OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Convert Issues => Topic started by: LivenotoneviL on November 20, 2017, 12:13:43 AM

Title: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 20, 2017, 12:13:43 AM
Has anyone felt deceived or annoyed or felt like questioning their Faith when one notices the various contradictions in the history of the Church to what Orthodox priests or Orthodox theologians tell you? Or perhaps what you learn about Orthodoxy?

I feel like such a great portion of learning the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism - from the Orthodox perspective - often comes from deceit, and it annoys me.

For example, I've heard about how statues are idolatrous and are an "innovation" by Roman Catholicism, and were never a part of the Tradition of the Church!

Yet.....

(https://theorthodoxlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/stnicholasofmozhaisk.jpg)

(https://theorthodoxlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/stisaaccathedraliconostasis.jpg)

(http://www.sfu.ca/~pabel/Shep2.jpg)
(From the 4th Century)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Vilnius_-_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Holy_Spirit_01.jpg/682px-Vilnius_-_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Holy_Spirit_01.jpg)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1901.htm

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/eusebius-and-christian-images/

Or how "evil" indulgences are by those accursed Roman Catholics!

Yet...

http://www.jameslikoudispage.com/Ecumenic/indulgences.htm
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Absolution_Certificates

Or how "Us Orthodox don't believe there are any Sacraments outside the Church!!!!"

Yet...Saint Augustine...

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/06/28/the-limits-of-the-church-by-fr-georges-florovsky/

Or "We Orthodox don't pray the Rosary! It is a heterodox devotion!"

Yet...

http://www.spokaneorthodox.com/rosary.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Theotokos

Or "We Orthodox don't distinguish between Mortal and Venial Sin! This is a rationalistic distinction!"

Yet...

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_sintypes.aspx


Or "We can't stand that accursed realism in our iconography! I despise that Roman Catholic artwork!!!! I ESPECIALLY HATE HOW THEY PORTRAY GOD THE FATHER IN ICONOGRAPHY HOW DARE THEY hFASKDFHasdKFHASddflshkdflkhas!!!!"

Yet...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Vilnius_-_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Holy_Spirit_01.jpg/682px-Vilnius_-_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Holy_Spirit_01.jpg)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_in_Moscow_06.JPG

https://ryanphunter.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/cathedral_of_christ_the_saviour_in_moscow_04.jpg


Or "We can't possibly receive people by Chrismation!!!! The Roman Catholics are heretics!!!"

Yet at various points in history, the Roman Catholics were received by Chrismation...and under Peter the Great, by just a Confession!

And there are just boggling questions about Orthodoxy in which I just don't flat out know the answer to. Like, how do we know if we are in communion with a heretical Church or not? If a Patriarchate falls into heresy and isn't excommunicated, is the entirety of that one Church damned to hell? I mean, when the Oriental Orthodox broke communion, did they just lose Grace and some ignorant peasant couldn't hypothesize about the difference between Miaphysitism or Dyophysitism? "Sorry God, I didn't know there was a difference between one union in nature and one union in hypostasis!" Did the Russian Orthodox Church lose Grace when the Soviets made it proclaim heresy?

What if the Orthodox Church splits into two; What if like 7/8 of the Orthodox Church falls into heresy? How would we know?

And then there are questions like contraception and divorce. Like, some priests say it is an excommunicatable sin to use condoms inside marriage, and will say it's eternally damnable to use NFP - but some priests will say "go ahead and do it all you want! Just don't do it too much and have kids!" How do we know what is moral and what isn't, on such an important issue? and for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun!

All of this boggles my mind; has anyone experienced doubt when they learn of these things?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 20, 2017, 12:26:36 AM
Another one - "we don't use instruments, like those evil Roman Catholics, who used a Pipe Organ in their liturgy!"

Yet, I've seen several Greek Orthodox Byzantine Liturgies which use a pipe organ - and I've seen some Western Rite Orthodox Liturgies which also use a pipe organ!

And then there is the absolute CRUSADE against "Scholasticism" in Theology, yet nobody - NOBODY - has been able to yet distinguish between John of Damascus, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, and the Cappadocian Fathers and how they differed in their methodology and use of logic with Thomas Aquinas.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 20, 2017, 12:28:58 AM
Yeah, there's inconsistencies. I'm sure you could find inconsistencies in Catholicism as well, though. I don't think it's a reason to doubt, all churches are filled with fallible people. It is a reason not to be really cavalier and triumphalist.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 20, 2017, 12:32:44 AM
But I feel like a lot of the deceit is so upfront and available on the internet to the point that it is really frustrating.

https://oca.org/questions/sacramentconfession/sin
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/the-rosary
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/indulgences
https://oca.org/questions/liturgicarts/images-of-god
http://antiochian.org/icons-eastern-orthodoxy
https://oca.org/questions/parishlife/musical-instruments
http://classicalchristianity.com/2015/03/22/on-valid-sacraments-outside-the-church/
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RobS on November 20, 2017, 12:35:33 AM
"Scholasticism" in Theology, yet nobody - NOBODY - has been able to yet distinguish between John of Damascus, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, and the Cappadocian Fathers and how they differed in their methodology and use of logic with Thomas Aquinas.
On this I agree. What is St. John Damascene's "Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith" nothing more than a proto-Summa Theologiae?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RobS on November 20, 2017, 12:36:38 AM
Yeah, there's inconsistencies.
What inconsistencies do you find meaningful? Or stumbling blocks?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 20, 2017, 12:39:37 AM
But I feel like a lot of the deceit is so upfront and available on the internet to the point that it is really frustrating.

https://oca.org/questions/sacramentconfession/sin
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/the-rosary
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/indulgences
https://oca.org/questions/liturgicarts/images-of-god
http://antiochian.org/icons-eastern-orthodoxy

I wouldn't call it deceit, that's going a bit too far. Everybody makes overextended arguments sometimes.

Most of the things you mentioned above were pretty limited in extent historically, anyway, and a lot of Orthodox arguments are based on majority use over time. Yes, it would be nice if the various polemicists acknowledged the anomalous in their arguments more often, but I don't think that's necessarily out of a desire to deceive just a tendency to consider all customs at variance with one's own reasoning to have been more or less local errors.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 20, 2017, 12:42:16 AM
But I feel like a lot of the deceit is so upfront and available on the internet to the point that it is really frustrating.

https://oca.org/questions/sacramentconfession/sin
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/the-rosary
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/indulgences
https://oca.org/questions/liturgicarts/images-of-god
http://antiochian.org/icons-eastern-orthodoxy

I wouldn't call it deceit, that's going a bit too far. Everybody makes overextended arguments sometimes.

Most of the things you mentioned above were pretty limited in extent historically, anyway, and a lot of Orthodox arguments are based on majority use over time. Yes, it would be nice if the various polemicists acknowledged the anomalous in their arguments more often, but I don't think that's necessarily out of a desire to deceive just a tendency to consider all customs at variance with one's own reasoning to have been more or less local errors.

So, are we going to say that Saint Seraphim Sarov (on the Rosary), Saint John Chrysostom and Eusebius (on Statues), and Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite (on the Categories of Sin) are all in error when they wrote / practiced these things?

Call it prejudice from my Roman Catholic background, but like all of these things were essentially shoved down my throat on what I have to reject and what I have to keep - most of the above mentioned in the former category - and I find it bothersome that such practices were completely acceptable by essentially the entirety of the Church at various points in history (statues, "absolution certificates" which were confirmed by all the Patriarchs [read the Orthodox Wiki article when it comes back up], and the Rosary)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 20, 2017, 12:44:05 AM
Quote
And there are just boggling questions about Orthodoxy in which I just don't flat out know the answer to. Like, how do we know if we are in communion with a heretical Church or not? If a Patriarchate falls into heresy and isn't excommunicated, is the entirety of that one Church damned to hell? I mean, when the Oriental Orthodox broke communion, did they just lose Grace and some ignorant peasant couldn't hypothesize about the difference between Miaphysitism or Dyophysitism? "Sorry God, I didn't know there was a difference between one union in nature and one union in hypostasis!" Did the Russian Orthodox Church lose Grace when the Soviets made it proclaim heresy?

What if the Orthodox Church splits into two; What if like 7/8 of the Orthodox Church falls into heresy? How would we know?

And then there are questions like contraception and divorce. Like, some priests say it is an excommunicatable sin to use condoms inside marriage, and will say it's eternally damnable to use NFP - but some priests will say "go ahead and do it all you want! Just don't do it too much and have kids!" How do we know what is moral and what isn't, on such an important issue? and for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun!

Enter Isa talking about annulment "Corban factories"...

Basic Papal Supremacy/Infallibility and Catholic social stuff that has been argued on these boards ad nauseum. It doesn't seem fair to include all that in a list of uniquely Orthodox inconsistencies.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 20, 2017, 12:45:27 AM
Quote
And there are just boggling questions about Orthodoxy in which I just don't flat out know the answer to. Like, how do we know if we are in communion with a heretical Church or not? If a Patriarchate falls into heresy and isn't excommunicated, is the entirety of that one Church damned to hell? I mean, when the Oriental Orthodox broke communion, did they just lose Grace and some ignorant peasant couldn't hypothesize about the difference between Miaphysitism or Dyophysitism? "Sorry God, I didn't know there was a difference between one union in nature and one union in hypostasis!" Did the Russian Orthodox Church lose Grace when the Soviets made it proclaim heresy?

What if the Orthodox Church splits into two; What if like 7/8 of the Orthodox Church falls into heresy? How would we know?

And then there are questions like contraception and divorce. Like, some priests say it is an excommunicatable sin to use condoms inside marriage, and will say it's eternally damnable to use NFP - but some priests will say "go ahead and do it all you want! Just don't do it too much and have kids!" How do we know what is moral and what isn't, on such an important issue? and for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun!

Enter Isa talking about annulment "Corban factories"...

Basic Papal Supremacy/Infallibility and Catholic social stuff that has been argued on these boards ad nauseum. It doesn't seem fair to include all that in a list of uniquely Orthodox inconsistencies.

You want inconsistency? Compare the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent to Vatican II. Or compare Vigilius and Honorius to Vatican I.

But these Orthodox inconsistencies are things which I generally have come up by myself, and I'm annoyed by them.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RobS on November 20, 2017, 12:45:44 AM
I believe the nuns at the Diyeevo monastery in Russia still do hail Mary's.

There's some other Western influence like the icons of Extreme Humility and Softener of Hearts. I think they are beautiful icons (I have both in my prayer corner).
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RobS on November 20, 2017, 12:49:22 AM
Quote
and for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun

Or St John Kronstadt defrauding his wife by not having sex.

But I'm not convinced any of the stuff you have posted has defiled the faith.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 20, 2017, 12:52:02 AM
But I feel like a lot of the deceit is so upfront and available on the internet to the point that it is really frustrating.

https://oca.org/questions/sacramentconfession/sin
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/the-rosary
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/indulgences
https://oca.org/questions/liturgicarts/images-of-god
http://antiochian.org/icons-eastern-orthodoxy

I wouldn't call it deceit, that's going a bit too far. Everybody makes overextended arguments sometimes.

Most of the things you mentioned above were pretty limited in extent historically, anyway, and a lot of Orthodox arguments are based on majority use over time. Yes, it would be nice if the various polemicists acknowledged the anomalous in their arguments more often, but I don't think that's necessarily out of a desire to deceive just a tendency to consider all customs at variance with one's own reasoning to have been more or less local errors.

So, are we going to say that Saint Seraphim Sarov (on the Rosary), Saint John Chrysostom and Eusebius (on Statues), and Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite (on the Categories of Sin) are all in error when they wrote / practiced these things?

Why not (also, general scholarly consensus is that Eusebius was mistaken about that statue)? It's not like they would be heretics if they were wrong about something like that. Regardless, it's not like it's hard to find Orthodox who argue for those things. Do Catholics ever disagree on doctrine (rhetorical question)? Heck, some of them can't even agree on whether the Pope is a heretic or not.

Also, it's not as though Orthodox arguments against statues or indulgences are just based on simple appeals to tradition. Indulgences, for example, don't really make a lot of sense in Orthodox theology as far as I can tell since there's no temporal purgatory to buy your way out of. And even if there was, again, it's not like the Catholic Church even sells them anymore.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: rakovsky on November 20, 2017, 12:54:28 AM
Even if we would disagree with Orthodoxy on those objections, there is still the crucial problem of unilateral papal supremacy and papal infallibility. Orthodox cant accept those claims because it would spell the end of any orthodox objections to Rome. If we accept that the Pope is our bishops bishop and infallible ex cathedra, we have to give up every single theological objection. It would not be a merger or reunion, but a relationship of total domination and surrender.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 20, 2017, 01:08:58 AM
Quote
and for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun

Or St John Kronstadt defrauding his wife by not having sex.

But I'm not convinced any of the stuff you have posted has defiled the faith.

Believe me, Roman Catholic saints (from my knowledge) aren't much better;
like Francis of Assisi stealing his father's clothes from the shop and selling them to rebuild churches and give to the poor, which got him (his father) reasonably angry; and Francis just kind of running away, saying "sorry, gotta become a monastic!"
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Lepanto on November 20, 2017, 04:30:08 AM
The inconsistencies you mentioned let you hesitate - as they should.
On the other hand, as you mentioned, it is not as if there were no inconsistencies within the Catholic church.

What does this mean? Is there no longer any church which possesses the fullness of truth?
This is a thought that crossed my mind in the past. Could it be that at some point in history,
the church kind of lost its way, split up and essentially vanished?

As you know, this is not possible as Christ himself promised that the church would not perish -
"et portae inferi not praevalebunt eam".
I take HIM at HIS word!

Anyway, could it be that giving up on the outer sign of unity (the bishop of Rome) is bound
to lead to ever more division?


Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on November 20, 2017, 06:24:57 AM
Don’t confuse braindead modern pop Orthodox apologetics with Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: William T on November 20, 2017, 07:05:17 AM
If you learn a new subject,  switch from one trade to another, visit a foreign country for a long time,  listen to a coach teaching you a sport,  look at any sophisticated and functioning legal apparatus, study any life science or whatever....they are always going to sound contradictory if you only have a brief or superficial grasp of them.  I don't think anyone should expect anything else from a sophisticated and developed religion that has roots all the way back to Abraham. If you can practice patience leaning a new job,  or moving to a new location this ought be given at least that kind of respect.

Besides check the qualifications of someone handing out general statements as if they're gospel and the third greatest commandment Christ gave .   If they seem hardline about it,  and it's just one random dude on the internet,  who cares? That should at least send off yellow flags.   They're may be some truth in the things stated,  but you have to let these things unfold and get the context.   If all else fails,  just ask  li your priest.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 20, 2017, 07:59:56 AM
The inconsistencies you mentioned let you hesitate - as they should.
On the other hand, as you mentioned, it is not as if there were no inconsistencies within the Catholic church.

What does this mean? Is there no longer any church which possesses the fullness of truth?
This is a thought that crossed my mind in the past. Could it be that at some point in history,
the church kind of lost its way, split up and essentially vanished?

As you know, this is not possible as Christ himself promised that the church would not perish -
"et portae inferi not praevalebunt eam".
I take HIM at HIS word!

Anyway, could it be that giving up on the outer sign of unity (the bishop of Rome) is bound
to lead to ever more division?

Could it be that the outer sign of unity never really was one, or at least hasn't been in any meaningful sense since at least Vat II?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LizaSymonenko on November 20, 2017, 11:31:09 AM

Focus on the core of the Faith, not the outer garments.

You will find "differences" between two parishes located on the same street...and yet, they are both fully Orthdodox.

The Canons were written to preserve the Church and safeguard her from threats which were present at that time in the history of the world.  We were told not to frequent Jewish physicians, because at the time, when Christianity was still in its infancy, and Christians were persecuted...a Jew would have most likely tried to get the Christian to reject Christ.  While that can still happen...it is less likely in today's society.

Same with statues.  There existed "statues" (engraved/embossed) per God's direction on the Ark of the Covenant, however, they are used as decoration or embellishment and not to be worshiped or prayed to.  Having an angel embossed on an ikonostas is different than bowing to a statue of Krishna.

What I am trying to say is that over the years "styles" have come and gone.  The Baroque style church sited above, reflects the style of the day, and Western influence of the time.  Was it canonically correct?  No.  Did it lead to idol worship?  No. 

You have to remember, that historically, many churches were built by the faithful, who perhaps didn't even know the canon law...but, built what they thought was beautiful for God.  They did not have all the books we have, no Internet on which to research and discuss things....they did the best they could.

Even today...no two parishes will be identical.  Not in "look", not in "practice". 

But, this is all surface stuff....the teachings all remain the same.

Whether there are pews, women with covered heads, embroideries on icons, embossed gilded angels, etc....the Sacraments are to be found there....and Christ is there. 

Don't let the shiny stuff distract you.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on November 20, 2017, 11:49:44 AM
Don’t confuse braindead modern pop Orthodox apologetics with Orthodoxy.

+1

A lot of it is marketing, not evangelisation.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ErmyCath on November 20, 2017, 11:54:00 AM
To borrow an Aristotelian/Thomistic distinction, perhaps you could question whether the inconsistencies pertain to the substance or the accidents. Presumably, what you should find most bothersome are perceived inconsistencies in substance, the dogmatic and doctrinal. How the substance of the faith manifests itself concretely over time and will always be inconsistent because the faith must be conveyed and lived in a concrete time and place.

Where the substance of the faith changes, though, there is a real problem. Consider that Roman Catholicism argues that the faith affirmatively develops over time. For example, scholasticism is based on the idea that the philosopher-theologians in medieval universities were better equipped to elaborate the faith than were the apostles. Not only does this supposition explain the difference between St. John's Exact Exposition and later scholastic writings, which you specifically referenced, but it provides an overall framework for evaluating the differences between the two.

Perhaps it would be good to consider the question who seems more concerned about innovations. There will always be individuals and groups seeking to introduce some novelty. Which do you think does a more consistent job of rejecting novelty, both at the present and historically: Orthodoxy or Catholicism?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Antonis on November 20, 2017, 12:26:08 PM
Don’t confuse braindead modern pop Orthodox apologetics with Orthodoxy.

+1

A lot of it is marketing, not evangelisation.
+2
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 20, 2017, 12:41:53 PM
Quote
For example, scholasticism is based on the idea that the philosopher-theologians in medieval universities were better equipped to elaborate the faith than were the apostles. Not only does this supposition explain the difference between St. John's Exact Exposition and later scholastic writings, which you specifically referenced, but it provides an overall framework for evaluating the differences between the two.

I don't know how you could possibly prove that. Might as well say that St. Justin Martyr or Pseudo-Dionysius thought themselves better expositors than the Apostles.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: DeniseDenise on November 20, 2017, 12:44:04 PM
annoyed with what random people randomly say on the internet....

shocking....
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ErmyCath on November 20, 2017, 01:27:02 PM
Quote
For example, scholasticism is based on the idea that the philosopher-theologians in medieval universities were better equipped to elaborate the faith than were the apostles. Not only does this supposition explain the difference between St. John's Exact Exposition and later scholastic writings, which you specifically referenced, but it provides an overall framework for evaluating the differences between the two.

I don't know how you could possibly prove that. Might as well say that St. Justin Martyr or Pseudo-Dionysius thought themselves better expositors than the Apostles.

For clarity, the point I was trying to make is that St. John of Damascus was attempting to summarize the teachings of the Fathers; whereas, the later Scholastics were attempting to synthesize philosophical thought and Christian doctrine. The former is exposition, while the latter necessarily involves augmentation. The distinction is not a firm one, which is why I suggested it as a framework for comparison. In applying that framework, it is somewhat easier, perhaps based solely on chronology, to see St. Justin Martyr and other early writers as attempting to explain Christian doctrine using an existing philosophical framework. In other words, the use of philosophy categorizes the doctrine while not creating it. The later scholastics seem to work in the opposite direction. But it's a fine distinction.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Cognomen on November 20, 2017, 01:43:28 PM
Don’t confuse braindead modern pop Orthodox apologetics with Orthodoxy.

+1

A lot of it is marketing, not evangelisation.
+2

-.5 

No lost points for the statement itself, but that doesn't negate clear and annoyance-worthy (or at least understandable) inconsistencies. I don't think this applies to Orthodoxy alone, but I also don't believe the OP's perspective is that easily dismissed. 
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Cognomen on November 20, 2017, 01:47:01 PM
annoyed with what random people randomly say on the internet....

shocking....

To be fair, most of LivenotoneviL's list (below) isn't exactly "random people" on the internet. At least it shouldn't be. If it is, that's another problem.



https://oca.org/questions/sacramentconfession/sin
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/the-rosary
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/indulgences
https://oca.org/questions/liturgicarts/images-of-god
http://antiochian.org/icons-eastern-orthodoxy
https://oca.org/questions/parishlife/musical-instruments
http://classicalchristianity.com/2015/03/22/on-valid-sacraments-outside-the-church/
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: DeniseDenise on November 20, 2017, 01:50:10 PM
annoyed with what random people randomly say on the internet....

shocking....

To be fair, most of LivenotoneviL's list (below) isn't exactly "random people" on the internet. At least it shouldn't be. If it is, that's another problem.



https://oca.org/questions/sacramentconfession/sin
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/the-rosary
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/indulgences
https://oca.org/questions/liturgicarts/images-of-god
http://antiochian.org/icons-eastern-orthodoxy
https://oca.org/questions/parishlife/musical-instruments
http://classicalchristianity.com/2015/03/22/on-valid-sacraments-outside-the-church/



his entire first list was not jurisdictional websites....so my point stands.....

Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Cognomen on November 20, 2017, 02:01:22 PM
his entire first list was not jurisdictional websites....so my point stands.....

Noted and point deemed standworthy, particularly given the chronology of the posts.

That said, the problem he identified is subsequently found in less random sources, so his point still gets to kind of stand too. So confusing, but never fear: I'm tallying it all in a really organized ledger.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on November 20, 2017, 02:11:53 PM
...but I also don't believe the OP's perspective is that easily dismissed.

I don't think I'm dismissing it.  Frankly, there is a lot there and I don't know how to even try to address it all in one post, it probably requires several posts, if not threads. 

If I had to dismiss the OP's perspective, it wouldn't be on the basis of the material itself, but on the approach.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Vanhyo on November 20, 2017, 02:29:26 PM
There have been some straw man arguments and exaggerations thrown back and forth, usually it is the little detail that matters, let me give you an example:

Quote
So, are we going to say that Saint Seraphim Sarov (on the Rosary)
It is not wrong to pray the rosary, it is wrong to pray it the roman catholic way, with imagining things

Quote
Saint John Chrysostom and Eusebius (on Statues)
There is canonical art and non-canonical art, even canonical icons and non canonical icons.


Quote
and Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite (on the Categories of Sin) are all in error when they wrote / practiced these things?
This has to do with roman catholicism's overly rationalistic way of looking at things as if its all mathematics. That doesn't mean you can't generalize sins and put them into categories.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Dominika on November 20, 2017, 03:24:01 PM

Focus on the core of the Faith, not the outer garments.

You will find "differences" between two parishes located on the same street...and yet, they are both fully Orthdodox.

The Canons were written to preserve the Church and safeguard her from threats which were present at that time in the history of the world.  We were told not to frequent Jewish physicians, because at the time, when Christianity was still in its infancy, and Christians were persecuted...a Jew would have most likely tried to get the Christian to reject Christ.  While that can still happen...it is less likely in today's society.

Same with statues.  There existed "statues" (engraved/embossed) per God's direction on the Ark of the Covenant, however, they are used as decoration or embellishment and not to be worshiped or prayed to.  Having an angel embossed on an ikonostas is different than bowing to a statue of Krishna.

What I am trying to say is that over the years "styles" have come and gone.  The Baroque style church sited above, reflects the style of the day, and Western influence of the time.  Was it canonically correct?  No.  Did it lead to idol worship?  No. 

You have to remember, that historically, many churches were built by the faithful, who perhaps didn't even know the canon law...but, built what they thought was beautiful for God.  They did not have all the books we have, no Internet on which to research and discuss things....they did the best they could.

Even today...no two parishes will be identical.  Not in "look", not in "practice". 

But, this is all surface stuff....the teachings all remain the same.

Whether there are pews, women with covered heads, embroideries on icons, embossed gilded angels, etc....the Sacraments are to be found there....and Christ is there. 

Don't let the shiny stuff distract you.

Great post, Liza! I totally agree!
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Agabus on November 20, 2017, 03:49:16 PM
The messiness of history  — and the reality of practice on the ground — are part of why True Church™ polemics don't hold a whole lot of water with me anymore, but True Eucharist polemics do.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Agabus on November 20, 2017, 03:54:48 PM
Indulgences, for example, don't really make a lot of sense in Orthodox theology as far as I can tell since there's no temporal purgatory to buy your way out of.

Then why again have I eaten so much crappy koliva through the years?

Even if it's not a pit of fire where our impurities burned away as defined by the Latinate fever dreamers of the Middle Ages, praying for the dead doesn't really make sense without an intermediate state between now and the final judgement.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: DeniseDenise on November 20, 2017, 03:56:18 PM
Koliva gets you out of purgatory?

 ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RobS on November 20, 2017, 03:59:53 PM
praying for the dead doesn't really make sense without an intermediate state between now and the final judgement.

Maybe we should stop calling them "the dead" since they aren't dead.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Agabus on November 20, 2017, 04:00:13 PM
Koliva gets you out of purgatory?

 ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
A bad spoonful is a foretaste.

No, I'm just saying that Orthodox theology doesn't necessarily rule out purgatory.

Koliva is connected to our liturgical rites for praying for the dead. Why are we praying for them if they've already fully realized salvation?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on November 20, 2017, 04:00:42 PM
What? Koliva gets you out of purgatory?  I think I am officially burned out.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Agabus on November 20, 2017, 04:02:30 PM
What? Koliva gets you out of purgatory?  I think I am officially burned out.

Gosh, I don't know if I need to spit the grits out of my mouth or if this is just a bad day for everybody.

The problem, to paraphrase Chesterton, is undoubtedly me.

I only mention koliva because we, too, have memorial services. Eating the wheat in and of itself does nothing. But I assume the praying that I did before eating the wheat means something.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on November 20, 2017, 04:04:26 PM
From the Confession of Dositheus:

Quote
And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on November 20, 2017, 04:04:53 PM
What? Koliva gets you out of purgatory?  I think I am officially burned out.

Gosh, I don't know if I need to spit the grits out of my mouth or if this is just a bad day for everybody.

The problem, to paraphrase Chesterton, is undoubtedly me.

I only mention koliva because we, too, have memorial services. Eating the wheat in and of itself does nothing. But I assume the praying that I did before eating the wheat means something.

Don't worry I might have misunderstood you,  btw beautiful Chesterton quote.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Agabus on November 20, 2017, 04:06:46 PM
From the Confession of Dositheus:

Quote
And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not.

Many thanks.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: DeniseDenise on November 20, 2017, 04:06:57 PM
not sure where in this mess of links or quotes was anything saying the departed somehow go right to the final judgement......just because Orthodoxy doesn't truly define the nature of -where- and -how- .....doesn't make it some instant zoom to heaven either....


Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on November 20, 2017, 04:09:34 PM
not sure where in this mess of links or quotes was anything saying the departed somehow go right to the final judgement......just because Orthodoxy doesn't truly define the nature of -where- and -how- .....doesn't make it some instant zoom to heaven either....

That the truth nothing is guaranteed, we find out at the Judgement, until then we must continue on the right path.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: DeniseDenise on November 20, 2017, 04:12:20 PM
not sure where in this mess of links or quotes was anything saying the departed somehow go right to the final judgement......just because Orthodoxy doesn't truly define the nature of -where- and -how- .....doesn't make it some instant zoom to heaven either....

That the truth nothing is guaranteed, we find out at the Judgement, until then we must continue on the right path.


Well of course...

I just meant that mentioning prayers for the dead are useless 'unless' there is someplace 'in between'.......as being an issue...to me seems not one...since the notion there is NOT somewhere before the final judgement is not taught.....


so just wondering where the issue is....
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on November 20, 2017, 04:25:44 PM
not sure where in this mess of links or quotes was anything saying the departed somehow go right to the final judgement......just because Orthodoxy doesn't truly define the nature of -where- and -how- .....doesn't make it some instant zoom to heaven either....

That the truth nothing is guaranteed, we find out at the Judgement, until then we must continue on the right path.


Well of course...

I just meant that mentioning prayers for the dead are useless 'unless' there is someplace 'in between'.......as being an issue...to me seems not one...since the notion there is NOT somewhere before the final judgement is not taught.....


so just wondering where the issue is....

Yes that is true,  even before Orthodoxy showed up on my radar,  I concluded that there a in between place,  otherwise what the point for prayers for the dead? Even being a altar boy for a few funerals now,  it interesting how one looks either painful or at peace at their death, it must be a foretaste of our destination.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ZackShenouda439 on November 20, 2017, 08:39:30 PM
To borrow an Aristotelian/Thomistic distinction, perhaps you could question whether the inconsistencies pertain to the substance or the accidents. Presumably, what you should find most bothersome are perceived inconsistencies in substance, the dogmatic and doctrinal. How the substance of the faith manifests itself concretely over time and will always be inconsistent because the faith must be conveyed and lived in a concrete time and place.

Where the substance of the faith changes, though, there is a real problem. Consider that Roman Catholicism argues that the faith affirmatively develops over time. For example, scholasticism is based on the idea that the philosopher-theologians in medieval universities were better equipped to elaborate the faith than were the apostles. Not only does this supposition explain the difference between St. John's Exact Exposition and later scholastic writings, which you specifically referenced, but it provides an overall framework for evaluating the differences between the two.

Perhaps it would be good to consider the question who seems more concerned about innovations. There will always be individuals and groups seeking to introduce some novelty. Which do you think does a more consistent job of rejecting novelty, both at the present and historically: Orthodoxy or Catholicism?

+1

That's basically the main approach I like to use.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 21, 2017, 12:10:10 AM
Indulgences, for example, don't really make a lot of sense in Orthodox theology as far as I can tell since there's no temporal purgatory to buy your way out of.

Then why again have I eaten so much crappy koliva through the years?

Even if it's not a pit of fire where our impurities burned away as defined by the Latinate fever dreamers of the Middle Ages, praying for the dead doesn't really make sense without an intermediate state between now and the final judgement.

I knew about the vague version of it in the Confession of Dositheus, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to call that a purgatory since it doesn't seem to have quite the exacting character that you see in Catholicism. It's one thing to pray and eat koliva for them, another to earn or buy a certificate for X number of years off, right?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sharbel on November 21, 2017, 12:45:04 AM
But I feel like a lot of the deceit is so upfront and available on the internet to the point that it is really frustrating...
There, I highlighted the source of your difficulties: the interwebs. 

On one hand, as others in this thread mentioned, you have the deep and historic doctrinal divisions between the Eastern and Western Churches, namely papal supremacy and the Filioque.  There are many other differences, but methinks that an individual discerning which Church has retained the fullness of the Apostolic Faith has to research these two doctrines in history, Tradition and Scripture.

On the other hand, there is no perfect Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox parish on earth.  Yet, whichever Church you're led to by God, you'll have to live its life in a parish, with less than saintly parishioners, known to post in online forums.

So, learn the Faith and learn to live with other Christians striving to overcome their limitations in a parish, for they'll have to live with you too.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 21, 2017, 01:05:02 AM
Quote
For example, scholasticism is based on the idea that the philosopher-theologians in medieval universities were better equipped to elaborate the faith than were the apostles. Not only does this supposition explain the difference between St. John's Exact Exposition and later scholastic writings, which you specifically referenced, but it provides an overall framework for evaluating the differences between the two.

I don't know how you could possibly prove that. Might as well say that St. Justin Martyr or Pseudo-Dionysius thought themselves better expositors than the Apostles.

For clarity, the point I was trying to make is that St. John of Damascus was attempting to summarize the teachings of the Fathers; whereas, the later Scholastics were attempting to synthesize philosophical thought and Christian doctrine. The former is exposition, while the latter necessarily involves augmentation. The distinction is not a firm one, which is why I suggested it as a framework for comparison. In applying that framework, it is somewhat easier, perhaps based solely on chronology, to see St. Justin Martyr and other early writers as attempting to explain Christian doctrine using an existing philosophical framework. In other words, the use of philosophy categorizes the doctrine while not creating it. The later scholastics seem to work in the opposite direction. But it's a fine distinction.

I guess? It seems to me that theologians of every era have had a challenge to "be the bee" and accept what is true in pagan/secular learning and then figure out to harmonize it with the Truth of Christianity. Seems like trying to discern "directions" is kind hair-splitty. I guess someone more versed in the Scholastics and St. Justin will have to correct me.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on November 21, 2017, 11:19:18 AM
My feelings from having read some of the Summa (summa the Summa?) and comparing it with Saint John Damascene's Exact Exposition is that it's really more a difference of degree than quality between them. They both rely on a fastidious adherence to a mainly Aristotelian terminology (in Saint John's case, he takes a whole book to pre-define his terms). St Thomas Aquinas' exhaustive approach of taking every proposition and subjecting it to arguments and counter-arguments is way beyond what Damascene does, but they both stem from the same impulse to systematize theology and provide it with a strong philosophical underpinning. I don't see Aquinas positing his approach as superior to the Fathers', anymore than Damascene does. Perhaps later medieval Catholics thought of it that way but as I recall the Summa makes clear at the very beginning that philosophy and reason are not a substitute for divine revelation and experience.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Cognomen on November 21, 2017, 12:01:27 PM
...but I also don't believe the OP's perspective is that easily dismissed.

I don't think I'm dismissing it.  Frankly, there is a lot there and I don't know how to even try to address it all in one post, it probably requires several posts, if not threads.
 

I don't think you are either. My apologies if my comment implied that you were. I just didn't want the OP's point to get lost due to criticism of the OP's initial references alone.

And I strongly agree with your second sentence. This is a big and, in my mind, important topic, which is very difficult to address well.

Quote
If I had to dismiss the OP's perspective, it wouldn't be on the basis of the material itself, but on the approach.

Agreed again.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on November 21, 2017, 04:11:52 PM
My feelings from having read some of the Summa (summa the Summa?) and comparing it with Saint John Damascene's Exact Exposition is that it's really more a difference of degree than quality between them. They both rely on a fastidious adherence to a mainly Aristotelian terminology (in Saint John's case, he takes a whole book to pre-define his terms). St Thomas Aquinas' exhaustive approach of taking every proposition and subjecting it to arguments and counter-arguments is way beyond what Damascene does, but they both stem from the same impulse to systematize theology and provide it with a strong philosophical underpinning. I don't see Aquinas positing his approach as superior to the Fathers', anymore than Damascene does. Perhaps later medieval Catholics thought of it that way but as I recall the Summa makes clear at the very beginning that philosophy and reason are not a substitute for divine revelation and experience.

Well observed, altho I don't know enough of both men's works to corroborate. However, bear in mind the difference between Thomas and Thomism. What if some group were to spring up and take that book you linked to recently, the Chinese Tao - interpreted Gospels, and seek to elevate it to supremacy in the Church? The Romans have not simply read Thomas and expressed some appreciation for his insights, but made him a school and that school the cornerstone of Christian philosophy. He is even in their catechisms. This makes a difference.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RobS on November 22, 2017, 01:37:30 PM
I wonder what the OP would make of me using an Old Ritualist prayer book and rope but I attend a modernist, ecumenist parish. ;)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on November 22, 2017, 02:49:42 PM
Trust the Holy Mysteries. Trust the Holy Sacraments. Trust the consensus of the Saints and Church Fathers and Mothers. If you are looking for a perfectly consistent religion, Orthodox ain't it. The fullness of God in a single man, three persons in One, bread and wine becoming Body and Blood... mystery abounds. Embrace the mystery, for there is salvation within.

Selam
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on November 22, 2017, 09:46:12 PM
I've never been Roman Catholic, but I'd ask OP whether it really feels better, when one stops to consider, to have the diverse Christian ideas arbitrarily winnowed and narrowed into something like a single set of ideas, as Rome has often made it her job to do? Since the diversity still sprung up, without doubt -- this is the nature of Christian history -- and was simply handled in Roman Catholicism before OP could become bothered by it. If the Orthodox sources (assuming these are Orthodox sources) you're reading are not teaching heresy, then I personally would feel more bothered to have them suppressed by an arbitrary selection from above than simply to become aware there is diversity of understanding.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: youssef on November 23, 2017, 05:35:44 AM
Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sharbel on November 23, 2017, 01:08:47 PM
My feelings from having read some of the Summa (summa the Summa?) and comparing it with Saint John Damascene's Exact Exposition is that it's really more a difference of degree than quality between them. They both rely on a fastidious adherence to a mainly Aristotelian terminology (in Saint John's case, he takes a whole book to pre-define his terms). St Thomas Aquinas' exhaustive approach of taking every proposition and subjecting it to arguments and counter-arguments is way beyond what Damascene does, but they both stem from the same impulse to systematize theology and provide it with a strong philosophical underpinning. I don't see Aquinas positing his approach as superior to the Fathers', anymore than Damascene does. Perhaps later medieval Catholics thought of it that way but as I recall the Summa makes clear at the very beginning that philosophy and reason are not a substitute for divine revelation and experience.

Well observed, altho I don't know enough of both men's works to corroborate. However, bear in mind the difference between Thomas and Thomism. What if some group were to spring up and take that book you linked to recently, the Chinese Tao - interpreted Gospels, and seek to elevate it to supremacy in the Church? The Romans have not simply read Thomas and expressed some appreciation for his insights, but made him a school and that school the cornerstone of Christian philosophy. He is even in their catechisms. This makes a difference.
Indeed.  St. Thomas Aquinas' works are at a level of their own and many of his contributions enriched the Church.  However, there's him and then there's Scholasticism, or the school of thought that tried to imitated St. Thomas' approach in Theology, often without his saintliness.  In just a few generations Scholasticism became hollow and lacked light.  It's more recent spawns, neo Scholasticism and neo Thomism are somewhere in between the worst of Scholasticism and the least of St. Thomas.

Personally, I prefer to study Aristotle separately from St. Thomas and to read the Church Fathers, skipping St. Thomas.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on November 23, 2017, 02:39:01 PM
Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: youssef on November 23, 2017, 06:30:21 PM
Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 23, 2017, 07:42:04 PM
Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.

St. Gregory's version AFAICT is a progressive purifying down through her ancestry. It's a far cry from the Catholic version that relies on a specific view of original sin that somehow just skips Mary's normal conception by sinful parents.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 23, 2017, 07:49:12 PM
I've never been Roman Catholic, but I'd ask OP whether it really feels better, when one stops to consider, to have the diverse Christian ideas arbitrarily winnowed and narrowed into something like a single set of ideas, as Rome has often made it her job to do? Since the diversity still sprung up, without doubt -- this is the nature of Christian history -- and was simply handled in Roman Catholicism before OP could become bothered by it. If the Orthodox sources (assuming these are Orthodox sources) you're reading are not teaching heresy, then I personally would feel more bothered to have them suppressed by an arbitrary selection from above than simply to become aware there is diversity of understanding.

Maybe it's my Roman Catholic upbringing, but I would prefer something much more narrow; although I am a very, very scrupulous individual who doesn't trust my own conscience at points.

See, here's the thing - in Church history, the line between Faith and mere discipline is something that is often grey.

Let's take iconoclasm - as we are all aware, iconoclasm is a heresy, and refusing to have iconography or sacred artwork is to war against the Church, as stated by the 7th Ecumenical Council. When something like this can put you outside the Church, such speculation about similar or even more serious topics makes me hesitant and makes me uncomfortable.

Let's take statues for instance. I've read some Orthodox apologetics that say something along the lines of "using statues is equivalent to idolatry," while other Orthodox apologetics will argue statues, as long as they meet some Orthodox minimal requirement of expressing the Faith.

So, who is right?

The Orthodox Church I go to has a statue on top of the gate. I'm an idolater? Will I go to hell for attending this parish instead of a "more correct" parish?

What about Orthodox Churches which have 2.5 D icons or carvings? Are they idolaters? What about the Russian Orthodox Church in the Middle Ages which used statues?

Then why are the Orthodox so weary about the use of statues? Is it something that is merely culturally preserved?


And there was a period of time in which - when I reverted back to Catholicism for a bit - I started saying the Rosary daily, and it was a very powerful prayer in fighting against demonic temptations (I didn't use my imagination). In one of my habitually grave sins, I manage to stay clear of it for about like 3 months - which is a huge step up then the regressed vicious cycle of lust - from the Rosary.

But it's a heterodox - ish - devotion according to some conservative Orthodox out there, who believe that it is something that should be forbidden from Church practice. So, when I was praying the Rosary - was it God helping me overcome my sins through the prayers of the Theotokos, or was it merely the devil lightening up on the temptations, allowing me to sin otherwise?

I asked my Father confessor about this, and he said it was okay to pray as long as it doesn't pronounce anything heterodox (he told me to avoid any "Immaculate Conception" rosaries if that is a thing) and as long as I don't use my imagination - but what if he's wrong? What if I'll be praying as a Catholic heterodox and go to hell for it?

And maybe it's just me, but on such issues where there are no clear answers, it's frustrating to me, especially on issues that are more gray in terms of morality - like contraception within marriage.

It's annoying that there hasn't been a Council which can just rule on these matters efficiently.

It allows for more freedom, but I don't want to end up like Origen or Theodoret.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: youssef on November 23, 2017, 07:58:48 PM
Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.


St. Gregory's version AFAICT is a progressive purifying down through her ancestry. It's a far cry from the Catholic version that relies on a specific view of original sin that somehow just skips Mary's normal conception by sinful parents.

Mary father and mother didn't make any sin and she is more purified then them. Yes for palamas it is a progressive prepurification for Mary but at the end Mary is full prepurified. Palamas was Augustinian.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: byhisgrace on November 23, 2017, 08:12:54 PM
@LivenotoneviL
The answer is No. You won’t go to hell for being unable to untangle the confusion about Orthodox teachings. The important thing is to follow the spirit of the law: Love God and love your neighbors. Partake in the sacraments and obey your leaders. And if your Priest or Bishop willingly misguides you, that’s on them, not you.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: youssef on November 23, 2017, 08:16:57 PM
@LivenotoneviL
The answer is No. You won’t go to hell for being unable to untangle the confusion about Orthodox teachings. The important thing is to follow the spirit of the law: Love God and love your neighbors. Partake in the sacraments and obey your leaders. And if your Priest or Bishop willingly misguides you, that’s on them, not you.

What leaders?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 23, 2017, 08:29:34 PM
Here's another thing too:

I think Roman Catholicism is going through a massive period of inconsistency as well, and they have been from the 50s onwards under Pius XII, but especially from Vatican II onwards.

However, here's the thing - the liberalism in the Roman Catholic Church is so apparent that it is rather easy to reject some novel teachings and embrace traditional teaching.

Let's take an experience I had with a Novus Ordo priest (whom I pray for because he has been having a faith crisis for a few years now), and I told him that I found my prayer life going downwards and lacking motivation from my Roman Catholic prayer rule (of saying 6 of the 7 hours throughout the day and saying 5 decades of the Rosary), and his response was "you should look into practicing some Catholic mysticism; read the works of John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila."

That's the equivalent of saying "Look into Orthodox mysticism on your own; read and pray according to Ignatius Bryanchaninov."

Succinct to say I didn't take his advice, because without guidance from someone more experience, that is a foolish endeavor. It's a very obviously unInspired thing to let the layperson do whatever they want in prayer.

I visited Georgetown recently, and they were selling a book which was a collection of "inspired prayers" to use, which included not only Catholic prayer, but also Orthodox prayers, Hindu prayers, and Shinto prayers.

It was so obviously liberal and evil it is quite easy to reject it.

The liberalism within Orthodoxy is much, much more subtle; and in Orthodoxy, the conservatives are sometimes way too irrational (the OCA and GOARCH are heretical because of the new calendar!).
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: byhisgrace on November 23, 2017, 08:30:53 PM
@LivenotoneviL
The answer is No. You won’t go to hell for being unable to untangle the confusion about Orthodox teachings. The important thing is to follow the spirit of the law: Love God and love your neighbors. Partake in the sacraments and obey your leaders. And if your Priest or Bishop willingly misguides you, that’s on them, not you.

What leaders?
The Priest(s) of your parish.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Asteriktos on November 23, 2017, 08:42:21 PM
That's the equivalent of saying "Look into Orthodox mysticism on your own; read and pray according to Ignatius Bryanchaninov."

Succinct to say I didn't take his advice, because without guidance from someone more experience, that is a foolish endeavor. It's a very obviously unInspired thing to let the layperson do whatever they want in prayer.

This idea--go find a worthy text and use it for direction/guidance--is the advice I've seen several Orthodox saints give, including St. Theophan, St. Justin Popovich, and (funnily enough) St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. Also the advice given by St. Paul, fwiw.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 23, 2017, 09:19:07 PM
That's the equivalent of saying "Look into Orthodox mysticism on your own; read and pray according to Ignatius Bryanchaninov."

Succinct to say I didn't take his advice, because without guidance from someone more experience, that is a foolish endeavor. It's a very obviously unInspired thing to let the layperson do whatever they want in prayer.

This idea--go find a worthy text and use it for direction/guidance--is the advice I've seen several Orthodox saints give, including St. Theophan, St. Justin Popovich, and (funnily enough) St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. Also the advice given by St. Paul, fwiw.

Well, maybe I'm just a prideful idiot, but I don't trust myself for spiritual guidance - I would rather listen to someone more experienced or knowledgeable than me like a priest.
Considering how easy it is to be deluded from both the Orthodox side and Catholic side.

For example, let's take visions:
On the Orthodox side:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Prelest#False_visions

On the Catholic side, we have "Our Lady of Roses" and "Medjugorje."

His suggestion seemed to be along the lines of "read about mysticism and do it yourself," not bringing up anything of necessity about guidance.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Asteriktos on November 23, 2017, 09:35:03 PM
I would certainly agree that having someone experienced to help guide you (in person or at least in direct contact) is much better than not having such a person. The thing is, such people aren't necessarily easy to come by, especially since many such people are most likely living in obscurity. The very things that make them experienced and worthy of giving guidance (humility, thoughtfulness, etc.) also tends to make them less likely to be prominently recognized as such, and less likely to accept such a role even if you ask them to be an adviser. Outside of a monastery, the path most people probably have are that they can read the Scripture and other spiritual materials, and discuss things with friends and clergy. In some things the person would be bound to follow the guidance of the priest (e.g., penances given in confession), but the relationship probably mostly involves advice of a much less binding nature. I can understand hoping to get some help and being told, basically, 'go read a book.' I'm not trying to say that isn't frustrating. There may be a reason for it though--maybe he would not be good for giving what you were asking for, or maybe he thought what he was referencing was infinitely better than his own advice would have been. But, "the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force"--whatever stands in the way, people are called to continue forward.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on November 23, 2017, 10:57:43 PM
So, who is right?

The Orthodox Church I go to has a statue on top of the gate. I'm an idolater? Will I go to hell for attending this parish instead of a "more correct" parish?

See, I think this encapsulates a lot of your struggle. Somehow, you seem always to be looking for the trick. But the Church is not for our damnation but for our salvation. If the Church presents you with an icon "in the round," then venerate it with joy. If she holds some important council and removes that icon, then feel gratitude for the safeguard. I am speaking purely hypothetically, and yet these would be two positives, not one the positive and for you to find which as a trick ... This terrible anxiety lest God trick you into damnation must be a painful wound in the soul. The Orthodox Church is an ancient Apostolic church that does its best to work in unity, but this is not the same as to pose in unison. The former is a balm -- "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon" etc. -- the latter a slavery that, I suspect, must lead to just such suspicion as you seem to suffer from. Our very long history of perceiving and handling heresy is renowned, but most of life is not a matter of heresy ...

Now a word on proselytizing with misguided zeal, as some of the resources you first alluded to seem to consist of. Christ speaks of those religious who in their zeal "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders" and specifically of those who "compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves": "Woe unto you, ye blind guides!" The Church beckons for the healing of the soul, and what instead torments your sincere soul is almost surely not in the spirit of the Church.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 24, 2017, 03:39:04 AM
Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.


St. Gregory's version AFAICT is a progressive purifying down through her ancestry. It's a far cry from the Catholic version that relies on a specific view of original sin that somehow just skips Mary's normal conception by sinful parents.

Mary father and mother didn't make any sin and she is more purified then them. Yes for palamas it is a progressive prepurification for Mary but at the end Mary is full prepurified. Palamas was Augustinian.

I don't know if anyone would go so far as to say her parents were sinless, but you're missing the point that this isn't a fiat like in the RCC. It's highly debatable as to whether the Orthodox Church teaches we're literally punished for Adam and Eve's sin (as opposed to just inheriting their fallen wills), and thus whether the IC was even necessary.

The Catholic view also falls victim to an infinite regress (how could a Mary with no original sin come from parents that had it?) that St. Gregory doesn't.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: youssef on November 24, 2017, 04:19:00 AM
Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.


St. Gregory's version AFAICT is a progressive purifying down through her ancestry. It's a far cry from the Catholic version that relies on a specific view of original sin that somehow just skips Mary's normal conception by sinful parents.

Mary father and mother didn't make any sin and she is more purified then them. Yes for palamas it is a progressive prepurification for Mary but at the end Mary is full prepurified. Palamas was Augustinian.

I don't know if anyone would go so far as to say her parents were sinless, but you're missing the point that this isn't a fiat like in the RCC. It's highly debatable as to whether the Orthodox Church teaches we're literally punished for Adam and Eve's sin (as opposed to just inheriting their fallen wills), and thus whether the IC was even necessary.

The Catholic view also falls victim to an infinite regress (how could a Mary with no original sin come from parents that had it?) that St. Gregory doesn't.

If we take Palamas he is considered to be Augustinian by many scholar, he seem he was Augustinian. Mary prepurification is an idea by many orthodox church father. Why the need to talk of prepurification, being prepurified also make her different then us in the way you are thinking.

As Palamas talk about a progressive prepurification for Mary, here is the answer of your question.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 24, 2017, 06:40:42 AM
So what if he was Augustinian? The idea that Augustine was a heretic is a fringe idea in Orthodoxy anyway. And Augustine is not necessarily the same as the Catholic and Protestant readings of him.

Quote
Mary prepurification is an idea by many orthodox church father.

Got more than one or two?

Quote
Why the need to talk of prepurification, being prepurified also make her different then us in the way you are thinking.

As Palamas talk about a progressive prepurification for Mary, here is the answer of your question.

No, not really. Maybe in an Orthodox "ancestral sin" sense, but not a Catholic. If Mary had to be without original sin in order for Christ to save us (ie. so that He could be without sin), then she could not not logically also have been cleansed of original sin based on the Cross. The Immaculate Conception is a self-contradictory idea.

And even if it did make sense, in order for her to be sinless it would have had to have been Immaculate Conceptions all the way down her ancestry, but that's not what St. Gregory was saying. Western-style original sin is not really something that can be progressively purified out, as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: youssef on November 24, 2017, 08:19:55 AM
So what if he was Augustinian? The idea that Augustine was a heretic is a fringe idea in Orthodoxy anyway. And Augustine is not necessarily the same as the Catholic and Protestant readings of him.

Quote
Mary prepurification is an idea by many orthodox church father.

Got more than one or two?

Quote
Why the need to talk of prepurification, being prepurified also make her different then us in the way you are thinking.

As Palamas talk about a progressive prepurification for Mary, here is the answer of your question.

No, not really. Maybe in an Orthodox "ancestral sin" sense, but not a Catholic. If Mary had to be without original sin in order for Christ to save us (ie. so that He could be without sin), then she could not not logically also have been cleansed of original sin based on the Cross. The Immaculate Conception is a self-contradictory idea.

And even if it did make sense, in order for her to be sinless it would have had to have been Immaculate Conceptions all the way down her ancestry, but that's not what St. Gregory was saying. Western-style original sin is not really something that can be progressively purified out, as far as I can tell.

THe idea that Augustin is a heretic is just an anti catholic idea.

If we consider that the original sin is a state of deprivation that we take it from Adam after the fall, we can accept that Mary wasn't in this state from the time that she was born.

We both agree Marry absolute sinless, so the problem what is the teaching of orthodox about ancestral/original sin is the essential question.

I agree with you that we are not obliged to believe Mary prepurification but consider it a weird idea is the problem and just come from an anti catholics way of thinking. For me personnally it is not an important doctrine. But for me talking about prepurification is not different then talking about immaculate conception. Many theologian from the both church was against it.

I will open later a topic about that but i will read the older topic here i will search for them. So let's complete this discussion in the tnew topic. As it is not the main idea of this subject.


Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 24, 2017, 08:50:54 AM
Alright.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sharbel on November 24, 2017, 12:56:11 PM
However, here's the thing - the liberalism in the Roman Catholic Church is so apparent that it is rather easy to reject some novel teachings and embrace traditional teaching.
I cannot possibly imagine the faithful returning to a proper liturgy like the Tridentine or to the ascetic practices that have been the norm for centuries up to VII.  Once accustomed to junk food, real food would give them indigestion.

Quote from: LivenotoneviL
Let's take an experience I had with a Novus Ordo priest (whom I pray for because he has been having a faith crisis for a few years now), and I told him that I found my prayer life going downwards and lacking motivation from my Roman Catholic prayer rule (of saying 6 of the 7 hours throughout the day and saying 5 decades of the Rosary), and his response was "you should look into practicing some Catholic mysticism; read the works of John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila."
The only proper advice to a young layman would be that you pray too much.  As someone who was a secular Discalced Carmelite who read almost all of the works of Sts. Teresa of Jesus and John of the Cross in their original languages, I was under the obligation of praying the hours, but only 3 of the 7, since I was not a monk and had many responsibilities in the world for others.  Yet, I was being formed in community into this mystic tradition.  The idea that it suffices to pick up a book in such a secularized world to become a mystic is quaint, to say the least.  But more likely that he just didn't know you at all, given your obvious struggles with scrupulosity.

Quote from: LivenotoneviL
I visited Georgetown recently, and they were selling a book which was a collection of "inspired prayers" to use, which included not only Catholic prayer, but also Orthodox prayers, Hindu prayers, and Shinto prayers.

It was so obviously liberal and evil it is quite easy to reject it.
It was easy for you, but if it's still up for sale at GU, it's because it finds buyers.  The corollary is not so encouraging either: I doubt that a book on traditional prayers would be embraced and sell like hotcakes.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on November 24, 2017, 02:32:08 PM
No, not really. Maybe in an Orthodox "ancestral sin" sense, but not a Catholic. If Mary had to be without original sin in order for Christ to save us (ie. so that He could be without sin), then she could not not logically also have been cleansed of original sin based on the Cross. The Immaculate Conception is a self-contradictory idea.

Very good. I don't know if this has been brought up on the forums.

Quote
And even if it did make sense, in order for her to be sinless it would have had to have been Immaculate Conceptions all the way down her ancestry, but that's not what St. Gregory was saying. Western-style original sin is not really something that can be progressively purified out, as far as I can tell.

Also very good, and has been said many times on the forums, but champions of the Immaculate Conception here just can't seem to get their heads around this obvious problem.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sharbel on November 24, 2017, 04:25:23 PM
No, not really. Maybe in an Orthodox "ancestral sin" sense, but not a Catholic. If Mary had to be without original sin in order for Christ to save us (ie. so that He could be without sin), then she could not not logically also have been cleansed of original sin based on the Cross. The Immaculate Conception is a self-contradictory idea.
Very good. I don't know if this has been brought up on the forums.
However, Catholics came up with the idea that the merits of Cross were retroactively applied to Mary in time.

Rather, to me, the ideas of "ancestral sin", which preserves the inherent goodness of human kind, and St. Athanasius' quip, "what has not been assumed has not been redeemed", which requires Christ to inherit from Mary the same human nature common to all, led me to fully agree with Met. Ware that this the Immaculate Conception is a most unnecessary dogma. 

Of course, once original sin was made a dogma, the Immaculate Conception is a very necessary dogma, lest Christ, who is without sin, inherit a sin.  Alas, once Rome entangled itself in its own theological opinions, hubris stopped it from caring about the Apostolic Faith less than about the Roman Faith.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: mcarmichael on November 24, 2017, 11:06:16 PM
So, who is right?

The Orthodox Church I go to has a statue on top of the gate. I'm an idolater? Will I go to hell for attending this parish instead of a "more correct" parish?

See, I think this encapsulates a lot of your struggle. Somehow, you seem always to be looking for the trick. But the Church is not for our damnation but for our salvation. If the Church presents you with an icon "in the round," then venerate it with joy. If she holds some important council and removes that icon, then feel gratitude for the safeguard. I am speaking purely hypothetically, and yet these would be two positives, not one the positive and for you to find which as a trick ... This terrible anxiety lest God trick you into damnation must be a painful wound in the soul. The Orthodox Church is an ancient Apostolic church that does its best to work in unity, but this is not the same as to pose in unison. The former is a balm -- "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon" etc. -- the latter a slavery that, I suspect, must lead to just such suspicion as you seem to suffer from. Our very long history of perceiving and handling heresy is renowned, but most of life is not a matter of heresy ...

Now a word on proselytizing with misguided zeal, as some of the resources you first alluded to seem to consist of. Christ speaks of those religious who in their zeal "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders" and specifically of those who "compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves": "Woe unto you, ye blind guides!" The Church beckons for the healing of the soul, and what instead torments your sincere soul is almost surely not in the spirit of the Church.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Because you could easily extend the same principle to the bishop of Rome, as easily as any other extant schism, until they are "officially" anathematized, couldn't you?

Isn't that how it works? I could easily be wrong.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 25, 2017, 12:34:41 PM
^
|
|

This whole discussion I think demonstrates the kind of "inconsistency" I'm talking about.

From just cursory learnings about Orthodox doctrine, I'm basically told from day 1 that the Orthodox reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and you have people like Seraphim Rose and many other conservative Orthodox elders talking about how these "wretched Catholics" are blaspheming the Mother of God, trying to make her into something like an "alien creature."

Yet you have people like Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory Palamas who are open to this very thing which these Orthodox people condemn; that she was an "alien creature" who believe that she was fundamentally changed in order to be sinless and bear Christ; while not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the rejection of inherited guilt - the fundamental logic, that her nature was modified, is still in tact.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

Do I curse the apparition, calling it a product of Satan? Or roll my eyes at the naivety of a child?

Or do I leave open the possibility it might actually be the Theotokos - or would this be a blasphemy against Our Lady?

This inconsistency annoys the living junk out of me.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on November 25, 2017, 12:37:34 PM
I think it’s generally a good idea to be circumspect about things we’re not sure of, rather than jumping to declare something blasphemous or heretical.

As mentioned above, though, God is not some trickster throwing out snares to condemn you with. The issues you’re talking bout are really not worth this much anxiety.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on November 25, 2017, 01:08:47 PM
^
|
|

This whole discussion I think demonstrates the kind of "inconsistency" I'm talking about.

From just cursory learnings about Orthodox doctrine, I'm basically told from day 1 that the Orthodox reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and you have people like Seraphim Rose and many other conservative Orthodox elders talking about how these "wretched Catholics" are blaspheming the Mother of God, trying to make her into something like an "alien creature."

Yet you have people like Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory Palamas who are open to this very thing which these Orthodox people condemn; that she was an "alien creature" who believe that she was fundamentally changed in order to be sinless and bear Christ; while not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the rejection of inherited guilt - the fundamental logic, that her nature was modified, is still in tact.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

Do I curse the apparition, calling it a product of Satan? Or roll my eyes at the naivety of a child?

Or do I leave open the possibility it might actually be the Theotokos - or would this be a blasphemy against Our Lady?

This inconsistency annoys the living junk out of me.

Why do you feel the need to have an opinion about it at all? It's not like the Orthodox Church has officially condemned it. Maybe it was her, maybe it wasn't. We'll all find out on the other side.

Personally, I'm more bothered with the idea that she made a teenager drink mud than I am with the promotion of the IC (which I don't agree with, but wouldn't commit Seppuku or anything if it turned out to be true). But I'm not really interested in Catholicism so I don't feel the need to think much about Lourdes either way.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sharbel on November 26, 2017, 01:44:18 AM
So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."
I truly consider St. Bernadette a great saint.  However, she's always been very circumspect and let the clergy speak for her.  For instance, her parish priest said that she couldn't possibly know about this recently proclaimed dogma, since she was illiterate and not the kind that reads papal encyclicals, or something along such lines.  However, I always wondered if this amazing dogma about the Holy Virgin would have gone quietly down history without its being announced at least across all cathedrals, since all bishops had been consulted by the Vatican before the proclamation of the dogma 4 years before the apparitions.  Since Lourdes has had a bishop since the 4th century, I find it likely that St. Bernadette would have heard the terms Immaculate Conception before.

I don't mean to doubt the apparition of the Virgin Mary in Lourdes, but its account is mostly second hand, as the saint chose the anonymity of the cloister and silence for herself.  Unlike Fatima, as Sr. Lucia continued having visions and corresponded with many people, not only ecclesiastic authorities, whose account is very much fist hand, but not that it stops certain elements to make up their own conclusions.

What I'm trying to say is that the accounts of apparitions have to be considered separately.  The authenticity of the apparitions is in the conversions that follow it, their true goal, rather than defnining church teaching.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on November 26, 2017, 04:37:03 PM
^
|
|

This whole discussion I think demonstrates the kind of "inconsistency" I'm talking about.

From just cursory learnings about Orthodox doctrine, I'm basically told from day 1 that the Orthodox reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and you have people like Seraphim Rose and many other conservative Orthodox elders talking about how these "wretched Catholics" are blaspheming the Mother of God, trying to make her into something like an "alien creature."

Yet you have people like Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory Palamas who are open to this very thing which these Orthodox people condemn; that she was an "alien creature" who believe that she was fundamentally changed in order to be sinless and bear Christ; while not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the rejection of inherited guilt - the fundamental logic, that her nature was modified, is still in tact.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

Do I curse the apparition, calling it a product of Satan? Or roll my eyes at the naivety of a child?

Or do I leave open the possibility it might actually be the Theotokos - or would this be a blasphemy against Our Lady?

This inconsistency annoys the living junk out of me.

Just the fact that you seem to expect to have perfect knowledge of all things makes me question whether it's not the Roman pretensions to exact truth that are what truly, but unconsciously, have done you in.

By the way, I like your arrow.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on November 26, 2017, 07:30:37 PM
^
|
|

This whole discussion I think demonstrates the kind of "inconsistency" I'm talking about.

From just cursory learnings about Orthodox doctrine, I'm basically told from day 1 that the Orthodox reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and you have people like Seraphim Rose and many other conservative Orthodox elders talking about how these "wretched Catholics" are blaspheming the Mother of God, trying to make her into something like an "alien creature."

Yet you have people like Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory Palamas who are open to this very thing which these Orthodox people condemn; that she was an "alien creature" who believe that she was fundamentally changed in order to be sinless and bear Christ; while not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the rejection of inherited guilt - the fundamental logic, that her nature was modified, is still in tact.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

Do I curse the apparition, calling it a product of Satan? Or roll my eyes at the naivety of a child?

Or do I leave open the possibility it might actually be the Theotokos - or would this be a blasphemy against Our Lady?

This inconsistency annoys the living junk out of me.

Just the fact that you seem to expect to have perfect knowledge of all things makes me question whether it's not the Roman pretensions to exact truth that are what truly, but unconsciously, have done you in.

By the way, I like your arrow.

Yeah, probably.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: pasadi97 on January 11, 2018, 06:46:53 AM
If orthodoxy is good enough for God is good enough for me.
Orthodoxy does not have official positon in issues mentioned so there are oppinions.
When God is asked which denomination is best he says Orthodoxy
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Thomas on January 11, 2018, 06:36:01 PM
Please read the purpose of the Convert Issues Forum to assure you are following our purpose, if the subject continues to slide downward, I will have to lock it:

The purpose of the Convert issues forum is to provide a a place on the OC.Net where inquirers, catechumen, and newly converted could ask their questions about the Orthodox Faith in a safe and supportive forum without retribution or recrimination. Many of those posting in this area are ignorant of Orthodox teachings and are using this forum to understand what are the basic teachings and practices of the Orthodox churches. Due to the simplicity of many of their requests and responses, direct and simple answers with sources if possible are most helpful.

If the moderators find that the discussions become faith or jurisdiction debates, the topic will be split and sent the appropriate OC.Net forum to continue the discussion or debate. As a poster, you may also ask that a topic be split so that a private discussion can be established to go into detail about the issues that you feel adamant about and wish to debate or discuss. The convert forum is not a place for combative debate or argument. 

Thank you for your following these guidelines to the edification and spiritual growth of the forum inquirers, catechumen, and newly converted.

In Christ,
Thomas
Convert Forum Moderator
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: JoeS2 on January 15, 2018, 03:38:11 PM
You state you are a catechumen.....have you discussed this 'problem' with your priest?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on January 15, 2018, 03:54:35 PM
You state you are a catechumen.....have you discussed this 'problem' with your priest?

Yes, I did, and we had a real one on one about Orthodoxy that helped me a lot.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ConstantinusMagnus on January 31, 2018, 12:42:31 PM
Has anyone felt deceived or annoyed or felt like questioning their Faith when one notices the various contradictions in the history of the Church to what Orthodox priests or Orthodox theologians tell you? Or perhaps what you learn about Orthodoxy?

I feel like such a great portion of learning the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism - from the Orthodox perspective - often comes from deceit, and it annoys me.

For example, I've heard about how statues are idolatrous and are an "innovation" by Roman Catholicism, and were never a part of the Tradition of the Church!

Yet.....

(https://theorthodoxlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/stnicholasofmozhaisk.jpg)

(https://theorthodoxlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/stisaaccathedraliconostasis.jpg)

(http://www.sfu.ca/~pabel/Shep2.jpg)
(From the 4th Century)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Vilnius_-_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Holy_Spirit_01.jpg/682px-Vilnius_-_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Holy_Spirit_01.jpg)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1901.htm

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/eusebius-and-christian-images/

Or how "evil" indulgences are by those accursed Roman Catholics!

Yet...

http://www.jameslikoudispage.com/Ecumenic/indulgences.htm
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Absolution_Certificates

Or how "Us Orthodox don't believe there are any Sacraments outside the Church!!!!"

Yet...Saint Augustine...

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/06/28/the-limits-of-the-church-by-fr-georges-florovsky/

Or "We Orthodox don't pray the Rosary! It is a heterodox devotion!"

Yet...

http://www.spokaneorthodox.com/rosary.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_Theotokos

Or "We Orthodox don't distinguish between Mortal and Venial Sin! This is a rationalistic distinction!"

Yet...

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_sintypes.aspx


Or "We can't stand that accursed realism in our iconography! I despise that Roman Catholic artwork!!!! I ESPECIALLY HATE HOW THEY PORTRAY GOD THE FATHER IN ICONOGRAPHY HOW DARE THEY hFASKDFHasdKFHASddflshkdflkhas!!!!"

Yet...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Vilnius_-_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Holy_Spirit_01.jpg/682px-Vilnius_-_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Holy_Spirit_01.jpg)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_in_Moscow_06.JPG

https://ryanphunter.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/cathedral_of_christ_the_saviour_in_moscow_04.jpg


Or "We can't possibly receive people by Chrismation!!!! The Roman Catholics are heretics!!!"

Yet at various points in history, the Roman Catholics were received by Chrismation...and under Peter the Great, by just a Confession!

And there are just boggling questions about Orthodoxy in which I just don't flat out know the answer to. Like, how do we know if we are in communion with a heretical Church or not? If a Patriarchate falls into heresy and isn't excommunicated, is the entirety of that one Church damned to hell? I mean, when the Oriental Orthodox broke communion, did they just lose Grace and some ignorant peasant couldn't hypothesize about the difference between Miaphysitism or Dyophysitism? "Sorry God, I didn't know there was a difference between one union in nature and one union in hypostasis!" Did the Russian Orthodox Church lose Grace when the Soviets made it proclaim heresy?

What if the Orthodox Church splits into two; What if like 7/8 of the Orthodox Church falls into heresy? How would we know?

And then there are questions like contraception and divorce. Like, some priests say it is an excommunicatable sin to use condoms inside marriage, and will say it's eternally damnable to use NFP - but some priests will say "go ahead and do it all you want! Just don't do it too much and have kids!" How do we know what is moral and what isn't, on such an important issue? and for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun!

All of this boggles my mind; has anyone experienced doubt when they learn of these things?





Great post and observations by the way. I was seeing and feeling the same as a recent convert to orthodoxy from roman catholicism. Plus there is other major theological inconsistencies I noticed like the rejection of the Council of Florence. But what choice do we have today in 2018. Stay under the Heretical Novus Ordo Bishops under Pope Francs or switch over to the schismatic Orthodox Church under the patriarch of Constantinople? I rather be a schismatic with valid sacraments then a heretic with invalid sacraments.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: pasadi97 on January 31, 2018, 03:11:56 PM
Don't call schismatic a Church God shows is true. Eastern Orthodox Church. Do you know better than God.
Wise men that cite each other and that say orthodox is schismatic did not contact God in a long time. They are for a surprise when they do.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ConstantinusMagnus on January 31, 2018, 03:27:24 PM
Don't call schismatic a Church God shows is true. Eastern Orthodox Church. Do you know better than God.
Wise men that cite each other and that say orthodox is schismatic did not contact God in a long time. They are for a surprise when they do.

You said God told you the Orthodox Church is not schismatic? Hahaha okay buddy.
The Orthodox Church did not accept the Council of Florence and the jurisdiction of Rome like everyone agreeded upon at the time of the council, so yes that makes orthodox schismatics.   
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Asteriktos on January 31, 2018, 03:35:38 PM
"Therefore I assert and protest, that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Ephesians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230111.htm)

Uh oh...
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ConstantinusMagnus on January 31, 2018, 03:37:07 PM
"Therefore I assert and protest, that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Ephesians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230111.htm)

Uh oh...

Then we are all screwed
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: pasadi97 on January 31, 2018, 05:07:44 PM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.

Read the Bible my friend. And the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church. So no schism.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ConstantinusMagnus on January 31, 2018, 06:37:55 PM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.

Read the Bible my friend. And the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church. So no schism.

Listen, stop telling me to pray and read the bible like I never read it. Who do you think you are? Who do you think I am? Stick to the topic and leave all personal things aside.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ConstantinusMagnus on January 31, 2018, 06:48:23 PM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.

Read the Bible my friend. And the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church. So no schism.

Yes, Laetentur Caeli is the major document that came out of the council of florence that is massivly inconsistent with orthodox theology. I will discuss it with you if you refrain from name calling, assuming things about the other, or taking sneaky negative jabs at others.
Now, as far as your claim that because Mark of Ephesus did not agree upon the council and that some hows makes the entire council invalid, is just plain false. Because what your saying means that ALL councils EVER called are also INVALID. Why? Because there has never been a 100% consensus in any ecuemnical council. Many times even one of the 5 ancient Patriarchs goes against the rest of the council and the bishops and the Emperor would just denounce and replace them. There are dozens of examples of bishops dissenting from past ecumenical councils. Maybe even hundreds. So your argument that because one bishop didnt sign it, that somehow invalidates the Roman Emperor and the Pope and the Patrirach of Alexandria and Jeruslaem and Constaintople and all the 600 bishops that signed it, including moscow, ethiopians, coptics, armenians, everybody, is just ridiculous. What eles you got?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RaphaCam on January 31, 2018, 06:49:49 PM
For example, I've heard about how statues are idolatrous and are an "innovation" by Roman Catholicism, and were never a part of the Tradition of the Church!
Hearsay.

Quote
Or how "evil" indulgences are by those accursed Roman Catholics!
Men of the Church did evil things too. If they didn't, there would be no schism or heresy, since schismatics and heretics are almost always once part of the Church, or part of a body that ultimately split from her.

Quote
Or how "Us Orthodox don't believe there are any Sacraments outside the Church!!!!"
Not consensus patrum, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Quote
"We Orthodox don't pray the Rosary! It is a heterodox devotion!"
Those are different things. Still, I find it temerary to go saying anything RC is heterodox.

Quote
Or "We Orthodox don't distinguish between Mortal and Venial Sin! This is a rationalistic distinction!"
Some sins are mortal, as St. Paul says, but we don't have a pragmatic list of them like Roman Catholics do (not that the list is as legalistic as it may seem to us).

Quote
Or "We can't stand that accursed realism in our iconography! I despise that Roman Catholic artwork!!!! I ESPECIALLY HATE HOW THEY PORTRAY GOD THE FATHER IN ICONOGRAPHY HOW DARE THEY hFASKDFHasdKFHASddflshkdflkhas!!!!"
That's a hot issue inside Orthodoxy.

Quote
"We can't possibly receive people by Chrismation!!!! The Roman Catholics are heretics!!!"
More hearsay. Catholics are indeed heretics, but thet have sacramental matter on which form (grace) can be infused by Orthodox sacraments.

Quote
how do we know if we are in communion with a heretical Church or not? If a Patriarchate falls into heresy and isn't excommunicated, is the entirety of that one Church damned to hell? I mean, when the Oriental Orthodox broke communion, did they just lose Grace and some ignorant peasant couldn't hypothesize about the difference between Miaphysitism or Dyophysitism? "Sorry God, I didn't know there was a difference between one union in nature and one union in hypostasis!" Did the Russian Orthodox Church lose Grace when the Soviets made it proclaim heresy?

What if the Orthodox Church splits into two; What if like 7/8 of the Orthodox Church falls into heresy? How would we know?
Ask God. Or don't, this is his to say.  :P

Quote
for divorce, it is immoral unless its for a reason of adultery or immorality...yet Maria of Paris just divorced just to become a nun!
She divorced an apostate. Who knows if there wasn't any immortality involved as well?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RaphaCam on January 31, 2018, 06:54:28 PM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence)
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: ConstantinusMagnus on January 31, 2018, 07:06:20 PM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence)
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on February 01, 2018, 10:43:43 AM
A synod is validated or invalidated by its content, not by the number of bishops signing or not signing.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Xavier on February 01, 2018, 02:14:50 PM
A synod is validated or invalidated by its content, not by the number of bishops signing or not signing.

If this is true, then there is no prior guarantee that the synod will be infallible and binding. Then how can the faithful follow the command of Christ simply to hear and obey the Church just on the fact of Her authoritative teaching? i.e. the faithful cannot know they are bound to hear and obey - not scrutinize and judge - the Church's judgment on the disputed question of Faith, if they must revisit the disputed question themselves to decide who is right. That is why there must be a prior guarantee that the Church is speaking in a synod, and that therefore the Council is to be accepted as infallible or authoritative.

Take any case, this will always be true - say St. Cyril and Nestorius at Ephesus. Both had their own respective anathematizations. The faithful are not expected to scrutinize both - and in many cases may not be able - and such a method of proceeding would lead us right back to square one, before the synod began, to pass an authoritative judgment, precisely on a disputed question of faith.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Vanhyo on February 01, 2018, 02:43:38 PM
If this is true, then there is no prior guarantee that the synod will be infallible and binding. Then how can the faithful follow the command of Christ simply to hear and obey the Church just on the fact of Her authoritative teaching? i.e. the faithful cannot know they are bound to hear and obey - not scrutinize and judge - the Church's judgment on the disputed question of Faith, if they must revisit the disputed question themselves to decide who is right. That is why there must be a prior guarantee that the Church is speaking in a synod, and that therefore the Council is to be accepted as infallible or authoritative.

Take any case, this will always be true - say St. Cyril and Nestorius at Ephesus. Both had their own respective anathematizations. The faithful are not expected to scrutinize both - and in many cases may not be able - and such a method of proceeding would lead us right back to square one, before the synod began, to pass an authoritative judgment, precisely on a disputed question of faith.

Read John 10:26-29, there are always two sides, one guided by the passions and by the world and another guided by the love for Christ, so who has the truth ? You obviously cannot determined this by some scholastic mathematical formula that "guarantees you" where to go, rather you go where your heart is.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: juliogb on February 01, 2018, 02:54:35 PM
I didn't understand that picture of a statue of white marble? Why is supposedly a orthodox inconsistency?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on February 01, 2018, 03:21:56 PM
A synod is validated or invalidated by its content, not by the number of bishops signing or not signing.

If this is true, then there is no prior guarantee that the synod will be infallible and binding.

Right. There is no such guarantee. Hence some synods have seemed to meet all the criteria and are nonetheless rejected.

Quote
Then how can the faithful follow the command of Christ simply to hear and obey the Church just on the fact of Her authoritative teaching? i.e. the faithful cannot know they are bound to hear and obey - not scrutinize and judge - the Church's judgment on the disputed question of Faith, if they must revisit the disputed question themselves to decide who is right. That is why there must be a prior guarantee that the Church is speaking in a synod, and that therefore the Council is to be accepted as infallible or authoritative.

Take any case, this will always be true - say St. Cyril and Nestorius at Ephesus. Both had their own respective anathematizations. The faithful are not expected to scrutinize both - and in many cases may not be able - and such a method of proceeding would lead us right back to square one, before the synod began, to pass an authoritative judgment, precisely on a disputed question of faith.

Ephesus was to some a triumph of orthodoxy and to others the opposite, and polemics did not cease just because the council had ruled and the emperor had confirmed it. Likewise after all the great councils. If there had been some commonly held conception that ecumenical councils are infallible, it might have sufficed to simply invoke this rule, but there was none. Otherwise Saint Cyril should have required the Easterners to accept the council of Ephesus; instead he dialogued with them and reached an agreed statement of faith with them, no part of which says, "Because the Council of Ephesus said so." Doubtless in these controversies many people simply sided with their local bishop and in doing so thought they were conforming to the church.

There is simply no model of authority that forestalls dispute or waives the need for discernment; those who vainly hope for such a model must be continually befuddled that God made us humans and not robots.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on February 02, 2018, 01:23:42 AM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence)
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Agabus on February 02, 2018, 01:27:55 AM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence)
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.

He's got this idea that the liturgy itself invalidates all of the Roman church. Since under that logic it is the liturgical act itself that causes the invalidity, the churches that haven't adopted the reform should be a-OK.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on February 02, 2018, 01:58:59 AM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence)
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.

He's got this idea that the liturgy itself invalidates all of the Roman church. Since under that logic it is the liturgical act itself that causes the invalidity, the churches that haven't adopted the reform should be a-OK.

Sure, but they still commemorate the Pope liturgically (who he says is just a layman playing bishop). They also accept VII as a valid, nonheretical council that just happens to not apply to them, don't they?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Lepanto on February 02, 2018, 05:20:47 AM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence)
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.

He's got this idea that the liturgy itself invalidates all of the Roman church. Since under that logic it is the liturgical act itself that causes the invalidity, the churches that haven't adopted the reform should be a-OK.


Sure, but they still commemorate the Pope liturgically (who he says is just a layman playing bishop). They also accept VII as a valid, nonheretical council that just happens to not apply to them, don't they?
You surprised to find some logical inconsistencies with a Sedevacantist? 😉
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on February 02, 2018, 08:13:55 AM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence)
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.
That's not a legalistic matter of number. If all bishops but one hadn't signed, the decision of those who didn't sign wouldn't be void. There is no ready form to know, the Council simply promulgated heresy.

The council of Florence does not promugate heresey. Being united under the Bishop of Rome is not heresey. There are dozens of valid churches all over the world in egypt, in ukraine, in armenia, and in many other places where they have churches that are united with Rome called Uniate Churches. They are a direct result of this document Laetentur Caeli. Today in 2018, almost 500 later after this document was signed, these uniate churches are not heretics or practice any heresies of any sort, they have not deviated from the faith, they got to keep their rites and their priesthood and their traditions and everything. You can find these Uniate communites all over the world. The one who deviated from the faith unfortunetly was the Pope himself and the great majority of Roman Bishops in the 1960s at the Vatican 2.
And yes you are correct in that Mark of Esphesus could not stop have stoped the council or have invalidate it somehow. Thats just not consistence with all the other ecuemnical councils and the legions of disenters in each one of them

So to sum up, the RCC is invalid because of Vatican II but the sui iuris churches under the Pope are still fine? Well... that's a new idea.

He's got this idea that the liturgy itself invalidates all of the Roman church. Since under that logic it is the liturgical act itself that causes the invalidity, the churches that haven't adopted the reform should be a-OK.


Sure, but they still commemorate the Pope liturgically (who he says is just a layman playing bishop). They also accept VII as a valid, nonheretical council that just happens to not apply to them, don't they?
You surprised to find some logical inconsistencies with a Sedevacantist? 😉

No, just ever surprised at how many different variations of odd ideas there are on the internet. It's like the dark side of IDIC.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RaphaCam on February 02, 2018, 03:18:46 PM
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on February 03, 2018, 03:13:35 PM
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).

Oh, ok. I guess in my ignorance I just thought that since they all use their own rights, there wouldn't really be anything to Novus Ordo-ize. Guess I was wrong.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RaphaCam on February 03, 2018, 05:05:02 PM
It's minoritary anyway.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: peacenprayer on February 07, 2018, 10:08:27 AM
Ooooh, yes. Theres hypocritical stuff all over. Its especially a pain when its all about "those darn Catholics."

This kind of stuff has nearly pushed me away from the Orthodox many times... but when you hear folky, campy "hymns" durring a Catholic Mass in an ugly iconoclastic church and then bail only to hear them sing "Amazing Grace" in an Eastern Catholic church (among other things that will make you cring)... you'll suddenly appreciate all the not stupid things in the Orthodox Church.
We're fallen people. As such we tend to get caught up in team A vs team B. Look past the ugly, learn to know better, don't feed the trolls, and give glory to God for all things.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Tzimis on February 07, 2018, 11:05:49 AM
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who, contrary to the views of all others,held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

A decision to be true it has to be agreed by all bishops. Mark of Ephesus did not agree. So the decision IS VOID with NO VALUE.

Read the Bible my friend. And the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church. So no schism.



Yes, Laetentur Caeli is the major document that came out of the council of florence that is massivly inconsistent with orthodox theology. I will discuss it with you if you refrain from name calling, assuming things about the other, or taking sneaky negative jabs at others.
Now, as far as your claim that because Mark of Ephesus did not agree upon the council and that some hows makes the entire council invalid, is just plain false. Because what your saying means that ALL councils EVER called are also INVALID. Why? Because there has never been a 100% consensus in any ecuemnical council. Many times even one of the 5 ancient Patriarchs goes against the rest of the council and the bishops and the Emperor would just denounce and replace them. There are dozens of examples of bishops dissenting from past ecumenical councils. Maybe even hundreds. So your argument that because one bishop didnt sign it, that somehow invalidates the Roman Emperor and the Pope and the Patrirach of Alexandria and Jeruslaem and Constaintople and all the 600 bishops that signed it, including moscow, ethiopians, coptics, armenians, everybody, is just ridiculous. What eles you got?

Nobody is claiming that it is null and void. The real question is. Whether or not Orthodoxy can continue on with only one bishop. History has proven that it can.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: jah777 on April 18, 2018, 03:00:07 PM
Has anyone felt deceived or annoyed or felt like questioning their Faith when one notices the various contradictions in the history of the Church to what Orthodox priests or Orthodox theologians tell you? Or perhaps what you learn about Orthodoxy?

You bring up a lot that can be discussed but if you look deeper into any of these issues you will find that most of what is present in Orthodoxy contrary to Orthodox teaching has been a direct result of Latin influences.  In cases like indulgences, this was a direct result of Orthodox interaction with Latins but it did not spread throughout the Church and died out without any major fanfare.  The Latin (Roman Catholic) influence in Orthodox iconography, however, has persisted for a greater period of time in some local churches (particularly the Russian Orthodox Church).  The 7th Ecumenical Council of the Pre-Schism undivided Church formalized the Orthodox and Catholic principles of iconography.  The fact that early examples of statues can be found does not mean that statues ever became an integral part of Orthodox veneration.  We have to be careful not to assume that occasional deviations from Orthodox tradition imply that these deviations were once standard in Orthodox tradition.  In other words, we should be careful not to exaggerate the extent of these aberrations within Orthodoxy. 

You may be interested in what St. John the Wonderworker said regarding the Roman Catholic influence on Orthodox iconography:

http://archangelsbooks.com/articles/iconography/DiscourseIcon.asp

St. John was a Russian Orthodox bishop well acquainted with Westernized statues and paintings adorning Russian churches.  Among other things, he said:
Quote
Later, alien influence touched Iconography as well. Images of the Western type began to appear, perhaps beautiful from an artistic point of view, but completely lacking in sanctity, beautiful in the sense of earthly beauty, but even scandalous at times, and devoid of spirituality. Such were not Icons. They were distortions of Icons, exhibiting a lack of comprehension of what an Icon actually is.

The purpose of this article is, first of all, to promote an understanding of the true Icon, and secondly, to cultivate a love for the Icon and the desire that our churches and our homes be adorned with genuine Icons and not with Western paintings which tell us nothing about righteousness or sanctity, but are merely pleasant to look upon.

Regarding sacraments outside of the Church, St. Augustine's teachings on this are at odds with those of the Greek and Orthodox Fathers.  St. Augustine's teachings on this, and other topics, have never been accepted by the Orthodox Church.  Fr. George Florovsky was a wonderful church writer but his "Limits of the Church" depended solely on St. Augustine and did not properly reflect Orthodox teaching.  Fr. George wrote this piece when he was quite young and it was not a good reflection of his later theological maturity, but there are people who spread this around because it makes them feel good to think that the limits of the Church are more flexible than what the Orthodox Church has actually taught historically.

The same Fr. George Florovsky later wrote:
Quote
“As a member and a priest of the Orthodox Church, I believe that the Church in which I was baptized and raised ‘is’ in very truth ‘the Church’, i.e. ‘the true’ Church and the ‘only’ true Church. And I believe this for many reasons: owing to personal conviction and to internal confirmation of the Spirit, who breathes into the Sacraments of the Church. Therefore, I am compelled to regard all other Christian Churches as defective, and in many cases I can define the deficiencies of these other Churches accurately enough. Therefore, for me, Christian reunion is simply universal conversion to Orthodoxy. (…) “Judgement” has been given to the Son. No one has been appointed to pre-empt His judgement. Of course, the Church has Her command inside history. The command firstly to preach and preserve the word of truth. There is some rule of faith and order which must be considered as a canon. Whatever exists beyond is an “abnormality”. But this “abnormality” must be healed, and not simply be condemned. This is what justifies an Orthodox to participate in ecumenical dialogue, with the hope that with his witness the Truth of God makes possible to win human beings”.

A critique of this article of his can be found here:  https://orthodoxethos.com/post/fr-george-florovsky-on-the-boundaries-of-the-church

Regarding the Rosary - it is incorrectly said that St. Seraphim of Sarov prayed the Rosary and that there is an "Orthodox version" of the Rosary.  There is a long-standing tradition of using a prayer rope to repeat the Jesus Prayer or another short prayer ("Most Holy Theotokos, save us!" or "Rejoice, Mary full of grace.."), but not with times of meditating on or imagining different scenes as is done with the Rosary.  There are some Orthodox churches that attempt to resurrect a "Western Rite" of sorts, and in doing so sometimes adopt practices from the Roman Catholic West that may not really belong to Orthodox tradition.  So, a Western Rite parish within the Orthodox Church which is promoting the praying of the Rosary does not indicate that the Rosary is an Orthodox practice.  Aside from the vague attribution to St. Seraphim of Sarov, I am not aware of any Orthodox saints who taught the Rosary. 

Reception of converts - the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church after the Latinizing efforts of Peter the Great began to deviate from the Orthodox practice in receiving converts is unfortunate, as is the fact that so many Orthodox churches continue to deviate from the canons in the reception of converts, but these aberrations do not change the fact that the Church has canons of Ecumenical Councils that are very clear about these things.  For instance, in the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was specifically stated that the Eunomian heretics had to be received into the Church through baptism because the Eunomians practiced baptism with only a single immersion.  This canon was also reiterated in the Council of Trullo.  Baptism consists of three full immersions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  If a person has not already had three full immersions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then they are to be received by baptism.  This is why the Eastern Patriarchs in 1755 declared that all converts "from the West" be received by baptism, and why St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain said that Roman Catholics must be received by baptism.  Modern practice has mostly abandoned following the canons of the Church in this regard, mostly out of a desire for better Ecumenical relations with non-Orthodox, but that does not mean that this modern practice is therefore justified on the basis of Orthodox Tradition.

Where aberrations have occurred, this has come from lack of education of Orthodox priests and hierarchs regarding the canons and tradition of the Orthodox Church.  The same happens today and that is the cause of all of the confusion.  It is frustrating, but despite the aberrations that exist here and there, the Orthodox Church has retained the Orthodox faith and practice which leads to theosis.  The Orthodox Church continues to produce saints today that were just as filled with the Holy Spirit as the earliest saints and Desert Fathers.  To be counted among these saints, we should read their writings and imitate their examples.  I'm sure that despite the confusion and aberrations you have observed, if you look deeply and thoroughly, you will see in the Orthodox Church a fidelity to the faith, worship, and way of life of the undivided Pre-Schism Church that you will not find in any other Christian group.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: juliogb on April 20, 2018, 07:40:18 AM
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).


Some time ago I saw a polemic about pentecostal style services in the greek catholic ukrainian church.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on April 20, 2018, 09:55:05 AM
I didn't understand that picture of a statue of white marble? Why is supposedly a orthodox inconsistency?

At the time of posting, many Orthodox have - through polemic apologetics and through discussion - told me the horrifying effects that Paganism had in Roman iconography reintroduced into Rome by the Renaissance looking to Ancient Pagan Rome for inspiration of artwork, mainly in terms of using more realistic and "motioned" statues and artwork.... yet we have several of these statues of Christ from the 4th century that literally use the an even more precise mold from Pagan Rome than contemporary Roman artwork, even more so than the Renaissance introduced.

More than that, we have several of these statues from the 4th century when Orthodox have non stopped told me statues are a pagan invention that was created by the West during the time they fell into heresy...

The question is, which is more Pagan?

This:

(https://www.pilgrimgifts.co.uk/images/products/3383/christ-the-good-shepherd-statue-10-inches-high-400x400-10775.jpg)

Or this:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c3/b1/eb/c3b1eb865b73812320d80fb29deb25f5.jpg)

Both are literally supposed to be Christ the Good Shepherd.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on April 20, 2018, 09:58:31 AM
I tend to chuck it over to both the unintentional sins of contemporary well-meaning Orthodox and the pride of members of the 1st Millenium Church in pursuing a cultural triumphalism, which of course leads to schism and disunity.

I'm glad we have no racists (including those who show off how tolerant they are but are extremely racist to those who aren't part of their closed off ethnic circle) in the Church today, right?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on April 20, 2018, 10:00:30 AM
Orthodox occasionally use statuary too. It's rare but it happens. The Orthodox who claim it is inherently pagan are wrong. Don't confuse silly modern apologetics with Orthodoxy itself.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on April 20, 2018, 10:02:39 AM
Orthodox occasionally use statuary too. It's rare but it happens. The Orthodox who claim it is inherently pagan are wrong. Don't confuse silly modern apologetics with Orthodoxy itself.

Yeah, at the time of these postings, I was kind of melting down over letting go of cultural heritage that was familiar to me, and was venting off resentment towards those who caused schism out of pride in the past (on both the Orthodox side and the heterodox side) such that we now have 30,000 Christian denominations. But it's just an unfortunate consequence of our fallen, wicked world.

Imagine the world we would've lived in if we all had One Orthodox Faith with Ethiopian, Armenian, Roman, Gallician, Celtic, English, Mozarabic, Byzantine, Russian, and Coptic Liturgical Traditions, and we were all united together with the same Undivided Faith without any schism. Hubris prevented this, and such a beautiful thought is now permanently lost, such that people even to this very day feel the need to impose their own ideas of what ethnicity and culture the Church ought to be. I mean, even in the contemporary period, we still have instances of this idea of cultural supremacy, with the Russian Orthodox Church who tried to impose their own practice on the Carpatho Russians... I mean, WHY? Just because their chant sounded slightly different?

Admittedly, I'm kind of guilty of this too, as shown by my posts in the past.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Jackson02 on April 20, 2018, 02:05:27 PM
I didn't understand that picture of a statue of white marble? Why is supposedly a orthodox inconsistency?

At the time of posting, many Orthodox have - through polemic apologetics and through discussion - told me the horrifying effects that Paganism had in Roman iconography reintroduced into Rome by the Renaissance looking to Ancient Pagan Rome for inspiration of artwork, mainly in terms of using more realistic and "motioned" statues and artwork.... yet we have several of these statues of Christ from the 4th century that literally use the an even more precise mold from Pagan Rome than contemporary Roman artwork, even more so than the Renaissance introduced.

More than that, we have several of these statues from the 4th century when Orthodox have non stopped told me statues are a pagan invention that was created by the West during the time they fell into heresy...

The question is, which is more Pagan?

This:

(https://www.pilgrimgifts.co.uk/images/products/3383/christ-the-good-shepherd-statue-10-inches-high-400x400-10775.jpg)

Or this:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c3/b1/eb/c3b1eb865b73812320d80fb29deb25f5.jpg)

Both are literally supposed to be Christ the Good Shepherd.

Even afterwards in Russia they were making ivory statues of the Theotokos and Christ.

(http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/theotokos-hodegetria-carving.jpg)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on April 20, 2018, 02:24:41 PM
That hodegetria statue was done by Jonathan Pageau a couple years ago for a parish in Illinois.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Jackson02 on April 20, 2018, 03:22:15 PM
That hodegetria statue was done by Jonathan Pageau a couple years ago for a parish in Illinois.
Oh. Well inconsistencies are still going on.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on April 20, 2018, 03:28:25 PM
What inconsistencies? You can find statues like that from Byzantine times. The anti-statue posture is 1-2 centuries old at most.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sethrak on April 20, 2018, 05:04:27 PM
We do not worship statues ~ nor ~ do Latin Christians today ``` Sorry ~ if ~ anyone has a problem ~ with ~ paintings, carvings or statures ~ don't be troubled ~ think and pray ```


Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sethrak on April 20, 2018, 05:17:57 PM
Just read part of a post ~ someone lamenting: "  we now have 30,000 Christian denominations."

Not so ~ and ~ not the fault of ~ The Universal Church ```

You see ~ anyone of the Protestant faith ~ can simply say : I am led by the Holy Spirit ~ to ~ Open the church of ~ " Jim The Snowboarder"  ```

This is true more so here in America ~ these ( described above ) are not denominations ~ just protestants ~ opening a business ```
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Asteriktos on April 20, 2018, 05:29:42 PM
Just read part of a post ~ someone lamenting: "  we now have 30,000 Christian denominations."

º°o°º where ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ebor ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ when ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ need ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ her º°o°º
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on April 20, 2018, 06:35:16 PM
Just read part of a post ~ someone lamenting: "  we now have 30,000 Christian denominations."

Not so ~ and ~ not the fault of ~ The Universal Church ```

You see ~ anyone of the Protestant faith ~ can simply say : I am led by the Holy Spirit ~ to ~ Open the church of ~ " Jim The Snowboarder"  ```

This is true more so here in America ~ these ( described above ) are not denominations ~ just protestants ~ opening a business ```

While that might be theoretically possible, "30,000" is still an inaccurate number arrived at by screwy counting methods. I'd say 5,000 or so is a better high end guestimate. Still not good, obviously (any situation with more denominations that any inquirer could possibly examine in their lifetime is still pretty bad- and of course the best case scenario would be if there were only one Christian Communion), but not as pearl clutch inducing as 30,000.

And he wasn't saying it was the fault of the Universal Church, just saying that it's a sad state of affairs.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sharbel on April 23, 2018, 10:42:50 PM
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).
Some time ago I saw a polemic about pentecostal style services in the greek catholic ukrainian church.
The contemporary Roman Catholic ethos is Poundian: out with the old, in with the new!  Of course, as any institution that marries modernity, it quickly becomes a widow.  Alas, in my anecdotal experience all Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted the spirit of modern reformation injected by VII and no liturgy has remained intact and are nowadays farther from their original form.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: juliogb on April 26, 2018, 09:43:51 AM
The Eastern Catholic Churches do believe Vatican II applies to them, they sent their own representatives and one document of the Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, specifically adresses them. A minority of them have even adopted Novus Ordo innovations (I've seen that on Maronites and Melkites).
Some time ago I saw a polemic about pentecostal style services in the greek catholic ukrainian church.
The contemporary Roman Catholic ethos is Poundian: out with the old, in with the new!  Of course, as any institution that marries modernity, it quickly becomes a widow.  Alas, in my anecdotal experience all Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted the spirit of modern reformation injected by VII and no liturgy has remained intact and are nowadays farther from their original form.

I went to a melkite parish twice, it was a service in the middle of the week, not sunday. I didnt see any weird inovation, what I found odd was the priest explaining that melkites were not orthodox, after liturgy in a kind of ''notification time'' (how do you guys call the moment when the priest/pastor tells about the incoming events and feasts?).
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on April 26, 2018, 09:55:11 AM
what I found odd was the priest explaining that melkites were not orthodox, after liturgy in a kind of ''notification time''

Sometimes you just have to get the blood boiling with those "orthodox in communion with Rome" people. :)

Quote
(how do you guys call the moment when the priest/pastor tells about the incoming events and feasts?).

Usually "announcements" or something like that.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Sharbel on April 26, 2018, 10:38:47 AM
The contemporary Roman Catholic ethos is Poundian: out with the old, in with the new!  Of course, as any institution that marries modernity, it quickly becomes a widow.  Alas, in my anecdotal experience all Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted the spirit of modern reformation injected by VII and no liturgy has remained intact and are nowadays farther from their original form.

I went to a melkite parish twice, it was a service in the middle of the week, not sunday. I didnt see any weird inovation, what I found odd was the priest explaining that melkites were not orthodox, after liturgy in a kind of ''notification time'' (how do you guys call the moment when the priest/pastor tells about the incoming events and feasts?).
Mostly, the innovations are in the details, especially in the translation of the liturgical texts, which have been happening quite a bit in the last couple of decades, probably related to the mandate from Rome for new translations based on the Latin text approved in 2001, though this applied only to the churches using the Roman liturgy.  As a matter of fact, often many Eastern Catholic Churches took to apply to themselves directives directed to the Latin Church from VII.  Of course, not at the expense of their own traditions, as it happened in the West.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: WPM on April 26, 2018, 11:33:33 AM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on April 26, 2018, 12:37:45 PM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on April 26, 2018, 12:44:53 PM
The contemporary Roman Catholic ethos is Poundian: out with the old, in with the new!  Of course, as any institution that marries modernity, it quickly becomes a widow.  Alas, in my anecdotal experience all Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted the spirit of modern reformation injected by VII and no liturgy has remained intact and are nowadays farther from their original form.

I went to a melkite parish twice, it was a service in the middle of the week, not sunday. I didnt see any weird inovation, what I found odd was the priest explaining that melkites were not orthodox, after liturgy in a kind of ''notification time'' (how do you guys call the moment when the priest/pastor tells about the incoming events and feasts?).
Mostly, the innovations are in the details, especially in the translation of the liturgical texts, which have been happening quite a bit in the last couple of decades, probably related to the mandate from Rome for new translations based on the Latin text approved in 2001, though this applied only to the churches using the Roman liturgy.  As a matter of fact, often many Eastern Catholic Churches took to apply to themselves directives directed to the Latin Church from VII.  Of course, not at the expense of their own traditions, as it happened in the West.

From my own experiences with Eastern Catholicism (which is limited only to some research and attending Maronite and Ukrainian Catholic Masses), the amount of Liberalism in terms of liturgy and discipline varies from "jurisdiction" to "jurisdiction". For example, I know that - at least in the United States - the Melkite Catholic Church has a rather rigorous fast, and basically follows the Orthodox Fast, whereas the Ukrainian Catholic Church has abolished all of their fasting rules and follows the Roman Rite post-Vatican II. Likewise, I have found much, much more liturgical liberalism is permitted within the Ukrainian Catholic Church (in one of the Patriarchal Churches, in Parma Heights, the communion hymn was "Oh beautiful for spacious skies" when I attended it) but I have found the Melkite Catholic Church to be more conservative.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on April 26, 2018, 12:49:35 PM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.

Have you seen the state at which the Anglican Communion has been in? I don't even think sociologically / politically they are properly interchangable. There's fundamental differences in the norms of discipline and morality between these religious groups. That's also not to mention more specific moral differences, such as views on alcohol and contraception, which differ even among groups that have shared sociological / political norms.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Lepanto on April 26, 2018, 01:11:58 PM
Views on alcohol and contraception?
Now, the interaction of those two seems especially interesting  8)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on April 26, 2018, 03:33:38 PM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.

Have you seen the state at which the Anglican Communion has been in? I don't even think sociologically / politically they are properly interchangable. There's fundamental differences in the norms of discipline and morality between these religious groups. That's also not to mention more specific moral differences, such as views on alcohol and contraception, which differ even among groups that have shared sociological / political norms.

Every flavor of Christianity has its conservative and liberal wings. The only differences are the relative volume of the mutual screeching.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on April 26, 2018, 06:23:34 PM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.

Have you seen the state at which the Anglican Communion has been in? I don't even think sociologically / politically they are properly interchangable. There's fundamental differences in the norms of discipline and morality between these religious groups. That's also not to mention more specific moral differences, such as views on alcohol and contraception, which differ even among groups that have shared sociological / political norms.

Every flavor of Christianity has its conservative and liberal wings. The only differences are the relative volume of the mutual screeching.

Yes, that true,  yet I think there is certain things,  Orthodox Church would never do, whatever,  left or Right wings of the flock complained to the hierarchy. Where as in other Churches the Heirarchs have caved to One extreme, or the other, and also cut themselves off from Holy tradition.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on April 26, 2018, 07:08:19 PM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.

Have you seen the state at which the Anglican Communion has been in? I don't even think sociologically / politically they are properly interchangable. There's fundamental differences in the norms of discipline and morality between these religious groups. That's also not to mention more specific moral differences, such as views on alcohol and contraception, which differ even among groups that have shared sociological / political norms.

Every flavor of Christianity has its conservative and liberal wings. The only differences are the relative volume of the mutual screeching.

Interesting point. It's hard to pin that down on Protestantism, because due to the fact that their origin is breaking away from an organized ecclesial structure, there's no enforcement mechanism to try to hold their ideology within any ecclesial structure, such that each ecclesial structure of Protestantism tends to be representative of a conservative or liberal wing.

There's no incentive to stay with the Anglican Communion when one can just hop on in and join the Anglican Catholic Church or some other Continuing Anglican movement, nor is there incentive to stay with the ELCA when one can just join the LCMS.

I find it interesting the amount of "mutual screeching" when one compares the Roman Catholic Communion to the Orthodox Communions; in the former, it seems that the Liberals have formed their sect with the Jesuits, the Traditionals have formed their sect with the FSSP / ICKSP, and the JP2 mainstream are everywhere else, and all are screaming at each other, whereas in Orthodoxy, opinions that are too radical - either conservative or Liberal - get a strong rebuking to shut up and listen to your priest - however, clearly in Orthodoxy Liberals and conservatives have also formed allegiances in certain areas too (their tends to be more Liberals in GOARCH and more conservatives in ROCOR); it isn't nearly as vocally pronounced as it is in Roman Catholicism nonetheless.

Also to note is the fact that it seems that the wideness of opinions is very subtantially different in each communion as well.
In Protestantism, anything goes; compare that to what's allowed in Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy (the latter which I view as much stricter overall, despite Roman Catholicism being much stricter in other areas [e.g., contraception and deaconesses]).
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Asteriktos on April 26, 2018, 07:35:56 PM
despite Roman Catholicism being much stricter in other areas [e.g., contraception and deaconesses]).

Changing the name of something so you appear to be following older ways (but not too old!) doesn't really count...
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: juliogb on May 09, 2018, 01:20:07 PM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.

Have you seen the state at which the Anglican Communion has been in? I don't even think sociologically / politically they are properly interchangable. There's fundamental differences in the norms of discipline and morality between these religious groups. That's also not to mention more specific moral differences, such as views on alcohol and contraception, which differ even among groups that have shared sociological / political norms.

I dont know if you knew about it, but that episcopal cathedral in San Francisco recently held something called ''Beyoncé mass'', look up for it if you have a strong stomach.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 09, 2018, 01:40:46 PM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.

Have you seen the state at which the Anglican Communion has been in? I don't even think sociologically / politically they are properly interchangable. There's fundamental differences in the norms of discipline and morality between these religious groups. That's also not to mention more specific moral differences, such as views on alcohol and contraception, which differ even among groups that have shared sociological / political norms.

I dont know if you knew about it, but that episcopal cathedral in San Francisco recently held something called ''Beyoncé mass'', look up for it if you have a strong stomach.

I don’t think he’s ready for that jelly...
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: BrotherInChrist on May 10, 2018, 12:19:17 AM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.

Have you seen the state at which the Anglican Communion has been in? I don't even think sociologically / politically they are properly interchangable. There's fundamental differences in the norms of discipline and morality between these religious groups. That's also not to mention more specific moral differences, such as views on alcohol and contraception, which differ even among groups that have shared sociological / political norms.

I dont know if you knew about it, but that episcopal cathedral in San Francisco recently held something called ''Beyoncé mass'', look up for it if you have a strong stomach.

Somehow that doesn't shock me.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on May 10, 2018, 09:41:27 AM
Isn't "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" interchangeable? ...

Only sociologically/politically.

Have you seen the state at which the Anglican Communion has been in? I don't even think sociologically / politically they are properly interchangable. There's fundamental differences in the norms of discipline and morality between these religious groups. That's also not to mention more specific moral differences, such as views on alcohol and contraception, which differ even among groups that have shared sociological / political norms.

I dont know if you knew about it, but that episcopal cathedral in San Francisco recently held something called ''Beyoncé mass'', look up for it if you have a strong stomach.

I don’t think he’s ready for that jelly...

After this year's Met Gala 2018 display, which literally makes me physically sick (I'm not even kidding)


(https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/remote/https_s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/Heavenly_Bodies_-_Our_Lady_dress_645_363_55.jpg)

(https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/remote/https_s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/met_gala_1_645_406_55.jpg)

(http://en.vogue.fr/uploads/images/thumbs/201745/8a/sub_9820.jpeg_north_499x_white.jpg)



I'm ready for anything. If there was a Catholic or Episcopal Black Mass in the name of tolerance of other religions (to show that the Satanists are really just misunderstood atheists), I wouldn't be surprised anymore.


*Makes Sign of the Cross*
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on May 10, 2018, 09:42:41 AM
When is the world gonna end again? It seems that God has been really patient recently, and I don't know if I even want to live on this planet anymore.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RaphaCam on May 10, 2018, 01:05:37 PM
When is the world gonna end again? It seems that God has been really patient recently, and I don't know if I even want to live on this planet anymore.
Not our business. God already won the world, so to man, patience is reserved. See St. John 16:33.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 10, 2018, 01:33:26 PM

(http://en.vogue.fr/uploads/images/thumbs/201745/8a/sub_9820.jpeg_north_499x_white.jpg)



I'm ready for anything.

So am I.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on May 10, 2018, 06:09:04 PM
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/077/988/my_body_is_ready.png)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on May 10, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
When is the world gonna end again? It seems that God has been really patient recently, and I don't know if I even want to live on this planet anymore.

Pretty sure tacky jewelry versions of Christian things are nothing new even in the fashion world. Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on May 11, 2018, 01:05:05 PM
When is the world gonna end again? It seems that God has been really patient recently, and I don't know if I even want to live on this planet anymore.

Pretty sure tacky jewelry versions of Christian things are nothing new even in the fashion world. Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Honestly, imagine me living in 16th century Italy and reacting to some of the paintings / sculptures.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Antonis on May 11, 2018, 01:33:23 PM
No.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: WPM on May 11, 2018, 02:14:43 PM
Why those ppl never met you ... Assuming there is even anyone there
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: RobS on May 11, 2018, 03:09:36 PM
I like the Western influence on Russian Orthodoxy (except when it came to the Western Captivity on theology in the 18th c)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Iconodule on May 11, 2018, 03:12:36 PM
I like the Western influence on Russian Orthodoxy (except when it came to the Western Captivity on theology in the 18th c)

Is it even possible to separate them?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Agabus on May 11, 2018, 03:50:01 PM
I like the Western influence on Russian Orthodoxy (except when it came to the Western Captivity on theology in the 18th c)

Is it even possible to separate them?

Ain't no captivity like a western captivity 'cause a western captivity don't stop.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Lepanto on May 11, 2018, 04:34:24 PM
My eyes hurt. Why did you post those pictures? Doesn't really make things better, does it? Didn't it suffice that you saw them, did we also have to see them?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on May 11, 2018, 05:26:53 PM
When is the world gonna end again? It seems that God has been really patient recently, and I don't know if I even want to live on this planet anymore.

Pretty sure tacky jewelry versions of Christian things are nothing new even in the fashion world. Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Honestly, imagine me living in 16th century Italy and reacting to some of the paintings / sculptures.

16th Century... Florence? With its memetic homosexuality ("that game from the back that Florentine men love" as they called it) and profligate artist communities that produced sculptures like Donatello's twinky David? Ok.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on May 11, 2018, 05:28:28 PM
My eyes hurt. Why did you post those pictures? Doesn't really make things better, does it? Didn't it suffice that you saw them, did we also have to see them?

I'm sorry. Nobody should be exposed to Reggie Fils-Aimé. You didn't lose your lunch, did you?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: WPM on May 11, 2018, 11:25:46 PM
The contemporary Roman Catholic ethos is Poundian: out with the old, in with the new!  Of course, as any institution that marries modernity, it quickly becomes a widow.  Alas, in my anecdotal experience all Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted the spirit of modern reformation injected by VII and no liturgy has remained intact and are nowadays farther from their original form.

I went to a melkite parish twice, it was a service in the middle of the week, not sunday. I didnt see any weird inovation, what I found odd was the priest explaining that melkites were not orthodox, after liturgy in a kind of ''notification time'' (how do you guys call the moment when the priest/pastor tells about the incoming events and feasts?).
Mostly, the innovations are in the details, especially in the translation of the liturgical texts, which have been happening quite a bit in the last couple of decades, probably related to the mandate from Rome for new translations based on the Latin text approved in 2001, though this applied only to the churches using the Roman liturgy.  As a matter of fact, often many Eastern Catholic Churches took to apply to themselves directives directed to the Latin Church from VII.  Of course, not at the expense of their own traditions, as it happened in the West.

From my own experiences with Eastern Catholicism (which is limited only to some research and attending Maronite and Ukrainian Catholic Masses), the amount of Liberalism in terms of liturgy and discipline varies from "jurisdiction" to "jurisdiction". For example, I know that - at least in the United States - the Melkite Catholic Church has a rather rigorous fast, and basically follows the Orthodox Fast, whereas the Ukrainian Catholic Church has abolished all of their fasting rules and follows the Roman Rite post-Vatican II. Likewise, I have found much, much more liturgical liberalism is permitted within the Ukrainian Catholic Church (in one of the Patriarchal Churches, in Parma Heights, the communion hymn was "Oh beautiful for spacious skies" when I attended it) but I have found the Melkite Catholic Church to be more conservative.

Sounds like high church or church with all the bells or trappings.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on May 12, 2018, 12:40:01 PM
All kidding aside, nobody who is Orthodox is seriously offended by these pictures?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on May 12, 2018, 12:41:59 PM

(http://en.vogue.fr/uploads/images/thumbs/201745/8a/sub_9820.jpeg_north_499x_white.jpg)



I'm ready for anything.

So am I.

While I usually tolerate sex jokes, I find this post in regard to the subject matter to be quite obscene, and it bids poorly for your eternal soul to make sex jokes in regards to the Virgin Mary. If you don't go to confession, good luck during the Last Judgment - because if I ain't making it, you sure as hell ain't.

I think even 13 year olds would find that offensive.

If I'm the "graceless schismatic" and you, Mor, are in a state of grace, I know for a fact that you are doing a poor job at representing Oriental Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on May 12, 2018, 12:46:57 PM
I have a lot of scruples to resolve, and I ain't close to Theosis - I still probably haven't started on step 1 - but for me this is morally unacceptable.

Would you find a stripping Virgin Mary cosplayer erotic?
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Ainnir on May 12, 2018, 01:01:02 PM
While I usually tolerate sex jokes, I find this post in regard to the subject matter to be quite obscene, and it bids poorly for your eternal soul to make sex jokes in regards to the Virgin Mary. If you don't go to confession, good luck during the Last Judgment - because if I ain't making it, you sure as hell ain't.

I think even 13 year olds would find that offensive.

If I'm the "graceless schismatic" and you, Mor, are in a state of grace, I know for a fact that you are doing a poor job at representing Oriental Orthodoxy.

Who said his comment was in regard to the Virgin Mary?   ???  Or that it was necessarily even a sex joke?  He could have been agreeing with you.  I won't touch on the probability of either option, because it's not mine or yours to do that, or speculate on his confessing habits.  Let God worry about Mor's soul and to what effect he is representing the OO Tradition.  Worry about your own soul first, but if you feel Mor really is in spiritual danger, pray the Jesus prayer for him.   :police:
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on May 12, 2018, 02:11:10 PM
+1
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on May 12, 2018, 03:36:14 PM

(http://en.vogue.fr/uploads/images/thumbs/201745/8a/sub_9820.jpeg_north_499x_white.jpg)



I'm ready for anything.

So am I.

While I usually tolerate sex jokes, I find this post in regard to the subject matter to be quite obscene, and it bids poorly for your eternal soul to make sex jokes in regards to the Virgin Mary. If you don't go to confession, good luck during the Last Judgment - because if I ain't making it, you sure as hell ain't.

I think even 13 year olds would find that offensive.

If I'm the "graceless schismatic" and you, Mor, are in a state of grace, I know for a fact that you are doing a poor job at representing Oriental Orthodoxy.

It wasn't in regards to Mary, but to the models. Give people a little benefit of the doubt before you fly off the handle, please.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on May 12, 2018, 04:01:03 PM
All kidding aside, nobody who is Orthodox is seriously offended by these pictures?

I'm not Orthodox, but since I was already involved in the discussion, I'll just say that I am offended- provided we define "offended" in the most milquetoast sense possible. It's tacky (though I do like the pseudo-Byzantine stylings and color scheme, it would be nice if they took Mary off of it and got rid of the stupid crown), but I don't want to duel anybody over it or anything and I certainly don't fear for my safety in Western society (I think said fear lurks in the background in a lot of complaints by minority people, and it's not a good thing that pop culture just broad brushes it all as them being "offended" or "sensitive").

Like I said, this is nothing new. Kanye and Jay-Z have been calling themselves "Yeezus" and "[Je]Hov[ah]" for years (remember the Rolling Stone cover?) and people have been using crucifixes as jewelry for longer. "Slutty nun" costumes, Madonna's "Like a Little Prayer," Lay Gaga's "Judas," J-Lo dressed as Mary in The Cell, The Last Temptation of Christ, I could go on and on. Most of the time little if any malice is intended, it's just stupidity. And I think that Christians only serve to create a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" scenario when they get up in arms about it (or make it look like they're just fishing for media attention and donations).

If I lived somewhere like China where the government was actively trying to quash Christianity, I might feel different. But here in the US, I'm too privileged to feel justified in getting angry about it.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on May 12, 2018, 04:32:58 PM
Of course, none of this applies to Sistermon Noir from Digimon.

(https://wikimon.net/images/b/b9/Sistermon_noir.jpg)

Sistermon Noir will always get a pass.








Always.
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: LivenotoneviL on May 12, 2018, 07:53:57 PM
Of course, none of this applies to Sistermon Noir from Digimon.

(https://wikimon.net/images/b/b9/Sistermon_noir.jpg)

Sistermon Noir will always get a pass.








Always.

Thank you for the calm response, and I appreciate it. I would be a hot potato if I was on Veggietales.

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/bigidea/images/9/9c/Motato.png/revision/latest?cb=20150702211529)


I personally have the opinion that Christ really had a biological love to His Mother much like we do to our mothers, and whenever the Theotokos is blasphemed, I find that to be a whole other degree of offensiveness, much like offending my mother is worse than offending me.

But of course! Posting on an Orthodox forum about me being offended is sure to change their mind!  :-X

But still, getting selectively outraged on this article is appropriate imo compared to the usual making fun of Jesus thing.

I also got really offended at the Alejandro Lady GaGa video when I discovered it, where she dresses as a nun who strips and fornicates, and also eats a Rosary (wth)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Volnutt on May 12, 2018, 07:56:56 PM
No problem :)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: BrotherInChrist on May 13, 2018, 12:03:12 AM
My eyes hurt. Why did you post those pictures? Doesn't really make things better, does it? Didn't it suffice that you saw them, did we also have to see them?

I'm sorry. Nobody should be exposed to Reggie Fils-Aimé. You didn't lose your lunch, did you?

I guess his body wasn't ready for that.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/014/959/Screenshot_116.png)
Title: Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
Post by: Thomas on May 13, 2018, 12:06:37 AM
I have locked this topic, it has gone into a free for all that has nothing to do with inconsistencies in the Orthodox Church.
Thomas
Convert Issues Moderator