Recent Posts

I for one for one find your comment at odds with your involvement on an Orthodox Christian forum.

Why? It's true. Every gay manifestation in Eastern Europe I've heard ends up being attacked by violent "religious" mob. I would be surprised if for once it wasn't.

Serbia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znp8kTGyRx0

Ukraine: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147385/Horrific-moment-thugs-attack-head-gay-rights-group-Ukraine-forced-cancel-parade-hijacked-neo-Nazi-zealots.html

Russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDOV6qvizmA

Lithuania: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXwkj1pcexM

It's quite telling that these are all places where either Orthodox at the majority or have a strong presence.

telling what exactly?

That usually Christians act like real charitable Christians when they're a minority.  When they're a majority, there's a diversity of them, including apathetic nominal Christians and Christians who advocate violence, as shown here.

Not exactly.  I know plenty of the history of the Christians while a minority in the Middle East that the diversity you speak of exists.

Thats why I said "usually"

[This would be a doctrine issue]

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?

From the RC POV, the terms I would not like would be:
1. Doing away with venial sin and Purgatory. - This would be a doctrine issue
2. Requiring communion of both kinds (including wine).  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
3. Doing away with devotion to the Sacred Heart. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
4. Adopting the Orthodox rules for fasting during Lent (They are too severe for me). - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
5. No kneelers, no pews and no organ music in Church. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
6. No genuflecting, only bowing and kissing the Church floor is allowed.  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue

The majority of the things you stated are jurisdictional issues.  I would imagine that if there was a union, those issues would continue to be under the purview of the Bishop of Rome.  As far as the Purgatory thing is concerned, you could always become a "toll-house" Orthodox, it is pretty similar. 

The question was hypothetical, saying what terms would you find difficult to accept. If the Bishop of Rome had agreed to the 6 terms mentioned, I would find them difficult to accept. Of course, it is highly unlikely that the Roman Church would be required to adopt these terms as many of them are jurisdictional issues as you have pointed out, but I did not understand that to be the  question asked.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  I do find that many of the issues that divide RC and Orthodox tend to be issues that would be jurisdictional in nature.  There are, of course, doctrinal issues, but I would hope that IF a union were to take place, both sides would exercise humility and not infringe on jurisdictional issues of the other.

Four orders of these + a cup of coffee and like ten packets of BBQ sauce and I am a very happy camper  In retrospect, I must say however that I do feel very bad for those poor little delicious chickens that are raised and harvested for their nuggets to feed fatties like me.

[Sayin' don't make it so.]

Look this thing started as I supported the EO view on the Eucharist.  Turned into a hit piece because I have other issues with the church.

This thing started you wanted to know why some Protestants have non-traditional beliefs. You are also a Protestant with non-traditional beliefs so the discussion is legit.

Michal, if you think I'm a protestant, you need to brush up on the knowledge of Christian faiths.   There are many Christian faiths that are not "protestant".   Messianic Jews for instance.  Ebionites were not protestants.  Anabaptists are not protestant or Catholic. 

Ebionites are long dead. And Messianic Jews or Anabaptists are Protestants whatever they think about themselves.

"Messianic Judaism is a syncretic[1] religious movement that arose in the 1960s and 70s.[9] It blends evangelical Christian theology with elements of religious Jewish practice and terminology.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

Many Messianic Jews say that they are a sect of Judaism that accepts the Messiah.  Not protestant.

I can say I'm a dead ringer for Angelina Jolie too. But that doesn't mean I'm going to find Brad Pitt cooking supper when I get home tonight.

Sayin' don't make it so.

Uh oh.....

And he would be correct. Even you would have to admit it. The New Testament was written by the Church and the entire Bible was compiled by the Church. Note that the verb that PtA used was "to choose".

Are you claiming that the New Testament originated in the Orthodox church? Is it the word of God or the word of the Orthodox church?
Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit chose to limit himself to the Orthodox church? If so please provide scripture to support this.

[rachel, before you submit another post to this thread, please read the directive I posted above. If you have any questions, please PM me.http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,51355.msg926739.html#msg926739]

rachel, before you submit another post to this thread, please read the directive I posted above. If you have any questions, please PM me.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,51355.msg926739.html#msg926739

A hardy chart to keep track of things (the red boxes show the amount of genes shared.  No, I don't know why mothers, grandmothers, etc. don't have a red box):

Not really having a family, I never understood the whole x cousin y removed thing. Someone finally gave me an equation.

Problem solved.

Have you seen the consanguinity charts / cousin calculators? They are probably near that wiki page . . . let me look.

Whether we, Catholics and Orthodox, like it or not it is essential for the sake of the Church that the East and West reunite.

Essential that we jettison the teachings of the one true faith just so that we can say we're one when in actuality we are nothing but?  Yeah, right.

I am not saying it is essential today in 2013, but the force of secularity, it seems to me, will be pretty radical for all of us or our kids by the end of this century. If full communion is impossible without either of our churches feeling like we have to make unorthodox compromises then I suppose we will just have to try to strengthen friendship without communion, which may be the best course to take.

Those are two different things though: Friendship and communion.  Friendship can exist without communion and common goals in the face of common enemies are laudable, but we should not establish friendship and communion together especially if the tenants of the faith are not agreed to by all parties.

I can't remember where I read this, but it was something like: Communion is not how unity is achieved - it is the visible sign of unity of belief. Or something to that effect.

That is from the Orthodox contribution to the vision statement of the North American Catholic Orthodox Theological Dialogue released in 2010.

[you]

According to you, God's Holy Spirit is caged up in the Orthodox church. That is blasphemous. And God takes a very serious view of this:

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said so.

I don't believe I have said that you did say this. I was replying to a post by Peter The Aleut who said,
"That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak."
I believe, although correct me if I am wrong, that when he says the church, he means the Orthodox church. My understanding of this statement is that a claim is being made that it is only through this church that the Holy Spirit speaks. That is limiting the Spirit [caging the Spirit]. If you think it means otherwise, please explain.

No, that's exactly what I mean. The Holy Spirit can blow wherever He wills and speak to whomever He desires, but He has chosen to speak authoritatively through the Church. If there's any "caging of the Spirit", it's because the Spirit has so chosen to confine Himself so we can understand Him most clearly. Since God cannot contradict Himself, if His Holy Spirit says anything to anyone outside the Church, then what He says MUST be perfectly consistent with what He has revealed through the Church.

I don't remember who said it, but I always remember this saying: "A man who repents is a miracle greater than a resurrection".

Then there is the one that I heard; "I you are walking through an apple orchard and you see an orange under a tree, it is not a miracle.  Someone put it there."

Ok...so, you are a skeptic now?  Or is it that you were already?

That is actually a difficut question for me to answer.  I am usually pretty much a skeptic, but I make exceptions.  It comes from many years of performing investigations.  You really have to "read" the source.