secular needs then by the Holy Spirit. 

Example 1, we (e.g. the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church) need to end Communism - let's select a Polish Pope who officiates Mass before 2 million people in Krakow and implores them not be afraid of a declining Communist power.  Two years later, the Solidarity Movement begins.  A decade later, the Berlin Wall falls.  Six years after death, Pope John Paul II will be beatified and only one more person needs to come forward with a miracle, which occurred after his death, to canonize him as St. Pope John Paul II. 

Example 2, with the Cold War at its peak, we need to end the Schism with the Eastern Churches (especially Russia under the Communist thumb) - let's elect Cardinals who know a little bit about the Eastern Churches and trick them into unifying with us, under us.  As a result ... one Pope lifted the anathemas in 1964 and the current Pope has expanded discussions with the Orthodox about "global protos" forcing the Orthodox to quickly convene "Episcopal Assemblies" because the Russian Orthodox stormed out of Ravenna in 2007.

Yup, the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the Roman Catholic Church.   ;)

That seems about right.  Look at the historical circumstances throughout the various ages of the Papacy.  If there wasn't some connection between the previous pontiff and the succeeding one, or with kingdoms with which Rome was embroiled with, there was some sort of background of the elected who would be the best choice in dealing with particular issues.  I mean really...ever hear of the "chair warming pope"?  I'm sure it's the Lord who is just looking to select someone to make appearances!
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 04:07:38 PM
I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process. 

So there's no truth here of any sort except of your own personal assertions and assumptions.

At least some Orthodox representatives are willing to listen to what the Church has to say about herself rather than dictating.  I am sure when they begin dictating things will bog down in the bilateral discussions.  Till then I am hopeful that hearts and ears are open...not your own of course, I realize but you aren't in charge so I don't much care.

M.


And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.
Your magisterium claims otherwise
First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.


1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.


9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema
.

Now when Blessed John Paul II

did they make that official?
was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.
Good! Now we have someone who can tell us when the supreme pontiff speaks "ex cathedra."


Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 04:12:57 PM
Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Not a good example - there were no women among the 12 and the 70 Disciples.  Jesus did not select his women disciples; women accepted Jesus as the Son of God and voluntarily followed him.


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You really don't get it do you.  This is PRECISELY WHY it is a good example. 

There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 22, 2011, 04:18:38 PM
You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.  

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.  
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 04:59:01 PM
You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.  

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.  

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 22, 2011, 05:12:43 PM
Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Not a good example - there were no women among the 12 and the 70 Disciples.  Jesus did not select his women disciples; women accepted Jesus as the Son of God and voluntarily followed him.


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You really don't get it do you.  This is PRECISELY WHY it is a good example. 

I bet that most Roman (Eastern) Catholic women do not know who is their local Bishop or Archbishop; however, they all know who the current Pope is.
 
There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

If these Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars "got it", the Orthodox representatives to the last 3 dialogues between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have signed the Agreed Statements.  You have seen why the Orthodox representatives haven't signed the last 3 dialogues because there are far more Orthodox Hierarchs who don't "get it" than cozy friends to Roman Catholicism like Met. Zizoulas.  I'm waiting for Met. Zizoulas to join Rome like the other "sell outs"1 did in 1595, 1646.

1 sell out (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sell+out) - one who betrays a cause for personal advancement.

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 22, 2011, 05:33:36 PM
You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that. 

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this. 

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

Clarify? 
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 05:40:17 PM
I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

My agenda is to defend the purity of the Orthodox Faith.  It is only to pull up Ultramontanism by the roots, so its weeds won''t grow back, that I am concerned with the Vatican process.

So there's no truth here of any sort except of your own personal assertions and assumptions.

To those who have ears, let them hear!

Hear the silence of how the Holy Spirit speaks for the Church through the supreme pontiff outside the sacraments!

At least some Orthodox representatives are willing to listen to what the Church has to say about herself rather than dictating.
 
Pastor Aeternas was dictated. Some of us hear it loud and clear.

I am sure when they begin dictating things will bog down in the bilateral discussions.
We don't share your fears.
Till then I am hopeful that hearts and ears are open...not your own of course, I realize but you aren't in charge so I don't much care.
My heart belongs to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not interested in another Church on the side.

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 05:41:49 PM
You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.  

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.  

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.
who's fighitng? Petition whom? And petition for what?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 05:55:07 PM
I bet that most Roman (Eastern) Catholic women do not know who is their local Bishop or Archbishop; however, they all know who the current Pope is.
 
There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

If these Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars "got it", the Orthodox representatives to the last 3 dialogues between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have signed the Agreed Statements.  You have seen why the Orthodox representatives haven't signed the last 3 dialogues because there are far more Orthodox Hierarchs who don't "get it" than cozy friends to Roman Catholicism like Met. Zizoulas.  I'm waiting for Met. Zizoulas to join Rome like the other "sell outs"1 did in 1595, 1646.

1 sell out (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sell+out) - one who betrays a cause for personal advancement.

You would lose that bigoted chest thumping bet by a land slide.

It is not time to sign agreed statements yet.  Remember Rome has unilaterally rejected one of them already.  There are still many things to discuss but it is clear that Orthodoxy has a few internal issues that need to be settled first, and from there, depending upon the intra-Orthodox conclusions, we can either move forward to the next phase, or not...

I also think you under estimate your Patriarchs...or over estimate them depending on perspectives.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 05:57:04 PM
I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

My agenda is to defend the purity of the Orthodox Faith.  It is only to pull up Ultramontanism by the roots, so its weeds won''t grow back, that I am concerned with the Vatican process.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

From what I've seen so far, you can't even find its roots!!

Besides Jesus told us to leave the tares, so even if you are correct, who then are YOU working for?... :laugh:
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 09:09:11 PM
I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

My agenda is to defend the purity of the Orthodox Faith.  It is only to pull up Ultramontanism by the roots, so its weeds won''t grow back, that I am concerned with the Vatican process.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

From what I've seen so far, you can't even find its roots!!
We have some salve for your eyes.

Besides Jesus told us to leave the tares, so even if you are correct, who then are YOU working for?... :laugh:
The sower of the good wheat.  Is your question another tare for the good soil of Orthodoxy?

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 09:22:31 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.  

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.

Dear Mary,

I have visited your blog -very nice-  but I could find no reference to any of this Nazi stuff.  Could you give a direct link?

http://irenikontheskete.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 09:30:37 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.  

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.

Dear Mary,

I have visited your blog -very nice-  but I could find no reference to any of this Nazi stuff.  Could you give a direct link?

http://irenikontheskete.blogspot.com/

Leave it.  The links are here on the forum.  Some century somebody will find them and ask about them.  It can wait.  I generally don't play the game this way and I am upset with myself that I yielded to the temptation.  There is a video by someone who has done some work on neo-Nazis in Russia and I think that the clerics are in his videos.  It's not something to be used as a pawn in an Internet argument.  It is actually a very brutally realpolitik.  We should pray...not carp at one another over it or using it as a battering ram...
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 09:32:49 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.



As Wyatt says (I'm paraphrasing here) .... if people don't manufacture reasons to hate and despised Orthodoxy then they have no reason not to join it.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 09:35:29 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.



As Wyatt says (I'm paraphrasing here) .... if people don't manufacture reasons to hate and despised Orthodoxy then they have no reason not to join it.

Oh!! A modern day sword...<smile>...Join us or Hate us!!

Puts me off both, frankly.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 09:40:02 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage. 

I understood that your heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) but I've seen next to nothing of any manifestation of that.  Everything you write indicates that you are simply a run of the mill Roman Catholic
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 09:54:27 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage. 

I understood that your heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) but I've seen next to nothing of any manifestation of that.  Everything you write indicates that you are simply a run of the mill Roman Catholic

You are always welcome to my home.  There you will find what you think you already know.  It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me, but come...and see.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2011, 09:55:05 PM
I bet that most Roman (Eastern) Catholic women do not know who is their local Bishop or Archbishop; however, they all know who the current Pope is.
 
There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

If these Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars "got it", the Orthodox representatives to the last 3 dialogues between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have signed the Agreed Statements.  You have seen why the Orthodox representatives haven't signed the last 3 dialogues because there are far more Orthodox Hierarchs who don't "get it" than cozy friends to Roman Catholicism like Met. Zizoulas.  I'm waiting for Met. Zizoulas to join Rome like the other "sell outs"1 did in 1595, 1646.

1 sell out (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sell+out) - one who betrays a cause for personal advancement.

You would lose that bigoted chest thumping bet by a land slide.

Are you betting?

It is not time to sign agreed statements yet.

They have already been signed:1274, 1439, 1595, 1646, 1700... Duress not being what it once was, I wouldn't expect any more forthcoming.

Remember Rome has unilaterally rejected one of them already.

It has been rejected by plenty on the Orthodox side.  I know that they don't count for you, but then, as long as the sovereign of Vatican city refuses to confess the Orthodox Faith, his approval or rejection counts for nothing.

There are still many things to discuss but it is clear that Orthodoxy has a few internal issues that need to be settled first,
Yes. We're discussing that here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.msg477983.html#msg477983

and from there, depending upon the intra-Orthodox conclusions, we can either move forward to the next phase, or not...
Quote
Orthodox Bishop's Council of Italy and Malta
A second meeting

Final Press


1. The second meeting of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in Italy and Malta took place in Venice (Italy), on Monday 31 May 2010, at the Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy and Malta under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadius attended (Ecumenical Patriarchate), His Eminence Archbishop Innocent (Moscow Patriarchate), Bishop Reverend Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) and Eminence Galaction (Bulgarian Patriarchate) [the delegation].

2. Internal Regulation of the Council was discussed Orthodox Bishop in Italy and Malta (CEOIM). Among the objectives CEOIM remember

a) to preserve and contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church in Italy and Malta, according to Faith, Tradition and his Doctrine

b) coordinate all activities of common interest (pastoral, catechetical, liturgical, social work, publishing, communication, education, etc..). All with the fundamental purpose of serving man for the Lord was born, was crucified and resurrected.

3. It recognized the need to continue the "fraternal dialogue" with other churches and Christian reality, and all people of good faith, the essential prerequisite for theological dialogue, aiming to make a Christian contribution to solving social problems common in Italy and Malta .

Venice, May 31, 2010

His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadius (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
His Eminence Archbishop Innocent (Moscow Patriarchate)
His Grace Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate)
His Eminence Metropolitan Galaction (Bulgarian Patriarchate)
http://www.mitropolia.eu/ro/stiri/98/consiliul-episcopal-ortodox-din-italia-si-malta-(venetia-italia).htm

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 09:56:41 PM

I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process. 


And he is quite correct.

There is no such institution as La Papatia in the Church.

It is an aberration manufactured by the Church of Rome.

It does not come from Christ and the Apostles.

It must be destroyed.

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 10:00:25 PM
I don't hear much about this shared morality stuff from the Catholic side any more.  I expect it is because they realize that there's no way to really separate the faith from being moral.

I bet that most Roman (Eastern) Catholic women do not know who is their local Bishop or Archbishop; however, they all know who the current Pope is.
 
There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

If these Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars "got it", the Orthodox representatives to the last 3 dialogues between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have signed the Agreed Statements.  You have seen why the Orthodox representatives haven't signed the last 3 dialogues because there are far more Orthodox Hierarchs who don't "get it" than cozy friends to Roman Catholicism like Met. Zizoulas.  I'm waiting for Met. Zizoulas to join Rome like the other "sell outs"1 did in 1595, 1646.

1 sell out (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sell+out) - one who betrays a cause for personal advancement.

You would lose that bigoted chest thumping bet by a land slide.

Are you betting?

It is not time to sign agreed statements yet.

They have already been signed:1274, 1439, 1595, 1646, 1700... Duress not being what it once was, I wouldn't expect any more forthcoming.

Remember Rome has unilaterally rejected one of them already.

It has been rejected by plenty on the Orthodox side.  I know that they don't count for you, but then, as long as the sovereign of Vatican city refuses to confess the Orthodox Faith, his approval or rejection counts for nothing.

There are still many things to discuss but it is clear that Orthodoxy has a few internal issues that need to be settled first,
Yes. We're discussing that here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.msg477983.html#msg477983

and from there, depending upon the intra-Orthodox conclusions, we can either move forward to the next phase, or not...
Quote
Orthodox Bishop's Council of Italy and Malta
A second meeting

Final Press


1. The second meeting of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in Italy and Malta took place in Venice (Italy), on Monday 31 May 2010, at the Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy and Malta under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadius attended (Ecumenical Patriarchate), His Eminence Archbishop Innocent (Moscow Patriarchate), Bishop Reverend Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) and Eminence Galaction (Bulgarian Patriarchate) [the delegation].

2. Internal Regulation of the Council was discussed Orthodox Bishop in Italy and Malta (CEOIM). Among the objectives CEOIM remember

a) to preserve and contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church in Italy and Malta, according to Faith, Tradition and his Doctrine

b) coordinate all activities of common interest (pastoral, catechetical, liturgical, social work, publishing, communication, education, etc..). All with the fundamental purpose of serving man for the Lord was born, was crucified and resurrected.

3. It recognized the need to continue the "fraternal dialogue" with other churches and Christian reality, and all people of good faith, the essential prerequisite for theological dialogue, aiming to make a Christian contribution to solving social problems common in Italy and Malta .

Venice, May 31, 2010

His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadius (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
His Eminence Archbishop Innocent (Moscow Patriarchate)
His Grace Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate)
His Eminence Metropolitan Galaction (Bulgarian Patriarchate)
http://www.mitropolia.eu/ro/stiri/98/consiliul-episcopal-ortodox-din-italia-si-malta-(venetia-italia).htm

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 10:01:19 PM
An Irish Witchhunt!!

Fun stuff...


I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process. 


And he is quite correct.

There is no such institution as La Papatia in the Church.

It is an aberration manufactured by the Church of Rome.

It does not come from Christ and the Apostles.

It must be destroyed.

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts. 

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.

Dear Mary,

I have visited your blog -very nice-  but I could find no reference to any of this Nazi stuff.  Could you give a direct link?

http://irenikontheskete.blogspot.com/

Leave it.  The links are here on the forum.  Some century somebody will find them and ask about them.  It can wait.  I generally don't play the game this way and I am upset with myself that I yielded to the temptation.  There is a video by someone who has done some work on neo-Nazis in Russia and I think that the clerics are in his videos.  It's not something to be used as a pawn in an Internet argument.  It is actually a very brutally realpolitik.  We should pray...not carp at one another over it or using it as a battering ram...

Isn't that disingenuous?  You say you have placed it on the Forum.  Why did you place it on the Forum?

Is it really on your Irenikon blog or are you fantasising?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 10:10:31 PM
You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.  

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.  

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

Any chance of you bringing your words into the cold light of reality.

Can you name the Orthodox bishops who have declared they will accept papal supremacy?

Can you name Orthodox bishops who have declared they will accept papal infallibility?

The very most I have seen from the most "liberal" bishops is that they would allow the Pope to appear as the Church's mouthpiece and PR man to the world.

I think you may be in for a shock.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 10:16:26 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage. 

I understood that your heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) but I've seen next to nothing of any manifestation of that.  Everything you write indicates that you are simply a run of the mill Roman Catholic

You are always welcome to my home.  There you will find what you think you already know.  It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me, but come...and see.

You may have icons and Orthodox books in your home but that doesn't come through in any of your writings.  You come across as an everyday Roman Catholic.  There is no Eastern "feel."  And I regret that because this forum needs good representatives of Eastern Catholicism.  Apotheoun is here but he doesn't post  very often.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2011, 10:28:48 PM
It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.

The Serbian Orthodox Church vents, liturgically on the Roman Catholic Church.

I present the following official liturgical texts for St Justin (Popovic) of Celije (+1979), a newly glorified Saint of the Serbian Orthodox Church.  The Service to Saint Justin was composed on the instructions of the Patriarch and Synod of the Serbian Church and approved for use in all Churches.  What is interesting is that Patriarch Irenei is seen as being pro-ecumenical and pro-Roman Catholic and so is a fair proportion of the Synod.  But they still promulgated the liturgical service.

Troparion, Tone 1

Let us honor with splendor the divinely inspired theologian, the wise Serb Justin, who by the scythe of the Holy Spirit hath thrashed the error of atheism and the insolence of the Latins, being a mystic of the God-man and lover of piety, crying out: Glory to Christ Who hath glorified thee, glory to Him Who hath crowned thee, glory to Him Who hath rendered thee a luminary to those who are in a state of darkness.

Kontakion, Tone 1

We proclaim to the faithful the inexhaustible fount conveying the Orthodox doctrines, and an angel-like man full of divine zeal, the divine Justin, the offspring of the Serbs, who by his sound teachings and writings hath strengthened the faith of all in the Lord.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 22, 2011, 10:32:36 PM
Just when I think I'm starting to lean Orthodox...

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.

The Serbian Orthodox Church vents, liturgically on the Roman Catholic Church.

I present the following official liturgical texts for St Justin (Popovic) of Celije (+1979), a newly glorified Saint of the Serbian Orthodox Church.  The Service to Saint Justin was composed on the instructions of the Patriarch and Synod of the Serbian Church and approved for use in all Churches.  What is interesting is that Patriarch Irenei is seen as being pro-ecumenical and pro-Roman Catholic and so is a fair proportion of the Synod.  But they still promulgated the liturgical service.

Troparion, Tone 1

Let us honor with splendor the divinely inspired theologian, the wise Serb Justin, who by the scythe of the Holy Spirit hath thrashed the error of atheism and the insolence of the Latins, being a mystic of the God-man and lover of piety, crying out: Glory to Christ Who hath glorified thee, glory to Him Who hath crowned thee, glory to Him Who hath rendered thee a luminary to those who are in a state of darkness.

Kontakion, Tone 1

We proclaim to the faithful the inexhaustible fount conveying the Orthodox doctrines, and an angel-like man full of divine zeal, the divine Justin, the offspring of the Serbs, who by his sound teachings and writings hath strengthened the faith of all in the Lord.

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 11:03:22 PM
I don't shock easily, Father.

You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.  

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.  

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

Any chance of you bringing your words into the cold light of reality.

Can you name the Orthodox bishops who have declared they will accept papal supremacy?

Can you name Orthodox bishops who have declared they will accept papal infallibility?

The very most I have seen from the most "liberal" bishops is that they would allow the Pope to appear as the Church's mouthpiece and PR man to the world.

I think you may be in for a shock.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 11:04:59 PM
But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...  :D

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Imagine?  All I need do is read this Forum...
wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts. 

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right.  I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.
Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here.  Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here.  So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat.  I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions.  I did not have you in mind.

Dear Mary,

I have visited your blog -very nice-  but I could find no reference to any of this Nazi stuff.  Could you give a direct link?

http://irenikontheskete.blogspot.com/

Leave it.  The links are here on the forum.  Some century somebody will find them and ask about them.  It can wait.  I generally don't play the game this way and I am upset with myself that I yielded to the temptation.  There is a video by someone who has done some work on neo-Nazis in Russia and I think that the clerics are in his videos.  It's not something to be used as a pawn in an Internet argument.  It is actually a very brutally realpolitik.  We should pray...not carp at one another over it or using it as a battering ram...

Isn't that disingenuous?  You say you have placed it on the Forum.  Why did you place it on the Forum?

Is it really on your Irenikon blog or are you fantasising?

Go back and read my post, Father.  I said it was on my Yahoogroup list.  I said nothing about my blog.  That is all in your head Father.  Just another excuse to be nasty.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 22, 2011, 11:06:45 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.
No, it smacks of the Eastern Patristic viewpoint, which holds that all bishops are ontologically equal (See Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter:  Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (http://books.google.com/books?id=hMjoJx8FD2wC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20primacy%20of%20peter%20meyendorff&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false)").

I fear this is not an either/or situation here.  Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.
Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses.  It is not my heritage. 

I understood that your heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) but I've seen next to nothing of any manifestation of that.  Everything you write indicates that you are simply a run of the mill Roman Catholic

You are always welcome to my home.  There you will find what you think you already know.  It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me, but come...and see.

You may have icons and Orthodox books in your home but that doesn't come through in any of your writings.  You come across as an everyday Roman Catholic.  There is no Eastern "feel."  And I regret that because this forum needs good representatives of Eastern Catholicism.  Apotheoun is here but he doesn't post  very often.

You'd have to come and spend some time and see, Father.  I said nothing about my material possessions.  I said you were welcome into my home. 

I leave all the posturing to Todd.  I don't need to do any of that to prove anything to anyone, least of all you. 
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2011, 01:32:41 AM
I don't hear much about this shared morality stuff from the Catholic side any more.  I expect it is because they realize that there's no way to really separate the faith from being moral.

Could it because "shared" morality has become "no" morality because the Holy Spirit fled from corruption a long, long time ago?   ???

No economy - either it's the Pope's way or the anathema way or the "limbo" way?

As an aside, I thought you were based in Oz and not a short drive away....
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 23, 2011, 03:22:55 AM

You are always welcome to my home.  There you will find what you think you already know.  It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me...


I do not wish to be nasty towards you, Mary, and I remember happier days in our correspondence a few years ago.  But I have been scandalised by your attempts to attack Orthodoxy, with allegations about abortion, sexual liberalism, hypocrisy about the Immaculate Conception, etc. As this aspect of your apologetics became apparent to me I realised that what you write needs opposing.  In this respect Fr Ambrose Young has been an eye opener for me since he never allows you to get away with disinformation nor does he allow you to pretend that there is agreement in areas where there is not.  I have learnt from him.

Please forgive me when I oppose you.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2011, 04:00:29 AM
Dear Mary, Is the Holy Spirit keeping you within Catholicism even as the Spirit is leading you somewhere that you are quite afraid to acknowledge - kinda like Jonah didn't really want to go to Nineveh?   ???

Quote
The only parish community offering vesperal services was the local OCA parish, and so I began to attend. That set off an oddessy odyssey that has still not reached its denouement

source (http://irenikontheskete.blogspot.com/p/about-irenikon.html)

Why attack Orthodoxy and Father Ambrose when you attend an OCA Church (which was probably an Eastern Catholic Church once upon a time)? If you no longer attend an OCA Church for Vespers, then the blog needs to be updated.   :)

Why attack Isa and refer to him pejoratively as a "Pope" when you mentioned how you catechized people to the Roman Catholic faith?  Did you use pejorative terms for your catechists when they disagreed with or had questions on Rome's teachings (a cursory glance at RICA websites indicates a focus on Mysteries and not on Rome's teachings during one's cathecumenate ... hence, make them Catholic as quickly as possible and allow the "newly unillumined" to discover how restrictive their new found faith has become? )?   ???

The personal snipes are beneath one who catechizes.   :angel: 
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Apotheoun on January 23, 2011, 06:24:33 AM
I leave all the posturing to Todd.  I don't need to do any of that to prove anything to anyone, least of all you. 
I am not posturing; instead, I am stating my views on the nature of the Church in a sincere and charitable manner.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 23, 2011, 11:27:16 AM
You and I do share this much.  I think it is foolish for the Catholic Church to try and present any kind of united face with Orthodoxy over social or moral issues, as long as this kind of "dialogue" persists among the faithful.  I think the world would laugh at us.  Better not to pretend.

I don't hear much about this shared morality stuff from the Catholic side any more.  I expect it is because they realize that there's no way to really separate the faith from being moral.

Could it because "shared" morality has become "no" morality because the Holy Spirit fled from corruption a long, long time ago?   ???

No economy - either it's the Pope's way or the anathema way or the "limbo" way?

As an aside, I thought you were based in Oz and not a short drive away....
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 23, 2011, 11:32:49 AM
I leave all the posturing to Todd.  I don't need to do any of that to prove anything to anyone, least of all you.  
I am not posturing; instead, I am stating my views on the nature of the Church in a sincere and charitable manner.

I thought about this yesterday, Todd and I hope that you will accept my genuine apology.  I don't mean to speak down to you when I say that over the years I've watched you mature in many ways, and I am proud of you on this Forum in particular for your prudence in selecting the words you use to convey the meaning you hope to convey.  I did not say anything immediately hoping that you would weigh in yourself and then I could write this in reply.

I am much more comfortable living with paradox and accepting things in the Roman rite that may not be precisely the same in the eastern Churches.  I don't see conflict where you do.  I don't interpret many things the way you do.  But you certainly are free to explore and to believe as you believe.  

So I am happy to be able to make this apology and hope that you understand the spirit in which I make it.

Mary
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 23, 2011, 11:37:49 AM
You may be as oppositional as you like in whatever terms you choose.  There is no friendship between us that I seek to preserve.  I forgive you and will continue to push back when you misrepresent me or my Church.


You are always welcome to my home.  There you will find what you think you already know.  It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me...


I do not wish to be nasty towards you, Mary, and I remember happier days in our correspondence a few years ago.  But I have been scandalised by your attempts to attack Orthodoxy, with allegations about abortion, sexual liberalism, hypocrisy about the Immaculate Conception, etc. As this aspect of your apologetics became apparent to me I realised that what you write needs opposing.  In this respect Fr Ambrose Young has been an eye opener for me since he never allows you to get away with disinformation nor does he allow you to pretend that there is agreement in areas where there is not.  I have learnt from him.

Please forgive me when I oppose you.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 23, 2011, 11:46:29 AM
Dear Mary, Is the Holy Spirit keeping you within Catholicism even as the Spirit is leading you somewhere that you are quite afraid to acknowledge - kinda like Jonah didn't really want to go to Nineveh?   ???

No.  There was a time when I considered entering Orthodoxy but I would have been similar to a Father Lev Gillet in so far as he sought to heal what needs to be healed between us.  I would be doing precisely what I do now had I translated into Orthodoxy, using people like Father Lev to press certain points that I press today, and correcting those terrible misapprehensions about the Catholic Church that are endemic in Orthodoxy.  In the light of that desire, I spent many liturgical cycles in an Orthodox parish.  I still see that parish as my home locally for many reasons, also spending time with eastern Catholics and periodically receiving sacraments in a Latin rite parish that is closer to me than any other.  I have severe financial restrictions and sometimes can only afford to drive to someplace away from here two or three times a month, so I am in something of a difficult period and have been for some years.  I take care of an 80 year old mother as well.  I am sure all of this will be used against me here at some point so I will leave it at this for now.

But no.  I have no desire to leave the Catholic Church.  I am where I need to be, in Christ.

Mary
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 23, 2011, 11:49:25 AM
Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Cheers!


Why attack Orthodoxy and Father Ambrose when you attend an OCA Church (which was probably an Eastern Catholic Church once upon a time)? If you no longer attend an OCA Church for Vespers, then the blog needs to be updated.   :)

Why attack Isa and refer to him pejoratively as a "Pope" when you mentioned how you catechized people to the Roman Catholic faith?  Did you use pejorative terms for your catechists when they disagreed with or had questions on Rome's teachings (a cursory glance at RICA websites indicates a focus on Mysteries and not on Rome's teachings during one's cathecumenate ... hence, make them Catholic as quickly as possible and allow the "newly unillumined" to discover how restrictive their new found faith has become? )?   ???

The personal snipes are beneath one who catechizes.   :angel: 
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 23, 2011, 02:53:39 PM
(a cursory glance at RICA websites indicates a focus on Mysteries and not on Rome's teachings during one's cathecumenate ... hence, make them Catholic as quickly as possible and allow the "newly unillumined" to discover how restrictive their new found faith has become? )?   ???

The personal snipes are beneath one who catechizes.   :angel: 

Sigh.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2011, 02:54:28 PM
Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2011, 02:57:23 PM
(a cursory glance at RICA websites indicates a focus on Mysteries and not on Rome's teachings during one's cathecumenate ... hence, make them Catholic as quickly as possible and allow the "newly unillumined" to discover how restrictive their new found faith has become? )?   ???

The personal snipes are beneath one who catechizes.   :angel: 

Sigh.

Are all the relevant Papal Encyclicals and Papal dogmatics discussed in RICA?  I won't get a chance to find out and maybe you can enlighten "unillumined" folks like me?   ???
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 23, 2011, 03:02:05 PM
(a cursory glance at RICA websites indicates a focus on Mysteries and not on Rome's teachings during one's cathecumenate ... hence, make them Catholic as quickly as possible and allow the "newly unillumined" to discover how restrictive their new found faith has become? )?   ???

The personal snipes are beneath one who catechizes.   :angel: 

Sigh.

Are all the relevant Papal Encyclicals and Papal dogmatics discussed in RICA?  I won't get a chance to find out and maybe you can enlighten "unillumined" folks like me?   ???

What is with you and the snippy comments?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2011, 03:02:29 PM
....

But no.  I have no desire to leave the Catholic Church.  I am where I need to be, in Christ.

Mary

As hollow as it may sound to you, I respect what you do for your mother amidst the circumstances you described.  The separation between Orthodox and Catholicism remains vast and may the Lord have mercy on all of us as we carry our crosses and our burdens to whatever awaits us....

Lord have Mercy.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 23, 2011, 04:38:30 PM
....

But no.  I have no desire to leave the Catholic Church.  I am where I need to be, in Christ.

Mary

As hollow as it may sound to you, I respect what you do for your mother amidst the circumstances you described.  The separation between Orthodox and Catholicism remains vast and may the Lord have mercy on all of us as we carry our crosses and our burdens to whatever awaits us....

Lord have Mercy.

It is a grace that she is as strong and alert and capable as she is at her age.  It is a rare privilege to walk this walk with her.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 23, 2011, 04:45:29 PM
Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)
I just finished reading all of Humanae Vitae and I did not see anywhere that stated people will "go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse." Do you have a quote?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ignatius on January 23, 2011, 05:43:55 PM
Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)

So what you would argue is that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these unnatural acts are fully culpable in their sin and thus commit a Mortal Sin cutting themselves off from Sanctifying Grace that extends to them Eternal Life? Is that honestly what you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church teaches?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2011, 08:23:12 PM
Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)
I just finished reading all of Humanae Vitae and I did not see anywhere that stated people will "go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse." Do you have a quote?

It's been thoroughly discussed in the numerous threads on the subject.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2011, 08:25:06 PM
Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)

So what you would argue is that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these unnatural acts are fully culpable in their sin and thus commit a Mortal Sin cutting themselves off from Sanctifying Grace that extends to them Eternal Life? Is that honestly what you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

That is my understanding of Roman Catholic theology.  I do not have to justify it any more than you can justify Orthodox theology on any topic.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 23, 2011, 08:26:59 PM
....

But no.  I have no desire to leave the Catholic Church.  I am where I need to be, in Christ.

Mary

As hollow as it may sound to you, I respect what you do for your mother amidst the circumstances you described.  The separation between Orthodox and Catholicism remains vast and may the Lord have mercy on all of us as we carry our crosses and our burdens to whatever awaits us....

Lord have Mercy.

It is a grace that she is as strong and alert and capable as she is at her age.  It is a rare privilege to walk this walk with her.

My Godfather turns 91 next month and he's still very active in his community.  Every moment spent with my Godparents is a blessing.   :)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 24, 2011, 12:52:46 AM
Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)
I just finished reading all of Humanae Vitae and I did not see anywhere that stated people will "go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse." Do you have a quote?

It's been thoroughly discussed in the numerous threads on the subject.
Ok. So you don't have a quote and you are just pushing misconceptions. Got it.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on January 24, 2011, 12:52:47 AM
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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.


Papist my Brother....are you blind ??? !!!

You have just given me a perfect picture of what the Papacy is ! The "root" or trunk of the beast from which all the heads sprout is not Christ but a dark underbelly thing with no purpose other than to drag us down. The heads are the cardinals, the piercing teeth the disunion they cause in the church. Their colour too is red, and maybe for the same reason...

It is an aberration with no root in the Apostles! This office of "Pope" MUST be destroyed so that the Church can reunite. It must. A year or so ago, a common declaration of sacraments was about to be signed between the ACOE and the RCC (imagine that - the Easternmost Church and Westernmost Church united in sacraments) but then a Cardinal gave the Assyrian Patriarch a letter saying this would mean union with the RCC, submitting to as a cardinal (an insult to Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV !) Obviously this false union did not happen, will NEVER happen. EVER. So close to unity but the Pope ruined it!

Again here, the Orthodox humbly asking for this "Pope" thing to go, be abolished, let the "Papatia" (the pope heresy) be gone, reinstate the Bishop/Patriarch of Rome and end the schism. Pour your energies into ending the office of Pope and starting, blessing the office of Bishop of Rome!

Papist, here is a good depiction of how the Church really is:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Christ_the_True_Vine_icon_%28Athens,_16th_century%29.jpg)

Cease boasting about the falsehood of the Church being "built on Peter" :

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.


-Romans 11:19-21

Saint Paul wrote to the Church of Rome warning them that they could be cutoff. You have a sandy foundation Papist...a "pope". If you donot take nourishment from the root what will happen...? The OC, OO, and ACOE, have another Foundation which is Christ.

'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place--unless you repent.

-Revelation 2:5

Saint Paul wrote of the faith in Rome which was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Romans 1:8). From great heights come great falls. Remember Satan.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 01:34:38 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.


Papist my Brother....are you blind ??? !!!

You have just given me a perfect picture of what the Papacy is ! The "root" or trunk of the beast from which all the heads sprout is not Christ but a dark underbelly thing with no purpose other than to drag us down. The heads are the cardinals, the piercing teeth the disunion they cause in the church. Their colour too is red, and maybe for the same reason...

It is an aberration with no root in the Apostles! This office of "Pope" MUST be destroyed so that the Church can reunite. It must. A year or so ago, a common declaration of sacraments was about to be signed between the ACOE and the RCC (imagine that - the Easternmost Church and Westernmost Church united in sacraments) but then a Cardinal gave the Assyrian Patriarch a letter saying this would mean union with the RCC, submitting to as a cardinal (an insult to Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV !) Obviously this false union did not happen, will NEVER happen. EVER. So close to unity but the Pope ruined it!

Again here, the Orthodox humbly asking for this "Pope" thing to go, be abolished, let the "Papatia" (the pope heresy) be gone, reinstate the Bishop/Patriarch of Rome and end the schism. Pour your energies into ending the office of Pope and starting, blessing the office of Bishop of Rome!

Papist, here is a good depiction of how the Church really is:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Christ_the_True_Vine_icon_%28Athens,_16th_century%29.jpg)

Cease boasting about the falsehood of the Church being "built on Peter" :

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.


-Romans 11:19-21

Saint Paul wrote to the Church of Rome warning them that they could be cutoff. You have a sandy foundation Papist...a "pope". If you donot take nourishment from the root what will happen...? The OC, OO, and ACOE, have another Foundation which is Christ.

'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place--unless you repent.

-Revelation 2:5

Saint Paul wrote of the faith in Rome which was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Romans 1:8). From great heights come great falls. Remember Satan.
Rafa, I am sorry my friend, but I am probably not going to look to your church for theological, or even ecclesiologial guidance, until your church recognizes the danger of its own theological language, which so easily tends towards nestorianism.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 01:52:38 PM
Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)

So what you would argue is that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these unnatural acts are fully culpable in their sin and thus commit a Mortal Sin cutting themselves off from Sanctifying Grace that extends to them Eternal Life? Is that honestly what you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

That is my understanding of Roman Catholic theology.  I do not have to justify it any more than you can justify Orthodox theology on any topic.

Brilliant reasoning.  I can say any untruth about your Church and it becomes true because that is how I understand it.

True genius.  I wish I'd had the coins to do that in my graduate theses.  Would have saved a great deal of time.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Father H on January 24, 2011, 02:21:40 PM
We have already been through the topic of original sin on the carthage thread, and your accusations are demonstrably false.   The Church Fathers of the first millenium mention Hades, not purgatory, so again, your accusations against God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church are demonstrably false. 


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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always. We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: podkarpatska on January 24, 2011, 02:31:53 PM
You and I do share this much.  I think it is foolish for the Catholic Church to try and present any kind of united face with Orthodoxy over social or moral issues, as long as this kind of "dialogue" persists among the faithful.  I think the world would laugh at us.  Better not to pretend.


To what 'dialogue' are you referring? To me it seems that you must be referring to the followers of this board and a few other internet forums. I have had extended and ongoing conversations over the years with both Orthodox and Catholic, Eastern and Western, clergy and scholars and have never been bogged down in such ad hominems and exaggerated polemic that pass for 'discussion' here. Likewise, I have been involved all of my life on the parish and community level with clergy and faithful of my Orthodox parish and others along with Catholics, (both East and West) and have never been in such a discussion where insults and pejoratives are used as rhetorical spears as they are online.

Could it be that hidden behind the walls of relative anonymity within the closed doors of our studies or dens, it is much easier to speak from passions of emotion rather than by expressing true Christian patience, knowledge or understanding?

Like St. Paul says in First Corinthians: "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

To me there is  a whole lot of 'clanging' going on here and little 'love' as envisioned by St. Paul.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 02:47:20 PM
We have already been through the topic of original sin on the carthage thread, and your accusations are demonstrably false.   The Church Fathers of the first millenium mention Hades, not purgatory, so again, your accusations against God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church are demonstrably false.  


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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always. We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
Nope. You have not proven you point on this matter. Some EO posters have engaged in liguistic acrobatics, but that does not change the fact that you did believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and now you don't. <sigh>

Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 02:57:26 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:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AOklvvFRVoY/TRuGrNJ4fGI/AAAAAAAAAJw/Msgqp84dfAs/s1600/hydra2.jpg)
Each Bishop as the head of his diocese.


Papist my Brother....are you blind ??? !!!

You have just given me a perfect picture of what the Papacy is ! The "root" or trunk of the beast from which all the heads sprout is not Christ but a dark underbelly thing with no purpose other than to drag us down. The heads are the cardinals, the piercing teeth the disunion they cause in the church. Their colour too is red, and maybe for the same reason...

It is an aberration with no root in the Apostles! This office of "Pope" MUST be destroyed so that the Church can reunite. It must. A year or so ago, a common declaration of sacraments was about to be signed between the ACOE and the RCC (imagine that - the Easternmost Church and Westernmost Church united in sacraments) but then a Cardinal gave the Assyrian Patriarch a letter saying this would mean union with the RCC, submitting to as a cardinal (an insult to Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV !) Obviously this false union did not happen, will NEVER happen. EVER. So close to unity but the Pope ruined it!
That type of "union" is centuires old. The former ACCE bishop Bawai entered it just recently. So it has already happened, and there is a Chaldean cardinal.

Btw, I think Catholicos Ilya of Georgia is the Easternmost Patriarch.  Mar Dikha is in the Midwest. And there is an Indian Orthodox Catholicos as well.

Again here, the Orthodox humbly asking for this "Pope" thing to go, be abolished, let the "Papatia" (the pope heresy) be gone, reinstate the Bishop/Patriarch of Rome and end the schism. Pour your energies into ending the office of Pope and starting, blessing the office of Bishop of Rome!

Papist, here is a good depiction of how the Church really is:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Christ_the_True_Vine_icon_%28Athens,_16th_century%29.jpg)

Cease boasting about the falsehood of the Church being "built on Peter" :

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.


-Romans 11:19-21

Saint Paul wrote to the Church of Rome warning them that they could be cutoff. You have a sandy foundation Papist...a "pope". If you donot take nourishment from the root what will happen...? The OC, OO, and ACOE, have another Foundation which is Christ.

The ACOE  have veered off that a bit, following Bar Sawma into heresy.

'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place--unless you repent.

-Revelation 2:5

Saint Paul wrote of the faith in Rome which was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Romans 1:8). From great heights come great falls. Remember Satan.

True enough.
(http://www.movements.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/nestorian-expansion.jpg)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 03:20:03 PM
We have already been through the topic of original sin on the carthage thread, and your accusations are demonstrably false.   The Church Fathers of the first millenium mention Hades, not purgatory, so again, your accusations against God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church are demonstrably false.  


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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always. We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
Nope. You have not proven you point on this matter. Some EO posters have engaged in liguistic acrobatics, but that does not change the fact that you did believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and now you don't. <sigh>

Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.
not if it confess an adulterated creed, you're not.

And no, we never had the indulgence system upon which your purgatory depends, and so no, we never believed in purgatory. And no, we subscribed to the Scholastics argument for argument sake which has made your dogmas on Original Sin (the IC, etc.) unrecognizable to the Fathers.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 24, 2011, 03:28:39 PM
Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)

So what you would argue is that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these unnatural acts are fully culpable in their sin and thus commit a Mortal Sin cutting themselves off from Sanctifying Grace that extends to them Eternal Life? Is that honestly what you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

That is my understanding of Roman Catholic theology.  I do not have to justify it any more than you can justify Orthodox theology on any topic.

Brilliant reasoning.  I can say any untruth about your Church and it becomes true because that is how I understand it.

Most of us live by understandings because we do not have the "coins" or the "dice" to really discover the "facts" about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world.

I have many RC friends; I do not discuss theology with them because I don't want to engage in these "clanging of cymbals" discussions as experienced on the Internet.  However, because the Catholics and Orthodox are passionate (yup, that's not a healthy condition) about their stances, the only way to learn about the other's position is to "clang the cymbals" because we can also Praise God through the "clanging of the cymbals" just as Elijah ordered fire down from Heaven to burn the water drenched sacrifices

True genius.  I wish I'd had the coins to do that in my graduate theses.  Would have saved a great deal of time.

Big risks = Big rewards (if one has nothing to lose)   ;)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 03:30:37 PM
We have already been through the topic of original sin on the carthage thread, and your accusations are demonstrably false.   The Church Fathers of the first millenium mention Hades, not purgatory, so again, your accusations against God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church are demonstrably false.  


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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always. We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
Nope. You have not proven you point on this matter. Some EO posters have engaged in liguistic acrobatics, but that does not change the fact that you did believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and now you don't. <sigh>

Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.
not if it confess an adulterated creed, you're not.

And no, we never had the indulgence system upon which your purgatory depends, and so no, we never believed in purgatory. And no, we subscribed to the Scholastics argument for argument sake which has made your dogmas on Original Sin (the IC, etc.) unrecognizable to the Fathers.

Nope. You used to believe in purgatory (and, btw, it's dishonest to say that it depends on indulgences, as it clearly does not) and you believe in real original sin at one point. You souldn't lie about your own history.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 03:31:38 PM
Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)

So what you would argue is that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these unnatural acts are fully culpable in their sin and thus commit a Mortal Sin cutting themselves off from Sanctifying Grace that extends to them Eternal Life? Is that honestly what you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

That is my understanding of Roman Catholic theology.  I do not have to justify it any more than you can justify Orthodox theology on any topic.

Brilliant reasoning.  I can say any untruth about your Church and it becomes true because that is how I understand it.

Most of us live by understandings because we do not have the "coins" or the "dice" to really discover the "facts" about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world.

I have many RC friends; I do not discuss theology with them because I don't want to engage in these "clanging of cymbals" discussions as experienced on the Internet.  However, because the Catholics and Orthodox are passionate (yup, that's not a healthy condition) about their stances, the only way to learn about the other's position is to "clang the cymbals" because we can also Praise God through the "clanging of the cymbals" just as Elijah ordered fire down from Heaven to burn the water drenched sacrifices

True genius.  I wish I'd had the coins to do that in my graduate theses.  Would have saved a great deal of time.

Big risks = Big rewards (if one has nothing to lose)   ;)
Eastern Orthodoxy is not a simple faith at all. It changes to meet the current theological winds. For example, you used believe in Purgatory and Original sin, but now that it's in style to be as anti-Latin as possible you don't. How unfortunate.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 03:38:32 PM
We have already been through the topic of original sin on the carthage thread, and your accusations are demonstrably false.   The Church Fathers of the first millenium mention Hades, not purgatory, so again, your accusations against God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church are demonstrably false.  


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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always. We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
Nope. You have not proven you point on this matter. Some EO posters have engaged in liguistic acrobatics, but that does not change the fact that you did believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and now you don't. <sigh>

Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.
not if it confess an adulterated creed, you're not.

And no, we never had the indulgence system upon which your purgatory depends, and so no, we never believed in purgatory. And no, we subscribed to the Scholastics argument for argument sake which has made your dogmas on Original Sin (the IC, etc.) unrecognizable to the Fathers.

Nope. You used to believe in purgatory
Still sticking to the Hindu historiography, if you repeat the mantra it makes it so, I see.

Quote
(and, btw, it's dishonest to say that it depends on indulgences, as it clearly does not)
Your "Catholic Encyclopedia, under its article "Purgatory" disagrees
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm#VI
and it has this:
Quote
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Quote
and you believe in real original sin at one point. You souldn't lie about your own history.
I don't even lie about your history, though it hurts.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 24, 2011, 03:46:35 PM
Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)

So what you would argue is that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these unnatural acts are fully culpable in their sin and thus commit a Mortal Sin cutting themselves off from Sanctifying Grace that extends to them Eternal Life? Is that honestly what you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

That is my understanding of Roman Catholic theology.  I do not have to justify it any more than you can justify Orthodox theology on any topic.

Brilliant reasoning.  I can say any untruth about your Church and it becomes true because that is how I understand it.

Most of us live by understandings because we do not have the "coins" or the "dice" to really discover the "facts" about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world.

I have many RC friends; I do not discuss theology with them because I don't want to engage in these "clanging of cymbals" discussions as experienced on the Internet.  However, because the Catholics and Orthodox are passionate (yup, that's not a healthy condition) about their stances, the only way to learn about the other's position is to "clang the cymbals" because we can also Praise God through the "clanging of the cymbals" just as Elijah ordered fire down from Heaven to burn the water drenched sacrifices

True genius.  I wish I'd had the coins to do that in my graduate theses.  Would have saved a great deal of time.

Big risks = Big rewards (if one has nothing to lose)   ;)
Eastern Orthodoxy is not a simple faith at all.

Freely you have received; Freely give. (Matthew 10:8 )

When one is received into Roman Catholicism; one is automatically bounded by the IC, by Humanae Vitae, et al. as the price paid upon entering the Catholic Communion.  What is there to give back when one has to obey more canon laws, some of them have automatic and permanent excommunications without recourse via Penance, than civil laws?   ???

Quote
In worldly everyday conversations; we hear the familiar phrase…Nothing is free in life. Now the reality…freedom of any kind is a gift that is presented with a cost of humanity, dignity and the sharing with others. We need not receive a penny for a favor; but await a reward of gratitude and joyful heart of another human being.…!

source (http://goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/outreach/resources/sermons/2006/freelyreceivefreelygive)

It changes to meet the current theological winds.

What theological winds?  St. John Climacus is a Saint in your Church as well ... how many RC Bishops and Popes have we seen falling off the ladder?

For example, you used believe in Purgatory and Original sin, but now that it's in style to be as anti-Latin as possible you don't. How unfortunate.

You state that as fact; hence, I defer to those who can contest that better than I can.   :)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 03:49:56 PM

Most of us live by understandings because we do not have the "coins" or the "dice" to really discover the "facts" about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world.

I have many RC friends; I do not discuss theology with them because I don't want to engage in these "clanging of cymbals" discussions as experienced on the Internet.  However, because the Catholics and Orthodox are passionate (yup, that's not a healthy condition) about their stances, the only way to learn about the other's position is to "clang the cymbals" because we can also Praise God through the "clanging of the cymbals" just as Elijah ordered fire down from Heaven to burn the water drenched sacrifices

True genius.  I wish I'd had the coins to do that in my graduate theses.  Would have saved a great deal of time.

Big risks = Big rewards (if one has nothing to lose)   ;)

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I thought I had something to lose back then...till I lost it all and realized it was nothing after all.

I do understand your perspective with the rest of your comments here.  To a certain extent I think it is a very hopeful observation and one that does acknowledge that many of us who slog through these discussions...bashing and clanging...do so because we have some fundamental love for our respective confessions.  

It is the truly destructive who come in and rip out wheat and tares however, that make it impossible for these exchanges to be anything but toxic,  and that is frustrating and once the frustration is gone, it is simply sorrowful...yet still toxic.

M.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 04:03:32 PM
We have already been through the topic of original sin on the carthage thread, and your accusations are demonstrably false.   The Church Fathers of the first millenium mention Hades, not purgatory, so again, your accusations against God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church are demonstrably false.  


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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always. We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
Nope. You have not proven you point on this matter. Some EO posters have engaged in liguistic acrobatics, but that does not change the fact that you did believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and now you don't. <sigh>

Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.
not if it confess an adulterated creed, you're not.

And no, we never had the indulgence system upon which your purgatory depends, and so no, we never believed in purgatory. And no, we subscribed to the Scholastics argument for argument sake which has made your dogmas on Original Sin (the IC, etc.) unrecognizable to the Fathers.

Nope. You used to believe in purgatory
Still sticking to the Hindu historiography, if you repeat the mantra it makes it so, I see.

Quote
(and, btw, it's dishonest to say that it depends on indulgences, as it clearly does not)
Your "Catholic Encyclopedia, under its article "Purgatory" disagrees
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm#VI
and it has this:
Quote
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Quote
and you believe in real original sin at one point. You souldn't lie about your own history.
I don't even lie about your history, though it hurts.
And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 04:12:24 PM
And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

Don't confuse him.   :)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 24, 2011, 04:50:56 PM
Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   ;)
I just finished reading all of Humanae Vitae and I did not see anywhere that stated people will "go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse." Do you have a quote?

"We affirm in this conference that the deliberate practice of contraception between husband and wife is objectively a mortal sin."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/christ/confatal.txt

-oOo-

2396. "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 04:53:08 PM
We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.

We never believed in original sin in the Augustinian sense. We've always believed in original sin in the Athanasian sense and have never stopped doing so.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 04:57:05 PM
Odd. Elijammaria likes to "talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved... " when it comes to the Vatican's talks with the Orthodox. She gets rather upset when we disagree with her on that.

Precisely the core problem of all these sorts of posts on the site (and even beyond). The Romanists say nice things about us and pretend that we're really close to union, we rebuke this error, and then they go on a contemptuous tirade against us because we dispelled their sugary fantasies.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 24, 2011, 05:00:39 PM

And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.


Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 05:01:00 PM
I asked if Chris' signature about non  recognition of EO clergy is actually the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox. I was told by Father Peter (Coptic Orthodox) that it is not the teaching.

It's been made rather clear in that thread that things are not that simple.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 05:05:13 PM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 05:05:41 PM

And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Here Chick Chick Chick.....
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 05:10:39 PM
You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.  

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.  

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

There is no need for petitions. There is no way that all of the Bishops will sign on to union in the way you are imagining it. All that will need to happen is for the faithful Orthodox laity to remain with the faithful Orthodox Bishops and leave the masses who are joining heresy.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 24, 2011, 05:12:47 PM

And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Here Chick Chick Chick.....

Ah, mockery.  I like that.  Proof that there is no viable answer.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 05:14:26 PM

I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process. 


And he is quite correct.

There is no such institution as La Papatia in the Church.

It is an aberration manufactured by the Church of Rome.

It does not come from Christ and the Apostles.

It must be destroyed.

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.

Very true!!

And all the more meaningful from an OO perspective, IMO.  ;)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 05:15:28 PM
You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.  

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.  

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

There is no need for petitions. There is no way that all of the Bishops will sign on to union in the way you are imagining it. All that will need to happen is for the faithful Orthodox laity to remain with the faithful Orthodox Bishops and leave the masses who are joining heresy.

I am so happy you can read my imagination.  

As for the rest of your scheme, then those who chose to stay with the True Orthodox Church can join the ranks of the basket load of other true Orthodox churches.  What else is new?

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 05:16:21 PM
Just when I think I'm starting to lean Orthodox...

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.

The Serbian Orthodox Church vents, liturgically on the Roman Catholic Church.

I present the following official liturgical texts for St Justin (Popovic) of Celije (+1979), a newly glorified Saint of the Serbian Orthodox Church.  The Service to Saint Justin was composed on the instructions of the Patriarch and Synod of the Serbian Church and approved for use in all Churches.  What is interesting is that Patriarch Irenei is seen as being pro-ecumenical and pro-Roman Catholic and so is a fair proportion of the Synod.  But they still promulgated the liturgical service.

Troparion, Tone 1

Let us honor with splendor the divinely inspired theologian, the wise Serb Justin, who by the scythe of the Holy Spirit hath thrashed the error of atheism and the insolence of the Latins, being a mystic of the God-man and lover of piety, crying out: Glory to Christ Who hath glorified thee, glory to Him Who hath crowned thee, glory to Him Who hath rendered thee a luminary to those who are in a state of darkness.

Kontakion, Tone 1

We proclaim to the faithful the inexhaustible fount conveying the Orthodox doctrines, and an angel-like man full of divine zeal, the divine Justin, the offspring of the Serbs, who by his sound teachings and writings hath strengthened the faith of all in the Lord.


We are not concerned with winning you over to anything but the Truth.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 05:16:48 PM
And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

Don't confuse him.   :)
You mean you'll stop trying to peddle the Kool-Aid?

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 05:17:20 PM

And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Here Chick Chick Chick.....

Ah, mockery.  I like that.  Proof that there is no viable answer.

Proof that it ain't worth the effort...
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 05:19:09 PM
I am so happy you can read my imagination.

I am not claiming to read your mind, I am just keeping in mind all your past references to what you think the union will constitute.

As for the rest of your scheme, then those who chose to stay with the True Orthodox Church can join the ranks of the basket load of other true Orthodox churches.  What else is new?

What will be new is that this one will actually be the True Orthodox Church. None of the "churches" currently commonly calling themselves "True Orthodox" actually are.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 05:20:15 PM
And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

Don't confuse him.   :)
You mean you'll stop trying to peddle the Kool-Aid?

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  

That question has no meaning.  There are all kinds of charisms in the Church.  All of them are real.  Not all of them are sacramental.

So your question needs to be re-done because as it is, it is nonsensical.....EXCEPT...in your mind of course.

But then only you can answer it.

M.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 05:23:18 PM
I am so happy you can read my imagination.

I am not claiming to read your mind, I am just keeping in mind all your past references to what you think the union will constitute.

As for the rest of your scheme, then those who chose to stay with the True Orthodox Church can join the ranks of the basket load of other true Orthodox churches.  What else is new?

What will be new is that this one will actually be the True Orthodox Church. None of the "churches" currently commonly calling themselves "True Orthodox" actually are.

but of course....
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 05:26:25 PM
You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility.  The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter.  That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere.  The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close.  The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light.  Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.  

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon.  In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this.  In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.  

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

There is no need for petitions. There is no way that all of the Bishops will sign on to union in the way you are imagining it. All that will need to happen is for the faithful Orthodox laity to remain with the faithful Orthodox Bishops and leave the masses who are joining heresy.

I am so happy you can read my imagination.  

As for the rest of your scheme, then those who chose to stay with the True Orthodox Church can join the ranks of the basket load of other true Orthodox churches.  What else is new?
Vatican dogma.

What's ancient, tried and true?  The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.

How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor. Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 24, 2011, 05:37:29 PM
Rafa, I am sorry my friend, but I am probably not going to look to your church for theological, or even ecclesiologial guidance, until your church recognizes the danger of its own theological language, which so easily tends towards nestorianism.

Be careful with that attitude: the Holy Spirit blows where it wills and some truth(s) may shine through in even the most heretical of organizations.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 05:43:43 PM
And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

Don't confuse him.   :)
You mean you'll stop trying to peddle the Kool-Aid?

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  

That question has no meaning.

Only because the very idea of a visible head having an invisible succession is itself devoid of meaning.

There are all kinds of charisms in the Church.  All of them are real.  Not all of them are sacramental.
Quote
Sacramental rites are dependent on the Church which established them, and which therefore has the right to maintain, develop, modify, or abrogate them....The Catholic Church, which is the heiress of the Apostles, has always used and maintained against heretics this power over sacramentals. To her and to her alone belongs the right to determine the matter, form, and minister of the sacramentals. The Church, that is, the supreme authority represented by its visible head, alone legislates in this matter, because the bishops no longer have in practice the power to modify of abolish by a particular legislation what is imposed on the universal Church.
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13292d.htm

So the visible head can abolish his office then.

So your question needs to be re-done because as it is, it is nonsensical.....EXCEPT...in your mind of course.

It makes sense only to the thinking.

But then only you can answer it.
If your infaalible visible foundation can't show a visible transmission of this charism, he exposes himself as a foundation of sand.

Quote
Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n. 4, ex St. Augustine, "De Catechizandis rudibus").

Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This will always be possible, because God, grace, and the soul are spiritual beings. God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing with men; the sacraments are not necessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it is known that God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means. This truth theologians express by saying that the sacraments are necessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certain supernatural end we must use the supernatural means appointed for obtaining that end. In this sense the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 4) declared heretical those who assert that the sacraments of the New Law are superfluous and not necessary, although all are not necessary for each individual. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men. Writers on the sacraments refer to this as the necessitas convenientiae, the necessity of suitableness. It is not really a necessity, but the most appropriate manner of dealing with creatures that are at the same time spiritual and corporeal. In this assertion all Christians are united: it is only when we come to consider the nature of the sacramental signs that Protestants (except some Anglicans) differ from Catholics. "To sacraments considered merely as outward forms, pictorial representations or symbolic acts, there is generally no objection", wrote Dr. Morgan Dix ("The sacramental system", New York, 1902, p. 16). "Of sacramental doctrine this may be said, that it is co-extensive with historic Christianity. Of this there is no reasonable doubt, as regards the very ancient days, of which St. Chrysostom's treatise on the priesthood and St. Cyril's catechetical lectures may be taken as characteristic documents. Nor was it otherwise with the more conservative of the reformed bodies of the sixteenth century. Martin Luther's Catechism, the Augsburg, and later the Westminster, Confessions are strongly sacramental in their tone, putting to shame the degenerate followers of those who compiled them" (ibid., p. 7, 8)
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc.  Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?  How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor. Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 05:46:47 PM
I am so happy you can read my imagination.

I am not claiming to read your mind, I am just keeping in mind all your past references to what you think the union will constitute.

As for the rest of your scheme, then those who chose to stay with the True Orthodox Church can join the ranks of the basket load of other true Orthodox churches.  What else is new?

What will be new is that this one will actually be the True Orthodox Church. None of the "churches" currently commonly calling themselves "True Orthodox" actually are.

but of course....
...just like many of those "churches" who call themselves "The Catholic Church" actually are.

Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc.  Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?  How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor. Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 06:12:42 PM


Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"? 

Same way you can tell a sacred and holy man from the daemon possessed...ultimately.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 06:37:34 PM


Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  

Same way you can tell a sacred and holy man from the daemon possessed...ultimately.
So the antipope St. Hippolytus was demons possessed?

Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc.  Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?  How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor. Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 06:42:25 PM


Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  

Same way you can tell a sacred and holy man from the daemon possessed...ultimately.

Same answer.

There is no need to "transmit" any grace of the Holy Spirit.  There are outward signs of some graces and we call them sacraments but they do NOT "transmit" anything.

You have a very legalistic way of looking at the world.  It is not at all Catholic in its ethos.

M.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 24, 2011, 06:44:02 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 24, 2011, 06:49:37 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

Which question? He asks a lot of sarcastic ones. Was there a serious one?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 06:52:59 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

Which question? He asks a lot of sarcastic ones. Was there a serious one?

His question or assertion or suggestion or bully-pulpit essay...makes not sense in any Catholic reality.

But clearly there is at least one Orthodox believer that he's sold on it  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 06:57:15 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?  How many stages are you eligible for per year?  At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?

M.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 07:20:01 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

Which question? He asks a lot of sarcastic ones. Was there a serious one?
Agreed. Its hard to answer his serious questions when they are so mixed with demagoguery that we can't find them.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 07:20:45 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?  How many stages are you eligible for per year?  At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?

M.
LOL. Good questions.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 24, 2011, 07:31:19 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?  How many stages are you eligible for per year?  At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?

Nice try.   ;)  :laugh:  ;)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 24, 2011, 07:34:05 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?  How many stages are you eligible for per year?  At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?

M.
LOL. Good questions.

Stages of theosis?  Yup, you have learned well by daring to impose your automatically granted legalism upon the Orthodox.  Maybe instead of reciting the Creed, All Catholic Cathecumens can memorize between 500 to 1,000 words of their favorite Papal Encyclical in Latin.   ::)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 07:41:04 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?  How many stages are you eligible for per year?  At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?



M.
LOL. Good questions.

Stages of theosis?  Yup, you have learned well by daring to impose your automatically granted legalism upon the Orthodox.  Maybe instead of reciting the Creed, All Catholic Cathecumens can memorize between 500 to 1,000 words of their favorite Papal Encyclical in Latin.   ::)
In the mean time, you can all recite condemnations against the Catholic Church, and argue about which tones are appropriate for certain lines in the Liturgy in Church slavonic, or even better, argue about whether one dare draw an image of God the Father in iconography. Or how about where true Orhtodox sacraments are. Is it "World Orthodoxy"? "True Orthodoxy"? "Non-Ecumenist-Traditionalist-Old-Calander Orthododxy"? Or maybe you can spend your liturgy proving how Orthodox you are by insulting us "graceless, heretical" Latins. I mean, there is just so much fun you can have.  ::)
BTW, You missed Maria's point. She was showing how silly it is to impose a legalism that doesn't exist on another's communion.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 24, 2011, 07:55:40 PM
Quote from: Papist link=topic=32995.msg524379#msg524379 date=1295894840
[/quote
Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.

LOL.  Reminds me of a kid when he gets so steamed up when he looses an argument!!  "IM right and you're wrong!! na na na na na!"

Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 24, 2011, 08:10:37 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?  How many stages are you eligible for per year?  At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?



M.
LOL. Good questions.

Stages of theosis?  Yup, you have learned well by daring to impose your automatically granted legalism upon the Orthodox.  Maybe instead of reciting the Creed, All Catholic Cathecumens can memorize between 500 to 1,000 words of their favorite Papal Encyclical in Latin.   ::)
In the mean time, you can all recite condemnations against the Catholic Church, and argue about which tones are appropriate for certain lines in the Liturgy in Church slavonic, or even better, argue about whether one dare draw an image of God the Father in iconography. Or how about where true Orhtodox sacraments are. Is it "World Orthodoxy"? "True Orthodoxy"? "Non-Ecumenist-Traditionalist-Old-Calander Orthododxy"? Or maybe you can spend your liturgy proving how Orthodox you are by insulting us "graceless, heretical" Latins. I mean, there is just so much fun you can have.  ::)
BTW, You missed Maria's point. She was showing how silly it is to impose a legalism that doesn't exist on another's communion.

1.  I understood exactly what Mary was saying with the compliment.  I was responding to you.   ;)

2.  I'm glad that you vented your frustrations about the Orthodox.  Hope you feel better.   :)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: SolEX01 on January 24, 2011, 08:12:17 PM
Quote from: Papist link=topic=32995.msg524379#msg524379 date=1295894840
[/quote
Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.

LOL.  Reminds me of a kid when he gets so steamed up when he looses an argument!!  "IM right and you're wrong!! na na na na na!"

Papist is a good polemicist and has always had my respect.   :)
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 08:12:53 PM
Quote from: Papist link=topic=32995.msg524379#msg524379 date=1295894840
[/quote
Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.

LOL.  Reminds me of a kid when he gets so steamed up when he looses an argument!!  "IM right and you're wrong!! na na na na na!"


When the original posters says "Stop attacking God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church", you don't think he was doing exactly what you are saying. I was only posting this as demonstration of how silly that is, but I suppose that such subtlety is lost on you.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 08:14:47 PM

And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.



Well, at bare minimum you have demonstrated your absolute lack of understanding when it comes to the doctrine of purgatory. Congratulations.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 08:17:51 PM

And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Here Chick Chick Chick.....

Ah, mockery.  I like that.  Proof that there is no viable answer.
No, it's that your argument is based on such riduclous premises, that it's impossible to answer. "Two million years", Father? Really? It's laughable that it's almost not worthy of a response... almost. Your arguments remind me of when muslims come on this webiste and create all kinds of silly charicatures of Christian doctrine.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Ortho_cat on January 24, 2011, 08:26:43 PM
To the OP:

We can say where the Holy Spirit is, but we cannot say where he is not.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 24, 2011, 08:39:49 PM
Quote from: Papist link=topic=32995.msg524379#msg524379 date=1295894840
[/quote
Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.

LOL.  Reminds me of a kid when he gets so steamed up when he looses an argument!!  "IM right and you're wrong!! na na na na na!"


When the original posters says "Stop attacking God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church", you don't think he was doing exactly what you are saying. I was only posting this as demonstration of how silly that is, but I suppose that such subtlety is lost on you.

Yes, Papist, because you're intelligence is beyond my understanding or grasp.  If only I could 'pontificate' such subtlety on internet forums. 
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 08:43:55 PM
Quote from: Papist link=topic=32995.msg524379#msg524379 date=1295894840
[/quote
Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.

LOL.  Reminds me of a kid when he gets so steamed up when he looses an argument!!  "IM right and you're wrong!! na na na na na!"


When the original posters says "Stop attacking God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church", you don't think he was doing exactly what you are saying. I was only posting this as demonstration of how silly that is, but I suppose that such subtlety is lost on you.

Yes, Papist, because you're intelligence is beyond my understanding or grasp.  If only I could 'pontificate' such subtlety on internet forums. 
You said it, not me.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Hamartolos on January 24, 2011, 08:49:54 PM
Quote from: Papist link=topic=32995.msg524379#msg524379 date=1295894840
[/quote
Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.

LOL.  Reminds me of a kid when he gets so steamed up when he looses an argument!!  "IM right and you're wrong!! na na na na na!"


When the original posters says "Stop attacking God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church", you don't think he was doing exactly what you are saying. I was only posting this as demonstration of how silly that is, but I suppose that such subtlety is lost on you.

Yes, Papist, because you're intelligence is beyond my understanding or grasp.  If only I could 'pontificate' such subtlety on internet forums. 
You said it, not me.

My sarcasm must just be a pinch outside your perception boundary.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 09:21:38 PM
Quote from: Papist link=topic=32995.msg524379#msg524379 date=1295894840
[/quote
Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.

LOL.  Reminds me of a kid when he gets so steamed up when he looses an argument!!  "IM right and you're wrong!! na na na na na!"


When the original posters says "Stop attacking God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church", you don't think he was doing exactly what you are saying. I was only posting this as demonstration of how silly that is, but I suppose that such subtlety is lost on you.

Yes, Papist, because you're intelligence is beyond my understanding or grasp.  If only I could 'pontificate' such subtlety on internet forums. 
You said it, not me.

My sarcasm must just be a pinch outside your perception boundary.
Not likely. Perhaps you missed my point.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 09:27:49 PM

And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.



Well, at bare minimum you have demonstrated your absolute lack of understanding when it comes to the doctrine of purgatory. Congratulations.

That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc.  Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?  How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor. Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 09:30:13 PM

That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

Wow. How embarrassing for you.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 09:32:42 PM

And yet, the doctrine of purgatory still does not depened on indulgences, it's the other way around. But you wouldn't want to bother with thinking now would you?

The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.



Well, at bare minimum you have demonstrated your absolute lack of understanding when it comes to the doctrine of purgatory. Congratulations.

That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc.  Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?  How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor. Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?

None of this makes any sense, in light of what the Catholic Church teaches about herself and the papal office.  It is empty questioning.   Devoid of substance that actually fits any reality concerning the confession to which the questions are addressed.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 09:34:59 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

Answers are easy when you have the Church that has them.

If you belong to an ecclesiastical organization which makes grand claims of certitude but doesn't follow up, you are left with a lot of questions dangling.  And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc.  Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?  How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor. Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 09:36:47 PM

That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

Wow. How embarrassing for you.
I don't care for phlogiston, Atlantis or unicorns. Sorry if you place such importance on them.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 09:38:16 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 09:40:03 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?  How many stages are you eligible for per year?  At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?



M.
LOL. Good questions.

Stages of theosis?  Yup, you have learned well by daring to impose your automatically granted legalism upon the Orthodox.  Maybe instead of reciting the Creed, All Catholic Cathecumens can memorize between 500 to 1,000 words of their favorite Papal Encyclical in Latin.   ::)
In the mean time, you can all recite condemnations against the Catholic Church, and argue about which tones are appropriate for certain lines in the Liturgy in Church slavonic, or even better, argue about whether one dare draw an image of God the Father in iconography. Or how about where true Orhtodox sacraments are. Is it "World Orthodoxy"? "True Orthodoxy"? "Non-Ecumenist-Traditionalist-Old-Calander Orthododxy"? Or maybe you can spend your liturgy proving how Orthodox you are by insulting us "graceless, heretical" Latins. I mean, there is just so much fun you can have.  ::)
BTW, You missed Maria's point. She was showing how silly it is to impose a legalism that doesn't exist on another's communion.
especially when the fish don't know they are wet.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 09:43:15 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.
Ah, more Latin scholasticism.

Given the great autopsy that the Scholastics subjected the Body of Christ to, one would think that they woulld figure out how Christ would attach another visible head to the Body, when the old one died and fell off.  If you belong to an ecclesiastical organization which makes grand claims of certitude but doesn't follow up, you are left with a lot of questions dangling.  And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism, how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc.  Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?  How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor. Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 24, 2011, 10:00:38 PM
That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

Not cool.

And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism,

I know we've done this a few times.

It's not a transmitted charism. It's the nature of having the last word in an infallible church.

There is a long process for the Pope, too. It's a Papal election.

how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  

One acts and preaches against the catholic faith.

If a Pope started preaching Arianism, probably gonna be an anti-Pope.

So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc. Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?

No. He's consecrated a bishop, and then has the last word as nature of his office.

How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  

They don't.

-"invisible church", there is only one Catholic Church, and it's in communion with Rome (that's how you know you're in it)
-"branch theory", same
-"sedevacantism", they may hold an "orthodox" faith, but they are outside the church. Symbolized by the same reason.

You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor.

Because they don't.

Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  

They aren't related.

Visible heads are elected and hold their authority by position in the church. Invisible links are communion, if you don't have communion, you're not in the church.

Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  

Because they aren't attached to the head. They say so themselves.

Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  

Truths that are true in different manners.

Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why?

They rejected their apostolic ordinations. You can't have a grace you reject. Even if this particular priest believes it, they must be ordained... Just in case.

Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders.

They rejected holy orders.

And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?

A pope must be a Catholic. If the Anglican is confirmed a Catholic, and the ordained a RC bishop, then yes.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 10:08:13 PM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.
Ah, more Latin scholasticism.

I was not the one who says that Orthodoxy conveys theosis on the faithful.

All one needs to do is have faith in Orthodoxy...drink the Kool-Aid....and bingo!!...Theosis
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Father H on January 24, 2011, 10:22:49 PM
The Holy Fathers' definition of original sin is not "real" original sin?   We have never believed in Anselmian Thor-like blame of a child for his father's guilt and punishing the child for it.   As already acknowledged, we strongly affirm original sin as upheld by the Church Fathers.  You saying that we do not over and over and over and over and over and over again with absolutely no evidence to substantiate your claims and no refutation of the points already made.   Because you turned Hades into purgatory does not mean that we "originally believed in purgatory."  We uphold the teachings of the Fathers on Hades and still do.   The burdon of proof is on you.  Please substantiate any instance in which Orthodoxy has upheld purgatory as opposed to hades as taught by the fathers.


We have already been through the topic of original sin on the carthage thread, and your accusations are demonstrably false.   The Church Fathers of the first millenium mention Hades, not purgatory, so again, your accusations against God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church are demonstrably false.  


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!
What does different traditions and overlapping jurisdictions have to do with Orthodoxy never changing?

And you are right: the Vatican can't claim that nothing it teaches hasn't changed.
No, I think you misunderstood, as always. We don't change our teachings the way your church stopped believing in Purgatory and Original Sin.
Nope. You have not proven you point on this matter. Some EO posters have engaged in liguistic acrobatics, but that does not change the fact that you did believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and now you don't. <sigh>

Oh, and by the way, the God's Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church to which I belong, not yours.
not if it confess an adulterated creed, you're not.

And no, we never had the indulgence system upon which your purgatory depends, and so no, we never believed in purgatory. And no, we subscribed to the Scholastics argument for argument sake which has made your dogmas on Original Sin (the IC, etc.) unrecognizable to the Fathers.

Nope. You used to believe in purgatory (and, btw, it's dishonest to say that it depends on indulgences, as it clearly does not) and you believe in real original sin at one point. You souldn't lie about your own history.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 24, 2011, 10:31:28 PM
The Holy Fathers' definition of original sin is not "real" original sin?   We have never believed in Anselmian Thor-like blame of a child for his father's guilt and punishing the child for it.  

 :laugh:  Neither did Anselm.  :laugh:

I think you be thinkin' about them protestants!!
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Papist on January 24, 2011, 10:55:04 PM
The Holy Fathers' definition of original sin is not "real" original sin?   We have never believed in Anselmian Thor-like blame of a child for his father's guilt and punishing the child for it.  

 :laugh:  Neither did Anselm.  :laugh:

I think you be thinkin' about them protestants!!
I have noticed this problem. It seems as if few around have read St. Anselm. It reminds of the early-modern philosophers, like Descartes, Hume, and Kant who critiqued the Scholastics, and had very little exposure to what the Scholastics, especially Thomas, said.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 11:25:44 PM
That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

Not cool.

And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism,

I know we've done this a few times.

It's not a transmitted charism. It's the nature of having the last word in an infallible church.

Pastor Aeternus isnt' a mandate for judicial review. It is a manifesto of immunity from error.  According to the Vatican, the infallible Church gathered in Ecumenical Council can't speak infallibly, and PA explicitely denies the supreme pontiff gets his power by acting as the Church's minister. So the charism isn't coming from the church, so where does it come from?

There is a long process for the Pope, too. It's a Papal election.

The last papal election was the first one in which acclamation wasn't a way of getting a pope (though the last time that happened was 1621). Another kink in Dan Brown's plot.  There have been a lot of ways of getting a pope, most of which are now banned.

how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  

One acts and preaches against the catholic faith.

If a Pope started preaching Arianism, probably gonna be an anti-Pope.[/quote]

The Church canonized what the Vatican calls the first antipope, St. Hippolytus.  Pope Dioscoros was canonically elected, and his rival Bonficae uncanonically appointed by Pope Felix IV. But the Vatican denies Dioscorous as an antipope, and claims Boniface as Pope Boniface II. Pope Dioscorus died three weeks later, but still had a reign longer than 4 other popes the Vatican claims now (and one, Stephen, which the Vatican has waivered on.  If it cant' get its list straight, how strong is that chain?).

So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc. Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?

No. He's consecrated a bishop, and then has the last word as nature of his office.

You've had pope-elects die before consecration (including the Pope Stephen II, upon which the Vatican goes back and forth on, a problem as Pope Stephen II made some dogmatic and canonical acts in enforcing clerical celibacy, which he signed "Pope Stephen the nineth," thereby acknowleding Stephen as his predecessor.  The Vatican makes lots of claims of deacons and priests exercising the pope's powers as his legate (e.g. deacon Hilary supposedly nullifying the council of Ephesus II, gathered at an Ecumenical Council-and hence necessitating the Council of Chalcedon), why can't the pope elect exercise his own powers, especially as you claim that the pontificate isn't a sacrament, isnt' conveyed by laying on of hands, and the bishop have no share in it.  No explanation how inferiors bless the better, contrary to what scripture says in Hebrews.  No explanition of why, if the pontifiate is not anothe order of the hierarchy, why the elect has to be consecrated a bishop.  I do recall scholastic argument on whether a man not a priest can be consecrated to the episcopacy, but don't recall how the dust settled. If the pontificate is seperate from the episcopate, how does it presuppose it?

How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  

They don't.

-"invisible church", there is only one Catholic Church, and it's in communion with Rome (that's how you know you're in it)
-"branch theory", same
-"sedevacantism", they may hold an "orthodox" faith, but they are outside the church. Symbolized by the same reason.
-the visible head dies, the office becomes defunct, with no visible means of reviving it, so no knowing what you are in-the personal union dies with the pontiff.
-the branches have no visible ties, and the pontifficates have no visible ties, same.
-the sedevacantists hold to the office. The fact that the list of office holders is not consistent shows that that is all you need to do, according to the Vatican.  And even if you accept Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, you are a sedevacantist in between.

You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor.

Because they don't.

Then it died with St. Peter.

Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  

They aren't related.

Yes, they are.  When the visible head dies, who keeps your sui juris churches together, maintains that "subsists in the Catholic Church" glue, and provides that visible foundation claimed to be sine que non of the Church?

Visible heads are elected and hold their authority by position in the church. Invisible links are communion, if you don't have communion, you're not in the church.
Bishops are elected too. But they have to be consecrated for the "office and work" of the bishop to get that authority, according to the Vatican. So no consecration for the office and work of universal communion, you don't have it or a church.

Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  

Because they aren't attached to the head. They say so themselves.

But the office is what counts. You said so yourselves.

Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  
Truths that are true in different manners.
You've yet to explain the manner of the pontificate.

Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why?

They rejected their apostolic ordinations. You can't have a grace you reject. Even if this particular priest believes it, they must be ordained... Just in case.
You reject that the pope has an ordination from the Apostle Peter.  No just in case will due here, as you found your entire church on it.

Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders.

They rejected holy orders.

2000 years and no one has claimed holy orders for the pontiff.

And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
A pope must be a Catholic. If the Anglican is confirmed a Catholic, and the ordained a RC bishop, then yes.
You haven't established why he would have to be consecrated a RC bishop. or any bishop for that matter.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2011, 11:26:45 PM
The Holy Fathers' definition of original sin is not "real" original sin?   We have never believed in Anselmian Thor-like blame of a child for his father's guilt and punishing the child for it.  

 :laugh:  Neither did Anselm.  :laugh:

I think you be thinkin' about them protestants!!
No, Anselm's ilk. The scholastics.
Quote
the appearance of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement. It may be said, indeed, that this book marks an epoch in theological literature and doctrinal development. There are not many works, even among those of the greatest teachers, that can compare in this respect with the treatise of St. Anselm. And, with few exceptions, the books that have done as much to influence and guide the growth of theology are the outcome of some great struggle with heresy; while others, again, only summarize the theological learning of the age. But this little book is at once purely pacific and eminently original. Nor could any dogmatic treatise well be more simple and unpretending than this luminous dialogue between the great archbishop and his disciple Boso. There is no parade of learning, and but little in the way of appeal to authorities. The disciple asks and the master answers; and both alike face the great problem before them fearlessly, but at the same time with all due reverence and modesty. Anselm says at the outset that he will not so much show his disciple the truth he needs, as seek it along with him; and that when he says anything that is not confirmed by higher authority, it must be taken as tentative, and provisional. He adds that, though he may in some measure meet the question, one who is wiser could do it better; and that, whatever man may know or say on this subject, there will always remain deeper reasons that are beyond him. In the same spirit he concludes the whole treatise by submitting it to reasonable correction at the hands of others.

It may be safely said that this is precisely what has come to pass. For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth. In contrast to some of the other views already noticed, this theory is remarkably clear and symmetrical. And it is certainly more agreeable to reason than the "mouse-trap" metaphor, or the notion of purchase money paid to Satan. Anselm's answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all mankind. Many side questions are incidentally treated in the dialogue between Anselm and Boso. But this is the substance of the answer given to the great question, "Cur Deus Homo?". Some modern writers have suggested that this notion of deliverance by means of satisfaction may have a German origin. For in old Teutonic laws a criminal might pay the wergild instead of undergoing punishment. But this custom was not peculiar or to the Germans, as we may see from the Celtic eirig, and, as Riviere has pointed out, there is no need to have recourse to this explanation. For the notion of satisfaction for sin was already present in the whole system of ecclesiastical penance, though it had been left for Anselm to use it in illustration of the doctrine of the Atonernent.
Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Aindriú on January 25, 2011, 01:02:33 AM
That is somewhat like demonstating an absolute lack of understanding of phlogiston, Atlantis and unicorns.

Not cool.

And of course that is the problem with us trying to understand the transmission of the pontificate, which your supreme pontiff claims to be the foundation of the Church, when yourselves are at a loss to explain its transmission.  Odd how the Vatican has a long and complicated process of canonization to show someone is a saint, but no process of showing the transmission f the pontificate.  Since you have no visible means of transmitting that charism,

I know we've done this a few times.

It's not a transmitted charism. It's the nature of having the last word in an infallible church.

Pastor Aeternus isnt' a mandate for judicial review. It is a manifesto of immunity from error.  According to the Vatican, the infallible Church gathered in Ecumenical Council can't speak infallibly, and PA explicitely denies the supreme pontiff gets his power by acting as the Church's minister. So the charism isn't coming from the church, so where does it come from?

This is how PA defines transferring the office. It's given to whomever is made Pope, and succeeds the 'chair of Peter', as the Church's head:
Quote
Chapter 2.
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
http://www.fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

There is a long process for the Pope, too. It's a Papal election.

The last papal election was the first one in which acclamation wasn't a way of getting a pope (though the last time that happened was 1621). Another kink in Dan Brown's plot.  There have been a lot of ways of getting a pope, most of which are now banned.

how can you tell an "antipope" from a "pope"?  

One acts and preaches against the catholic faith.

If a Pope started preaching Arianism, probably gonna be an anti-Pope.

The Church canonized what the Vatican calls the first antipope, St. Hippolytus.  Pope Dioscoros was canonically elected, and his rival Bonficae uncanonically appointed by Pope Felix IV. But the Vatican denies Dioscorous as an antipope, and claims Boniface as Pope Boniface II. Pope Dioscorus died three weeks later, but still had a reign longer than 4 other popes the Vatican claims now (and one, Stephen, which the Vatican has waivered on.  If it cant' get its list straight, how strong is that chain?).[/quote]

St. Hippolytus wrote many orthodox statements, but had his falling out in a period of his life.
Quote
He continued in opposition as antipope throughout the reigns of the two immediate successors of Callistus, Urban (222 or 223 to 230) and Pontius (230-35), and during this period, probably during the pontificate of Pontianus, he wrote the "Philosophumena". He was banished to the unhealthful island (insula nociva) of Sardinia at the same time as Pontianus; and shortly before this, or soon afterward, he became reconciled with the legitimate bishop and the Church of Rome.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm

Pope Dioscoros is more convoluted. But, while popularly elected, the chair was eventually succeeded by Pope Boniface. As far as I understand, Dioscoros didn't do anything against the Church, but was merely a rival with Pope Boniface.

Needless to say the succession of Popes has been "interesting", but so has other Sees. And yet, Rome still somehow maintained the faith... at least until the end of the first millennium.  ;)

So your visible head has no visible means to transmitt the inner grace of infallibility, supremacy, etc. Almighty God has not appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on these particular men?

No. He's consecrated a bishop, and then has the last word as nature of his office.

You've had pope-elects die before consecration (including the Pope Stephen II, upon which the Vatican goes back and forth on, a problem as Pope Stephen II made some dogmatic and canonical acts in enforcing clerical celibacy, which he signed "Pope Stephen the nineth," thereby acknowleding Stephen as his predecessor.  

Quote
On the death of Zachary, a certain priest Stephen was unanimously elected to succeed him (about 23 March, 752); but on the third day after his election, whilst transacting some domestic affairs, he was struck with apoplexy, and expired on the next day. As he died before his consecration, earlier writers do not appear to have included him in the list of the popes; but, in accordance with the long standing practice of the Roman Church, he is now generally counted among them. This divergent practice has introduced confusion into the way of counting the Popes Stephen.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288b.htm

It certainly is confusing. For him to be Pope, though, it's not because of "charism", but because of the office. I would think this is comparable to a cardinal. The cardinal is supposed to be a bishop, but a priest selected may receive permission to remain a priest.

The Vatican makes lots of claims of deacons and priests exercising the pope's powers as his legate (e.g. deacon Hilary supposedly nullifying the council of Ephesus II, gathered at an Ecumenical Council-and hence necessitating the Council of Chalcedon), why can't the pope elect exercise his own powers, especially as you claim that the pontificate isn't a sacrament, isnt' conveyed by laying on of hands, and the bishop have no share in it.  No explanation how inferiors bless the better, contrary to what scripture says in Hebrews.  No explanition of why, if the pontifiate is not anothe order of the hierarchy, why the elect has to be consecrated a bishop.  I do recall scholastic argument on whether a man not a priest can be consecrated to the episcopacy, but don't recall how the dust settled. If the pontificate is seperate from the episcopate, how does it presuppose it?

A man who is to be consecrated a bishop must go through the stages, as far as I've ever heard. It has been traditionally practiced where the man is ordained in succession a day to a few days apart.

There have been some "elects" that have exercised their pontifical power, though. I think it would be seen as improper mostly, for someone to exercise powers before assuming the office, however.

How is is that you can condmen the  "invisible church," the "branch theory," Sedevacantism, over the lack of a visible head?  

They don't.

-"invisible church", there is only one Catholic Church, and it's in communion with Rome (that's how you know you're in it)
-"branch theory", same
-"sedevacantism", they may hold an "orthodox" faith, but they are outside the church. Symbolized by the same reason.
-the visible head dies, the office becomes defunct, with no visible means of reviving it, so no knowing what you are in-the personal union dies with the pontiff.
-the branches have no visible ties, and the pontifficates have no visible ties, same.
-the sedevacantists hold to the office. The fact that the list of office holders is not consistent shows that that is all you need to do, according to the Vatican.  And even if you accept Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, you are a sedevacantist in between.
-visible head dies, church gets new man to sit in "the seat". A few days without a Pope, doesn't leave people forgetting where they were.
-??? I don't follow how it's the same.
-sedevacantists believe the office is not filled by a valid pope. They accept "the chair", but they think the current holder is an anti-pope. When a Pope dies, the chair is empty, true, but the church fills it.

You have demonstrated no visble means by which your "visible head" who serves as the visiblbe foundation of your ecclesiastical organization transmits that charism to his successor.

Because they don't.

Then it died with St. Peter.

The "chair" still exists.

Since your succession of visible heads have only invisible links to each other, why not invisible links between churches, branches, the empty see, etc.  

They aren't related.

Yes, they are.  When the visible head dies, who keeps your sui juris churches together, maintains that "subsists in the Catholic Church" glue, and provides that visible foundation claimed to be sine que non of the Church?

The Pope doesn't physically hold the church's together, in this way. He is the symbolic head. Being in communion with the chair of Peter (i.e. the Pope), signifies being "in" the Church.

Visible heads are elected and hold their authority by position in the church. Invisible links are communion, if you don't have communion, you're not in the church.
Bishops are elected too. But they have to be consecrated for the "office and work" of the bishop to get that authority, according to the Vatican. So no consecration for the office and work of universal communion, you don't have it or a church.

*taps chin... thinking*

I'll bring PA into it:
Quote
Chapter 3.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
http://www.fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

The Pope is a bishop. That's his consecration. His administrative office is only much higher privileged.

Btw, why should we not take the Sedevacantists as attached to the cathedra Petri, in which case there has been no visible head for decades.  

Because they aren't attached to the head. They say so themselves.

But the office is what counts. You said so yourselves.

The office does count, and they don't think the current officeholder is valid.

Have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments?  You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar.  
Truths that are true in different manners.
You've yet to explain the manner of the pontificate.

I'm sorry, I don't know how else to describe it. Perhaps a RC could explain it better.

Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop,  that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why?

They rejected their apostolic ordinations. You can't have a grace you reject. Even if this particular priest believes it, they must be ordained... Just in case.
You reject that the pope has an ordination from the Apostle Peter.  No just in case will due here, as you found your entire church on it.

?

Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."  So no orders.

They rejected holy orders.

2000 years and no one has claimed holy orders for the pontiff.

Only being a bishop, but a patriarch of patriarchs.


And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands.  If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?
A pope must be a Catholic. If the Anglican is confirmed a Catholic, and the ordained a RC bishop, then yes.
You haven't established why he would have to be consecrated a RC bishop. or any bishop for that matter.

Because the Pontiff is an episcopal position, and is the head of the Roman Church as well as the (R) Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 25, 2011, 01:08:24 AM
The system of indulgences and the Pope's power to deliver people from Purgatory is so erratic that it borders on gross injustice.

Example:

1.  Bill Jones is a mass murderer and goes to the electric chair, and Glory to God, he repented.  His dear old mother is a wonderful and devout old soul and the day after his death she obtains a plenary indulgence for him.   He is sprung from Purgatory at once and enters Heaven.  Only 24 hours in  Purgatory.

2.  The next day Johnny Malloy goes to the chair but he has no old devout mother and no friends interested in obtaining an indulgence and applying it to his soul.... so he has to spend two million years of torment in Purgatory.

You see what I mean, the Pope has set up an iniquitous and rather unjust system.     Worse than that - it makes God Himself appear capricious.
There is so much wrong with this quote and your examples that it is almost too ridiculous to reply to, but since there are no doubt countless people on this forum who likely think this way I feel that I should offer an explanation. First, the Church grants indulgences for various works of piety, and does so by virtue of its power to bind and loose. Secondly, nowhere in the Church's doctrine of purgatory does it specifically explain the nature of Purgatory. It could be a painful fire or it could be simply a cleansing one. I tend to believe the latter, and am perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to do so since the anathema of Trent applies only to those who reject Purgatory, but it says nothing about its nature. Lastly, those examples you gave are pretty silly because the Church constantly remembers in her prayers during the Mass all those dead who have no one to pray for them, so the idea that anyone would spend "two million years" in Purgatory simply because no one they knew prayed for them is beyond absurd. Such people do have prayers being offered for them: the prayers of the Church.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on January 25, 2011, 01:08:24 AM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 25, 2011, 01:57:31 AM
I'm a little short on time, but:
Pope Dioscoros is more convoluted. But, while popularly elected, the chair was eventually succeeded by Pope Boniface. As far as I understand, Dioscoros didn't do anything against the Church, but was merely a rival with Pope Boniface.
How could he do anything against the Church?  He was the canonically elected successor to St. Peter at Rome.

Needless to say the succession of Popes has been "interesting", but so has other Sees.
Not relevant, as no other see claims to be the foundation of the Church.
And yet, Rome still somehow maintained the faith
except when Pope Honorius didn't, while Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem did (Jerusalem has an excellent track record on that too, btw).

... at least until the end of the first millennium.  ;)
Oh, it had its problems before then.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on January 25, 2011, 01:58:32 AM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.
of Antioch.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 25, 2011, 02:20:25 AM
I see Isa has asked the same question numerous times and no one has bothered to compose a reply.

I think Isa's question needs to be included in Cathechism classes for RC's, Eastern Catholics and all other Catholics.  I am inclined to write a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI and see if His Holiness will answer the question.   ;)

How does Orthodoxy convey the grace of the stages of theosis on her faithful?

Throught the Holy Mysteries, the signs of the Life of Christ in His Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apstolic Church.

How many stages are you eligible for per year? 
An infinite number.

At what age can you begin to convey theosis on others?
Depending on which, as soon as you receive them.

I thought as much.

Orthodoxy teaches sola fides then.

Ummmmm...........

Wah?
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on January 25, 2011, 02:26:36 AM
I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.
Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

Clearly certain ways of phrasing our objection have been extreme and not entirely inaccurate. However, the core objection, which I think it is safe to maintain, is that papal supremacy and papal infallibility pervert and diminish what we regard as the fullness of the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ.
It perverts nothing because Christ willed the Church to be built upon the Rock: St. Peter.

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
Title: Re: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?
Post by: deusveritas