OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 06:24:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Announcement by the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain Athos  (Read 29477 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,011



« on: January 09, 2007, 07:36:30 PM »

Since this deals with both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, I thought this was the best place to put this.  However, moderators, feel free to move it if you feel it goes elsewhere.

Scamandrius

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SACRED COMMUNITY OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN ATHOS

About the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate on the occasion of the feast-day of Saint Andrew (30th
November 2006)


http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/athos1.htm

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2007, 08:38:19 PM »

A bit paranoid IMHO, but still, if what they say is true about the level of concelebration that took place, they really have a point. 

I didn't notice this level of concelebration going on myself, but I'm sure the monks wouldn't knowingly misrepresent that, would they?

So far, I really like Benedict, much more even than I liked John Paul II, in a way.  I'm not sure that I agree with what the monks say about his attitude towards the East at all.  It seems to me that he has a genuine respect for the Orthodox. 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 08:39:13 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2007, 11:38:36 PM »

The Athonites would never, ever admit good intentions or motivations on the part of any Pope. Like the Lutherans a long time ago, their identity seems somewhat wrapped up in being anti-Roman. The Pope makes a convenient bogey man.

All that aside, this statement is definitely less hysterical than others I've seen coming out of Athos.
Logged
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2007, 11:53:06 PM »

In nomine Iesu, I wish you all peace,

Patience cannot be proved in any other way than suffering, and patience is united in love. - St. Catherine of Siena

May we suffer greatly for the trust and love of those Holy Ones in Mt. Athos. Amen.

Pax Vobiscum
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2007, 12:54:05 AM »

What a loving sentiment to put forward, Francis-Christopher.  Thank you.   Smiley
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2007, 01:09:06 AM »

The Athonites would never, ever admit good intentions or motivations on the part of any Pope. Like the Lutherans a long time ago, their identity seems somewhat wrapped up in being anti-Roman. The Pope makes a convenient bogey man.

It's certainly a widely held belief in the Roman communion that the monks of Athos hold far too much influence in the Orthodox Church.  However, there is a strong tradition in Eastern monasticism of monks being guardians of Orthodoxy.  Doubtless Athos sometimes interprets things incorrectly, but sometimes they point out things that need to be remembered.  And there are still elders of great holiness and humility there.

Unfortunately, there is a rather strong xenophobia in Greece about all things non-Greek in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular.  But, hey, if younger people in Greece can begin to see the foolishness in regarding all Turks as hideous enemies to be eradicated at all cost (which I have heard is actually happening in some circles!) then there is hope.   Smiley  I'm not by any means an expert on this kind of thing, so someone else should certainly feel free to supplement what I have written about this.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2007, 01:39:52 AM »

I understand you. I actually love Mount Athos and what it represents. I remember being entralled by my professor's stories about it in my Byzantine history class. I'm sure the monks there are in general very holy, and I have always dreamed of visiting ever since I first read about Mount Athos during my childhood obsession with all things Byzantine (sparked by reading John Bellairs's novel The Trolley to Yesterday). But I do think they can be extreme sometimes. But hey, I love 'em, just like the SSPX members in my family (including my cousin Tom, who has 12 children!).
« Last Edit: January 10, 2007, 01:40:46 AM by lubeltri » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2007, 11:55:47 AM »

I suppose that it is good to have their voice to force the Church to stay centered... Even if they vocally/publicly don't agree with one another, the words/statements force both the EP and Athos to be more moderate instead of existing on one extreme or another.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,793



« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2007, 04:43:03 PM »

I was actually glad to see in writing what their concerns were.  I was surprised to see how literal they see each action of diplomacy as being problematic.  Are there really people in the world who believe that historic diplomatic traditions with all their layers of protocol have any reqal bearing on the true relationship?  One only has to see the diplomatic protocol and formal toasts between Western political   Leaders and the old soviet Union leaders to know that it is only protocol and has no real substance.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2007, 05:12:15 PM »

Well, I tend to agree with the monks on this. Without any changes, all the RCC is doing is lip service and reaffirming their stance on their doctrines, especially if all we do is service them to their whims, IMHO.

Seriously, should we alter our truths for their union with us? I think the monks of Mt. Athos have a valid point which should not be overlooked and taken as paranoia. Until we live our spiritual lives as they do in their ascetic practices we should heed their connection with our Lord to provide us their wisdom. Again, just my opinion.

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2007, 05:15:46 PM »

I think the Monks need to realize that the reunion will never happen if we glare at the Pope and say "Either join us unconditionally, or clear off."

Certain concessions need to be made on both sides. Now, as I've stated in previous Catholic-Orthodox topics, I do not think we should compromise our theology and dogma for a reunion. But to bring both sides back together, a certain level of lip-service is needed, if simply so the two sides CAN begin to discuss things in depth and detail.

Rage and stubborn attitudes have never fixed much, and love must be given to the Pope and to all Roman Catholics.

Francis Christopher- Thank you for your reply. I always enjoy reading your posts. They have the air of a true Christian around them.  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 10, 2007, 05:16:47 PM by Simayan » Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2007, 05:28:47 PM »

We must be careful.  One thing that I don't think some realize is that what the EP is doing is not practicing love but rather practicing acceptance, and the two do not equal each other.  As a bishop, he must first love the Truth, which is the Church, and all of her teachings, which he is failing to do.  True love means sometimes telling someone they are wrong, even when they may not want to hear it.  However, we can tell someone they are wrong in a loving way as well, which doesn't necessarily require harshness, and this we should all practice as Orthodox Christians. 
« Last Edit: January 10, 2007, 05:31:59 PM by drewmeister2 » Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
Myrrh
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2007, 09:37:29 PM »

We must be careful.  One thing that I don't think some realize is that what the EP is doing is not practicing love but rather practicing acceptance, and the two do not equal each other.  As a bishop, he must first love the Truth, which is the Church, and all of her teachings, which he is failing to do.  True love means sometimes telling someone they are wrong, even when they may not want to hear it.  However, we can tell someone they are wrong in a loving way as well, which doesn't necessarily require harshness, and this we should all practice as Orthodox Christians. 


I think this is a warning to the EP who is not actually practicing acceptance, but imitation. There's been quite some campaign over the last few decades of the EP promoting itself as guarantor of Orthodox unity - the same phrase the monasteries have used in ostensibly a description of the papacy in Benedict's "...within the society, with the Successors of the Apostles, whose visible unity is guaranteed by the Successor of the Apostle Peter."

This is an example of how far from orthodox ecclesiology the EP has travelled:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/qaneopa.pdf

For those that don't know that this is un-orthodox, the 1848 Enclyclical from the Eastern Patriarchs to Pius IX spells it out - to claim that authority comes from the throne is a heresy, it's the other way around, authority comes from holding true doctrine.

Myrrh
Logged
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2007, 09:53:27 PM »

I understand you. I actually love Mount Athos and what it represents. I remember being entralled by my professor's stories about it in my Byzantine history class. I'm sure the monks there are in general very holy, and I have always dreamed of visiting ever since I first read about Mount Athos during my childhood obsession with all things Byzantine (sparked by reading John Bellairs's novel The Trolley to Yesterday). But I do think they can be extreme sometimes.

Or perhaps the tragedy of that the Byzantines period collapsing made way for the European Renaissance to replace Christian Tradition for Paganistic Hellenism in the West which pioneered the Enlightenment or in a more offsetting position of Secularism. In any which way the monks see the Christian west with resentment for having their Roman history closed into isolation and fending for themselves as it were. It doesn't seem inappropriate to say that the Pope's future successors' can ever recover the West for re-evangelization. If anything thing countries like Sweden, Denmark and Holland's societal rejection of religion puts the faith in more diverse unenlightened regions (Third World and globalized Developing Countries).

Also if America future of the Christian faith identifies the Orthodox as minorities it would not be the same in Europe. However the term (Polish, Celtic, English, Finnish) Orthodox would be a good precedence in the future of Orthodoxy in Western Europe compromising Catholicism.  Roll Eyes
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2007, 11:53:51 PM »

Also if America future of the Christian faith identifies the Orthodox as minorities it would not be the same in Europe. However the term (Polish, Celtic, English, Finnish) Orthodox would be a good precedence in the future of Orthodoxy in Western Europe compromising Catholicism.  Roll Eyes

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Could you clean up the grammar a little bit?
Logged
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2007, 02:23:25 AM »

OK I seemed to have offended Catholics on this issue when the Orthodox acceptance to the Roman Catholic Churches agreements seems to benefit Europe. The quick and irreversible part of Secularism advancement in Europe that rejects religion to be a imaginary and the Christian Dialogues that try to combat this are unfortunately here to stay which the Orthodox would have to tolerate.

 But Catholics need not be worried for Orthodoxy's encroachment to the English, Germans, Swedish and so on (maybe not Poland). This is where Orthodoxy comes in through its Christian disciplines, cultural norms on nationalism and certain proper preservation of Hellenism. Whats to say that national Catholics will reap the rewards of its "Reunion" aftermath. Technically the Ecumenical Patriarch agreeing to Common Declaration between O and C will essentially "re-evangelize" the West. Though the consequences are improperly placing the ecclesiological grounds by Branch theory which is another serious concern.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2007, 11:10:53 PM »

I feel that the monks were 100% right on the issues of liturgical practices.  I mean...the Pope did do exactly as they described. 

I felt that they went off on the deep end when they said that the RC church has done NOTHING to improve their theological standpoints...

In that line of thought, they OBVIOUSLY didn't take the Filioque out of the Creed in the Catechesis...right? Wink    Roll Eyes

The monks can say that they want more movement.  I don't think that its right for them to say that the RC's are doing NOTHING. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2007, 11:33:30 PM »

But hey, I love 'em, just like the SSPX members in my family (including my cousin Tom, who has 12 children!).

Wow.  Nowadays, that's quite the large family!
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2007, 05:36:05 PM »

Quote
authority comes from holding true doctrine.

So then what remains as an objectively verifiable standard of true doctrine by which we might judge the legitimacy of any given episcopal claimant?
Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,869



« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2007, 05:53:20 PM »

All systems of authority are circular, don't try to say that Rome has escaped this problem.  Cool For example, for Catholics the Pope's word is law... unless of course he is an antipope, in which case he was not a pope to begin with, with the rub being that people must judge the pope before he can be found to be holy or unholy. So the pope is the authority, but the people must accept that he is a valid authority before he starts ruling over the people, and if at any time he falls into heresy, it would prove that he was never head the true authority to begin with. Thus the reason that some traditional Christians have come to see the idea of infallibility as a misstep, because no matter how you slice it you still have fallible humans trying to judge, understand, verify, and obey a supposedly infallible authority. It's humanly impossible. And no, it's not theanthropically possible either, unless God somehow overpowers the free will of those in his Church.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2007, 05:54:54 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2007, 06:35:42 PM »

So then what remains as an objectively verifiable standard of true doctrine by which we might judge the legitimacy of any given episcopal claimant?

Holy Tradition, (the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church), conciliarity (sobornost), and when it is not in error, agreement with the see of Constantinople.  Certainly not via a magesterium, which it would seem that you are just itching to suggest.  Wink
« Last Edit: January 12, 2007, 06:43:36 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2007, 10:49:25 PM »

Holy Tradition, (the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church), conciliarity (sobornost), and when it is not in error, agreement with the see of Constantinople.  Certainly not via a magesterium, which it would seem that you are just itching to suggest.  Wink

That's what we call the magisterium:)
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2007, 11:34:33 PM »

I'm sure you're quite well aware that the way the Catholic Church defines the magisterium is not the same as the Orthodox position.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2007, 12:43:32 PM »

Quote
For example, for Catholics the Pope's word is law... unless of course he is an antipope, in which case he was not a pope to begin with, with the rub being that people must judge the pope before he can be found to be holy or unholy.


There are objectively verifiable criteria for discerning the validity of a papal election, and, I might add simply for the sake of clarification, judgments concerning the legitimacy of such an election in no way concern themselves with the sanctity of the papal claimant. 

Quote
So the pope is the authority, but the people must accept that he is a valid authority before he starts ruling over the people, and if at any time he falls into heresy, it would prove that he was never head the true authority to begin with.


Your first assertion I find somewhat confusing.  I would say this; upon elevation to the Petrine See, the Pope ipso facto 'starts ruling over the people', irrespective of their acceptance of his reign. 

As for the second assertion, it is not true.  If a pope were to fall into heresy (& it is highly debatable from a Catholic point of view whether a pope has actually fallen into formal heresy) it would not mean that he were never "the true authority to begin with".  That is simply not Catholic teaching.  There has never been an historical instance where a 'pope' is judged not to be such a posteriori on the basis of his promulgation of heretical doctrine.

Quote
Thus the reason that some traditional Christians have come to see the idea of infallibility as a misstep, because no matter how you slice it you still have fallible humans trying to judge, understand, verify, and obey a supposedly infallible authority. It's humanly impossible. And no, it's not theanthropically possible either, unless God somehow overpowers the free will of those in his Church.

Do you not as an Orthodox believe in ecclesial infallibility?  I would argue you should, given the presence of this phrase in the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895: "we are fully persuaded that... every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible".  So in any event you have infallibility exercised through the agency of in se fallible creatures.  This is not a matter of God suppressing or overpowering man's freewill; it is an ecclesiological analogy to the Two Wills of Christ wherein the human & Divine Wills remained distinct, yet in perfect harmony.  So it is with the Church, Who, whether (in the Catholic view) speaking through Peter (S. Matthew xvi. 19) or through the synod of the apostles (S. Matthew xviii. 18) binds on earth what has been bound in Heaven.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 12:45:59 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2007, 12:52:55 PM »

Quote
and when it is not in error, agreement with the see of Constantinople.

If the Constantinopolitan See is itself liable to error, then it would be fruitless to look to it as an objective verifier of Orthodox Tradition.  It becomes a vestigial step in the quest for the purity of Christian doctrine.  Saying that the Seven (or however many any given Orthodox believer thinks there are) Oecumenical Councils are the only infallible rule is fine for the discussion now (although I argue that criterion faces much the same problems as the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura in that there must exist an outside source of verification for what is percieved to be the sole dogmatic authority).  But to add this last step is superfluous.  It's somewhat akin to a Protestant, of the 'Reformed' variety, say, who says, 'yes, the councils are authorititive insofar as they align with the Bible'.

And why, might I ask, Constantinople?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 12:54:07 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2007, 01:00:09 PM »

If the Constantinopolitan See is itself liable to error, then it would be fruitless to look to it as an objective verifier of Orthodox Tradition.  It becomes a vestigial step in the quest for the purity of Christian doctrine.  Saying that the Seven (or however many any given Orthodox believer thinks there are) Oecumenical Councils are the only infallible rule is fine for the discussion now (although I argue that criterion faces much the same problems as the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scripture in that there must exist an outside source of verification for what is percieved to be the sole dogmatic authority).  But to add this last step is superfluous.  It's somewhat akin to a Protestant, of the 'Reformed' variety, say, who says, 'yes, the councils are authorititive insofar as they align with the Bible'.

The Oecumenical Synods are not infallible by any means, they are authoritive...infact many would argue that they made several major mistakes, but they still have authority. Of course, the scripture is also in error...when it comes down to it, we have no infallible sources we have no absolute sources, we only work through things the best we can; but those who claim to have absolute and infallible knowledge are liars or heretics or both. The Orthodox Church does not live in the ecclesiastical disneyland Rome has created, we dont have infallibility, we dont have absolute knowledge, we do not pretend to be Gods, only God knows all things and man, including the Church, will only fully understand all things in the life to come. And I have a sneaking suspicion that on that day we'll find out that about 90% of our beliefs and theologies were just plain wrong and we'll all get a good laugh out of it.

Quote
And why, might I ask, Constantinople?

She is both the New Rome and the New Jerusalem, she was the throne of the Christian Emperors, and she is the Oecumenical Patriarch.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 01:00:56 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2007, 01:17:42 PM »

Wow, GiC. I'm curious; is there, or has there ever been, even one EO theologian/clergyman who advocates/has advocated an ecclesiology that admits to the notion that, potentially, "about 90% of [your] theology and beliefs were just plain wrong"?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 01:19:26 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2007, 01:29:17 PM »

Quote
The Oecumenical Synods are not infallible by any means

Quote
the scripture is also in error

Quote
when it comes down to it, we have no infallible sources we have no absolute sources, we only work through things the best we can

I admit surprise at the fact that an Orthodox would be willing to say this.  I am intrigued to hear this coming from you individually, but until proven wrong by more witnesses, I shall assume that this is in no wise a majority Orthodox view. 

Ultimately your views are inconsistent with the whole Orthodox ethos which is just as dogmatic as the Catholic.  To believe as you do is to despise the authority of the Church, which sees herself as the unerring defender of the plenitude of truth, this being true of Catholic & Orthodox Churches both.  To believe as you do is to see your Church's authoritative statements - including those of the past 1/2 millenium, notably the Acts of the Synod of Jerusalem, the Confession of S. Peter Mohila, & the two XIXth Century Patriarchal Encyclicals, which all clearly affirm Scriptural & Conciliar infallibility - as by their inflated claims over-stepping their rightful epistemological bounds.   
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 01:32:30 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2007, 02:12:12 PM »

Wow, GiC. I'm curious; is there, or has there ever been, even one EO theologian/clergyman who advocates/has advocated an ecclesiology that admits to the notion that, potentially, "about 90% of [your] theology and beliefs were just plain wrong"?

I dont think anyone's tried to quantify it before, so I thought I'd take that groundbreaking first step Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2007, 02:15:42 PM »

I admit surprise at the fact that an Orthodox would be willing to say this.  I am intrigued to hear this coming from you individually, but until proven wrong by more witnesses, I shall assume that this is in no wise a majority Orthodox view. 

Ultimately your views are inconsistent with the whole Orthodox ethos which is just as dogmatic as the Catholic.  To believe as you do is to despise the authority of the Church, which sees herself as the unerring defender of the plenitude of truth, this being true of Catholic & Orthodox Churches both.  To believe as you do is to see your Church's authoritative statements - including those of the past 1/2 millenium, notably the Acts of the Synod of Jerusalem, the Confession of S. Peter Mohila, & the two XIXth Century Patriarchal Encyclicals, which all clearly affirm Scriptural & Conciliar infallibility - as by their inflated claims over-stepping their rightful epistemological bounds.   

Ask around, I'm sure you'll find many who insist on the authority of synods, scripture, the church, etc...but few who insist on the infallibility of the same. A common orthodox description is also sufficiency: the church, the scriptures, the synods, the bishops, etc. are not infallible or inerrant, but they are sufficient for our salvation or for our needs on earth...there will be no soteriological implications of their short commings.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2007, 03:20:56 PM »

Ask around, I'm sure you'll find many who insist on the authority of synods, scripture, the church, etc...but few who insist on the infallibility of the same. A common orthodox description is also sufficiency: the church, the scriptures, the synods, the bishops, etc. are not infallible or inerrant, but they are sufficient for our salvation or for our needs on earth...there will be no soteriological implications of their short commings.

I don't know, I've met Orthodox and read Orthodox who most certainly do characterize Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (chiefly, the ecumenical synods), and thus the Church, as infallible on matters of faith.

A suitable example can be found here, in The Fundamental Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, by Rev. George Mastrantonis: http://goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7063.asp

The Holy Spirit is the Supreme Author and Guardian under' Whose direction and protection the Scriptures become the inspired and infallible Source of faith and salvation.

The Ecumenical Synod is considered infallible on matters of faith, however, not in matters of administration and discipline.

In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, believe that their decisions are infallible.

-

Like in the Catholic Church, infallibility seems to be carefully defined.

OrthoDisney, perhaps? Wink
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 03:24:36 PM by lubeltri » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2007, 03:50:21 PM »

A flawed private opinion...heck, I've never even heard of the guy before, hardly an esteemed theoloigan of our Church (not that our theologians ever agree on anything). The modern mainstream orthodox theology with which I am familiar would be very uncomfortable with terminology such as infallible since most would agree that there are places where scripture or synods did error.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2007, 04:36:32 PM »

Here's more from the GOA site:

Tradition in the Orthodox Church by George S. Bebis PH.D.
http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article7116.asp

Thus, the Ecumenical Councils and also some local councils, which later received universal acceptance, express the infallible teaching of the Church, a teaching which is irrevocable.

-

Papal Primacy by Emmanuel Clapsis
http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article8523.asp

By the grace of the Holy Spirit the Church is infallible when it meets in synods to clarify the Church's understanding of the central truths of salvation once these synods have been recognized by the people of God as true and catholic expressions of the apostolic faith.


-

The Greek (Eastern) Orthodox Church and The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America Rev. Robert G. Stephanopoulos, Ph.D. (George's father?)

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7061.asp

The Nicene Creed contains the standards of the Christian faith, and is considered a guide for understanding the Bible. This Creed is the authoritative and official statement of faith and the infallible criterion of true Orthodoxy.

-

A Dictionary of Orthodox Terminology - Part 1 by Fotios K. Litsas, Ph.D.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8049.asp

The Canons generally provide for all administrative or disciplinary questions that might arise in the Church, and, consequently, are not infallible but can be changed or re-interpreted by an Ecumenical Council.

-

-------------

This seems a common opinion. The ecumenical synods are infallible on matters of faith because the whole Church accepted them as such.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2007, 05:12:30 PM »

LMAO...do you really think Bebis and Clapsis have any clue what they're arguing or of the nuances of debate? It's just poor word choice on their part...LOL Cheesy

I guess you dont know much about these guys' scholarship, so I guess you think this is a good source...lol

But rather than finding instances where the word infallible is used...because they generally dont mean it in the same way you would, find instances where infallibility is specifically discussed. (In fact, one of the people you quoted specifically ranted against infallibility as a western innovation in one of his classes).

Stephanopoulos did a bit better job, the creed is, by definition, 'the infallible criterion of true Orthodoxy,' our religion is based on the creed, but more carefully he stated it is merely an 'authoritive and official statement of faith'...he did not go so far as to claim infallible and absolute truth, only that it is the basis of the Christian faith.

Word of advice, if you're looking to an appeal to authority (which doesn't work that well in the Orthodox Church anyway), avoid works written in English.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 05:16:32 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2007, 05:48:17 PM »

GiC, if you believe your Church can get it wrong with regard to expressing dogma through a particular Synod that is upheld as Ecumenical, then surely it follows that your Church can also get it wrong with regard to upholding a particular Synod as authoritative in the first place. Or is she infallible in this regard?
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2007, 05:52:24 PM »

Of course, the scripture is also in error...when it comes down to it, we have no infallible sources we have no absolute sources, we only work through things the best we can;
I cant think of one church father who would agree with that statement.  Every single one I know of regards the bible as infallible.  Just yesterday I was reading The Homilies by Saint Nikolai and he stated that not one single verse in the bible was an exaggeration.  It would be amazing that the Church is based on a love of the truth, and belief that men are called on to recieve the Holy Spirit, but that 90% of what we believe is not the truth and therefore could not have been inspired by God.  What kind of a church is that?
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2007, 06:10:23 PM »

GiC, if you believe your Church can get it wrong with regard to expressing dogma through a particular Synod that is upheld as Ecumenical, then surely it follows that your Church can also get it wrong with regard to upholding a particular Synod as authoritative in the first place. Or is she infallible in this regard?
Here's a catch 22:
No Oecumenical Council has ever decreed that Oecumenical Councils are infallible. The "Infallability" of Councils is a relatively recent concept upheld by certain individual Bishops (including mine who wrote his doctrinal thesis on the subject). But since the only authority recognised as infallable by the advocates of Synodal Infallability, has never promulgated the doctrine of Synodal Infallability, it remains a fallable doctrine.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,869



« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2007, 06:19:55 PM »

Quote
Just yesterday I was reading The Homilies by Saint Nikolai and he stated that not one single verse in the bible was an exaggeration.

And you believe that?  Shocked
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2007, 06:41:54 PM »

Here's a catch 22:
No Oecumenical Council has ever decreed that Oecumenical Councils are infallible. The "Infallability" of Councils is a relatively recent concept upheld by certain individual Bishops (including mine who wrote his doctrinal thesis on the subject). But since the only authority recognised as infallable by the advocates of Synodal Infallability, has never promulgated the doctrine of Synodal Infallability, it remains a fallable doctrine.

I'm not discussing the integrity, or lack thereof, of the doctrine of Conciliar infallibility, but rather the implications of the argument that Councils can get it wrong, even in matters of faith, to the consistency of the overall position of GiC. If Council X quite probably stuffed up--doctrinally, politically, administratively etc.--then there is no basis upon which to uncompromisingly uphold that Council as authority, since the very recognition of that Council's authority is itself fallible as well. So when GiC implies that we cannot regard a certain Ecumenical Council X as infallible, but we can at least be certain of its authority, he's not being consistent. An Ecumenical Council's authority cannot be compromised precisely because it is the infallible arbiter of Truth.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2007, 06:51:38 PM »

LMAO...do you really think Bebis and Clapsis have any clue what they're arguing or of the nuances of debate? It's just poor word choice on their part...LOL Cheesy

I guess you dont know much about these guys' scholarship, so I guess you think this is a good source...lol

But rather than finding instances where the word infallible is used...because they generally dont mean it in the same way you would, find instances where infallibility is specifically discussed. (In fact, one of the people you quoted specifically ranted against infallibility as a western innovation in one of his classes).

Stephanopoulos did a bit better job, the creed is, by definition, 'the infallible criterion of true Orthodoxy,' our religion is based on the creed, but more carefully he stated it is merely an 'authoritive and official statement of faith'...he did not go so far as to claim infallible and absolute truth, only that it is the basis of the Christian faith.

Word of advice, if you're looking to an appeal to authority (which doesn't work that well in the Orthodox Church anyway), avoid works written in English.



I'm just showing that belief in the infallibility of the Church and of Holy Tradition in matters of faith is quite common among Orthodox.

Some may avoid the word "infallible" because it is a "Western" term. But I don't see the Fathers at Nicaea saying, "We could be wrong, of course, but. . ."

Yet many other Orthodox use this word, even in discussions of Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism, meaning the same thing as Catholics do: unquestionable, irrevocable actions of the Holy Spirit. Witness the late Bishop Athenagoras Kokkinakis of Australia:

http://www.greekorthodox.net.au/pages/main.htm

The decisions of the Church at the General Councils were infallible, because they were made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with Holy Scripture and Christian Tradition as the basis for discussion and debate.

This clerical body represents the Church and is the instrument through which the infallible teaching of the Church is expressed by the Ecumenical Councils as defined by Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

At these Ecumenical Councils the Bishops of the entire Church convened and discussed, decided, defined and presented the teaching of the Church. These teachings, after having been found to be in accord with Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, were infallible and were so pronounced. From the beginning, therefore, the body which determined and defined Christian Doctrine was the Ecumenical Council, which was guided by the Holy Spirit.

One of these was the proclamation of the Infallibility of the Pope by decision of the Synod of Bishops of the Roman Church in 1870. The Church, as a whole, always recognised the General Councils as infallible. Now the Bishop of Rome was placed above the Councils, proclaimed infallible when speaking ex cathedra as the Shepherd in matters of faith and morals.



To bring the point home, read what His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos of the GOA of Australia says:

Similarly, one could say that the infallibility of the Church has been sufficiently articulated, at least as far as the major aspects of the related theological issues are concerned. There have been, however, - and there probably still are - individual Orthodox theologians who, while otherwise well meaning, have the strange belief that the term "infallibility" reeks of western influence and expresses a so-called institutionalised legalism(12)

12. Thus, for example, the ever-memorable and benevolent D. Moraitis. Dean of the School of Theology at the University of Athens, when examining the author's doctoral dissertation on "The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology", did not hesitate to state in all sincerity that he was totally unaware that "infallibility was an article of faith in our Church"! Other close friends and colleagues, namely Archimandrite Athan Jevcic (now Metropolitan of Bosnia) and Prof. Christos Yannaras, immediately criticised this study, but of course without convincing arguments.

Taking into account the concluding verification that one who is ordained a Bishop shall keep all these things "until his last breath", it is obvious that he submits and even identifies his own conscience for a lifetime with the voice and conscience of the Church, infallibly spoken through the Ecumenical Councils.

http://www.greekorthodox.net.au/pages/main.htm

________________________________________________________

I'm not saying what these guys are saying is infallible, only pointing out that it is common among Orthodox Christians to consider the ecumenical synods as "infallible" (as Catholics understand it---irrevocable and without error) in matters of faith.

« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 07:02:37 PM by lubeltri » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2007, 06:54:16 PM »

So when GiC implies that we cannot regard a certain Ecumenical Council X as infallible, but we can at least be certain of its authority, he's not being consistent.
Well, actually, I disagree. Infallability is not necessarily a criterion of authority.
It is the Holy Spirit Who is infallible, and the Holy Spirit descends when we are "all with one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1), that is, only an assembly in unity of mind and heart creates the necessary conditions for the Holy Spirit to descend. That the Holy Spirit guides these assemblies is true, but it cannot be inferred from that that the assembly in all cases expresses absolutely and completely the Truth of the Holy Spirit. There are several reasons for this, but foremost is the fact that the Transcendant God cannot be caged withing human words.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2007, 07:00:10 PM »

read what His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos of the GOA of Australia says:[/size]
I have read it before (he is my bishop). This is an excerpt from his doctrinal thesis I referred to above.
There are many Orthodox theologians and scholars who have disagreed with this thesis, (e.g:http://www.theandros.com/infallib.html).
And I also happen to disagree with Archbishop Stylianos.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2007, 07:04:26 PM »

That the Holy Spirit guides these assemblies is true, but it cannot be inferred from that that the assembly in all cases expresses absolutely and completely the Truth of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think that is disputed. Not every decree or decision in an ecumenical council need be considered infallible---only ones on faith.
Logged
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2007, 07:07:32 PM »

Quote
No Oecumenical Council has ever decreed that Oecumenical Councils are infallible. The "Infallability" of Councils is a relatively recent concept upheld by certain individual Bishops (including mine who wrote his doctrinal thesis on the subject). But since the only authority recognised as infallable by the advocates of Synodal Infallability, has never promulgated the doctrine of Synodal Infallability, it remains a fallable doctrine.

That none of the first seven Oecumenical Councils openly & explicitly declares itself to be teaching infallibly is irrelevant.  To make a case by way of Scriptural infallibility, the fact that the Pentateuch contains no explicit statement to the effect that the entirety of the Pentateuch is infallible does not mean that the first generation of Jews living with those books were under no obligation to recognize their divine inspiration, consequent infallibility.  The fact that on Pentecost S. Peter did not explicitly declare that every word he uttered would be infallible did not mean his words were not so.  In any of these cases, it is clear from the authority of the writer or speaker himself (whose authority can ultimately be verified empirically, i.e., by the accompanying presence of validating miracles), that the words are to be taken as God's, or at least as an unimpeachable representative of God's.  This applies also to the Oecumenical Councils.  When our Holy Fathers, in synod gathered, firmly believing themselves assembled in the Holy Spirit, solemnly anathematize heretics, can there be any doubt - given that the Holy Church, Guardian of Orthodoxy is the "Pillar & Ground of the Truth" (I S. Timothy iii. 15) - that their word is not susceptible to error?

Much of the argument I have made here rests on the assumption of Scriptural infallibility.  If this is contested, I should be happy to see by whom.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 07:10:10 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2007, 07:15:48 PM »

Quote
That the Holy Spirit guides these assemblies is true, but it cannot be inferred from that that the assembly in all cases expresses absolutely and completely the Truth of the Holy Spirit.


Wherewithal, then, are we to discern wherein the Holy Spirit is guiding the assembly as opposed to the assembly coming to human & fallible conclusions on its own?  Is this not troubling?  It is one thing to say, as I believe & as lubeltri has expressed, that the Holy Spirit infallibly affirms only dogmatic decisions of the Council, leaving the disciplinary matters outside the scope of His inerrant & perpetual approval.  It is altogether another to hold that a Council can err wherever, inasmuch as being only generally guided by the Holy Spirit & not strictly infallible, we have no sure standard by which to sift the orthodox wheat from the possibly heterodox tares. 

Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2007, 07:20:55 PM »

only an assembly in unity of mind and heart creates the necessary conditions for the Holy Spirit to descend

There has never been complete “unity of mind and heart” in the Church with respect to the proceedings and decisions of any given Council. Even the sway of the “majority” has at times, been inconsistent with what we in hindsight can acknowledge to be error. The only reliable standard by which the presence of the Holy Spirit can be measured, is Truth, and Truth in turn can only be reliably measured if that Truth is indeed Truth and nothing but the Truth (and hence infallible).

So even if we say that a Council’s authority stems from its inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit, we still need a reliable standard by which we can conclusively determine the existence of that very inspiration/guidance; the mere fact of an assembly, whilst necessary, does not suffice.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 07:21:45 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2007, 07:39:49 PM »

GiC, if you believe your Church can get it wrong with regard to expressing dogma through a particular Synod that is upheld as Ecumenical, then surely it follows that your Church can also get it wrong with regard to upholding a particular Synod as authoritative in the first place. Or is she infallible in this regard?

Authority is a simpler concept than truth. And the authority claimed is not absolute in nature, for the authority of a synod cannot be said to be binding to God, for example. Authority is relative, the Church only has authority over the believers, she cannot rightly dictate the beliefs of the heathen. This authority was expanded by Imperial Authority at once, and though we may symbolically retain the authorities of the Imperial Throne, in practice our Authority is again restricted to those who follow our teachings. So, ultimately, the Church can only claim that Synods are Authoritive over those who follow her teachings, those who do not are outside the institution of the Church and are not her concern.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2007, 07:50:51 PM »

I'm just showing that belief in the infallibility of the Church and of Holy Tradition in matters of faith is quite common among Orthodox.

There are some who hold to those beliefs, but as you might have gathered from Archbishop Stylianos' statement; he may disagree with the opposition to infallibility, but this opposition is the common Orthodox belief. (You will ultimately find that there is nothing we all agree on, for any position you will probably be able to find orthodox sources on both sides if you look hard enough).

Quote
Yet many other Orthodox use this word, even in discussions of Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism, meaning the same thing as Catholics do: unquestionable, irrevocable actions of the Holy Spirit.

Well, to that definition even I will agree in infallibility, yes God is infallible. But in the bestowing of these actions on men the human element is involved, and humans are not infallible. Thus a synod is no less fallible than it's human members; even though a dogma may have been perfectly communicated by God, that does not mean that it was perfectly interpreted and promulgated by men.

Quote
I'm not saying what these guys are saying is infallible, only pointing out that it is common among Orthodox Christians to consider the ecumenical synods as "infallible" (as Catholics understand it---irrevocable and without error) in matters of faith.

By that definition then the synods were certainly not infallible, for it is a fundamental principle of Orthodox Canon Law, that any previous decree can be overturned by a body of equal or greater authority. Thus, the Oecumenical Synods can be overturned by a future Oecumenical Synod.

Furthermore, I dont agree with your distinction between disciplinary matters and matters of faith, both issues were decided upon and promulgated by the same synod, both are equally authoritative. Neither are irrevocable (no that I expect any Oecumenical Synods to be revoked in the near future, though who knows how Chalcedon will fair in the long run).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2007, 07:56:37 PM »

That none of the first seven Oecumenical Councils openly & explicitly declares itself to be teaching infallibly is irrelevant.  To make a case by way of Scriptural infallibility, the fact that the Pentateuch contains no explicit statement to the effect that the entirety of the Pentateuch is infallible does not mean that the first generation of Jews living with those books were under no obligation to recognize their divine inspiration, consequent infallibility.  The fact that on Pentecost S. Peter did not explicitly declare that every word he uttered would be infallible did not mean his words were not so.  In any of these cases, it is clear from the authority of the writer or speaker himself (whose authority can ultimately be verified empirically, i.e., by the accompanying presence of validating miracles), that the words are to be taken as God's, or at least as an unimpeachable representative of God's.  This applies also to the Oecumenical Councils.  When our Holy Fathers, in synod gathered, firmly believing themselves assembled in the Holy Spirit, solemnly anathematize heretics, can there be any doubt - given that the Holy Church, Guardian of Orthodoxy is the "Pillar & Ground of the Truth" (I S. Timothy iii. 15) - that their word is not susceptible to error?

Much of the argument I have made here rests on the assumption of Scriptural infallibility.  If this is contested, I should be happy to see by whom.

God is infallible, but no man is, all men have their own will, and insofar as men were involved in the decisions of synods and the writing of scripture, they can be said to be no less fallible than the human will, which, though I would argue is inherently good, is not perfect...save possibly that of the Theotokos. But as nothing today survives that was written by the hand of either our Lord or our Lady, and as the Holy Spirit, though present in Synods, does not directly preside over them and record the proceedings Himself, we can say that there is nothing infallible under heaven.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2007, 08:00:13 PM »

Quote
we can say that there is nothing infallible under heaven

Is this the emergence of an Orthodox nihilism? 

It is interesting to ponder. 
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,869



« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2007, 08:18:59 PM »

Quote
Is this the emergence of an Orthodox nihilism?

I would rather call it the emergence of Orthodox reason. I really can't understand how some of you, who are obviously very intelligent, hold to an idea like infallibility. I really am not able to enter into this discussion in full, but here are some thoughts that came to mind... a fictional discussion of sorts of how I understand this type of logic. Of course, in real life "Person 1" is the Church Councils, or the Pope, or the Koran, or whatever.

Person 1: I am infallible.
Person 2: Person 1 is infallible.
Person 3: Prove it.
Person 1: I declare that I am infallible. Therefore, since I am infallible, what I just said is true.
Person 2: Yes, I believe him to be infallible. If he wasn't infallible, I wouldn't follow him. I do follow him, ergo he is infallible.
Person 3: Do you not see how many ways this is wrong? For one, it's one of the most obvious cases of circular reasoning I've seen.
Person 1: No. If I am not fallible, then who is? No one. Therefore, since there must be an infallible criterion for determining truth, I am it.
Person 3: But prove that!
Person 2: He has no need to. He is infallible, and this is self evident. Just have faith. Do you want to fall into nihilism? Subjectivism? You must admit that person 1 is infallible!
Person 1: Yes, who will you trust if not I?
Person 3: But you haven't even begun to show that infallibility is possible, let alone that you are infallible.
Person 1: I don't need to prove it, I'm infallible.
Person 3: Ok, let's go at this another way. If I am fallible, what does it matter that you are infallible? Isn't it sort of a meaningless concept?
Person 2: Absolutely not! Even if I can't infallibly understand Person 1, it is still important that he is infallible, just because it is. And besides, after enough time his infallible view will somehow permeate my soul and I will then understand the truth.
Person 3: How will you verify that you have understood correctly?
Person 2: I'll just know.
Person 3: How?
Person 2: Because Person 1 is infallible, and wouldn't lead me astray.
Person 3: Um, ok... that doesn't really deal with how you would know, it just asserts again something you have yet to prove, and something I would submit you couldn't possibly prove.
Person 2: If you will just accept that Person 1 is infallible, he will lead you into truth. You can't use human reason to figure this stuff out, because these are supernatural truths we are dealing with.
Person 1: Yes, I am infallible. Hear me roar.
Person 3: So basically you will somehow, mystically, prove infallibility to me once I stop trying to understand infallibility, and just accept it without examination?
Person 2: Oh no, you don't have to do that. We don't want you to "check your brain at the door". You just have to have faith.
Person 3: My Muslim neighbor says that same thing, why would I "just have faith" in your unverifiably infallible authority and not in his?
Person 1: Because I am infallible.
Person 2: Yep.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 08:22:44 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2007, 08:44:10 PM »

So even if we say that a Council’s authority stems from its inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit, we still need a reliable standard by which we can conclusively determine the existence of that very inspiration/guidance; the mere fact of an assembly, whilst necessary, does not suffice.
And that standard is the Unity of the Church.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2007, 08:53:49 PM »

I would rather call it the emergence of Orthodox reason. I really can't understand how some of you, who are obviously very intelligent, hold to an idea like infallibility. I really am not able to enter into this discussion in full, but here are some thoughts that came to mind... a fictional discussion of sorts of how I understand this type of logic. Of course, in real life "Person 1" is the Church Councils, or the Pope, or the Koran, or whatever....

Yeah, that's pretty much how this conversation's been going...
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2007, 09:22:21 PM »

I don't think that is disputed. Not every decree or decision in an ecumenical council need be considered infallible---only ones on faith.
Why are decrees on matters of Faith infallible? Surely the requirement of circumcision was a matter of Faith, yet the decree of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem was directed only to the Gentiles (Acts 15:23). Does this mean that Circumcision is a requirement for the non-Gentiles in the Church? Even the Apostle which some claim was the first Pope was fallible on this matter of Faith, as St. Paul writes:
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians 2:11)
So where is your evidence that the Church is infallible on matters of Faith?


Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2007, 11:54:02 PM »

Authority is a simpler concept than truth.

You cannot divorce authority from the concept of truth, particularly in light of the primary issue that I am drawing you to consider, namely, the truth of rightful claim to authority (particularly the truth of rightful claim to being/expressing the authority of the Church).
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2007, 11:54:47 PM »

And that standard is the Unity of the Church.

Which obviously begs the question when there’s a case of two or more communities who comprehend their own independent unanimity—as exercised either in support or resistance of a particular Synod—as representative of the expression of the Unity of the Church.

You simply cannot escape the fact that any ecclesiological system that lacks a concept of infallibility, admits every truth proclaimed by the Church, particularly the Church’s own claim to being the Church in the first place, as being potentially false; in such a case, Agnosticism would be the only reasonable path to follow.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2007, 11:55:26 PM »

Quote
Thus a synod is no less fallible than it's human members; even though a dogma may have been perfectly communicated by God, that does not mean that it was perfectly interpreted and promulgated by men.

How then are we to know which dogmas have been "perfectly communicated by God"?  God works in this world in most cases mediately, and this is especially so in respect to His Church.  We are told by S. Paul that even the angels learn of God's providence through the ministry of the Church: "That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the Church" (Ephesians iii. 10).  If there existed the possibility that the 1st Nicene Council did not 'perfectly interpret' or 'promulgate' the dogma of Christ's Eternal Sonship, then why did such as Athanasios the Great or Vincent of Lerins rely upon it as upon an unshakeable pillar of the Catholic Faith and urge its defense as a defense of the very Word of God?  If there abides nothing in the Church of an infallible character, then how are we even to say as did S. Paul that the Church is the Pillar & Ground of the Truth (I S. Timothy iii. 15)?

Quote
I really can't understand how some of you, who are obviously very intelligent, hold to an idea like infallibility.

Well then, what think you of the four Patriarchs and the suffragans thereof who in their 1848 Encyclical taught Biblical and Synodal Infallibility?

What of the Confession of Dositheos which explicitly taught Biblical infallibility?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 12:01:07 AM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2007, 12:07:02 AM »

By the way, Asteriktos, your dialogue is not at all analogous to any Orthodox or Catholic justification for Ecclesial infallibility.  It would possess much more verisimilitude if say Person 1 rose men from the dead, was clairvoyant, bilocated, had solar miracles such as the Mother of God performed in 1917 worked on his behalf, things of this nature...

Catholics and Orthodox who believe in their Churches' infallibility do so not because their Churches merely claim infallibility, but prove it (or so each one respectively thinks or assumes).
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 12:10:27 AM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2007, 12:41:21 AM »

You simply cannot escape the fact that any ecclesiological system that lacks a concept of infallibility, admits every truth proclaimed by the Church, particularly the Church’s own claim to being the Church in the first place, as being potentially false; in such a case, Agnosticism would be the only reasonable path to follow.
I disagree. In the case of Christianity, the Immutable and Absolute God bowed the Heavens and descended to dwell among us. Christ is the Truth, and He is the Head of the Church, and we are His Body. He has revealed to us certain Absolute Truths (The Trinity, The Resurrection, Eternal Life, His own Divinity etc). These Truths are Absolute no matter what, and anyone who does not accept them cannot honestly be a member of His Body. The purpose of an Oecumenical Synod, therefore, is not to add new doctrines to what has been revealed to us, but to discern what it is that has been revealed to us. For example, the Dogmas about the veneration of Icons as defined in the Seventh Oecumenical Council are not new dogmas, but an explanation of the Absolute Christological and Sotierological dogmas which have been revealed to us by Christ.
An Agnostic has nothing Absolute to go on, whereas the Church has Christ.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 12:43:12 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,869



« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2007, 12:46:53 AM »

So for some, truth doesn't matter, what matters is that a priori assumptions-turned-dogma are defended. They need an emoticon for shaking your head in disbelief. This is utterly perplexing to me, though I've believed the same thing myself (so I would have thought I'd have some idea about all of this).
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 12:48:25 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2007, 12:55:35 AM »

Person 1 rose men from the dead, was clairvoyant, bilocated, had solar miracles such as the Mother of God performed in 1917 worked on his behalf, things of this nature...
On the 21st September 1995 and again on 21st August 2006, in Hindu Temples throughout the world, statues of the god Ganesh began drinking milk which was offered to them. Literally gallons of milk disappeared, and the statues drinking milk was videoed and shown on the news worldwide. Is Hinduism therefore the true faith?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2007, 12:58:30 AM »

Here is a website about the Hindu milk miracle: http://www.milkmiracle.com/index.html
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2007, 01:24:07 AM »

On the 21st September 1995 and again on 21st August 2006, in Hindu Temples throughout the world, statues of the god Ganesh began drinking milk which was offered to them. Literally gallons of milk disappeared, and the statues drinking milk was videoed and shown on the news worldwide. Is Hinduism therefore the true faith?

It could mean something entirely different, if you get my drift. . .
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2007, 01:25:18 AM »

It could mean something entirely different, if you get my drift. . .
And the same can be said of any miracle.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2007, 01:26:36 AM »

Which is why they must be approached skeptically.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 01:32:36 AM by lubeltri » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2007, 01:33:50 AM »

Which is why they must be approached skeptically, even so-called Christian miracles.
And therefore, miracles cannot be used to prove infallibility as Bl. Leonid Feodorov does so above by attempting to discredit Asterikto's dialogue.
By the way, Asteriktos, your dialogue is not at all analogous to any Orthodox or Catholic justification for Ecclesial infallibility.  It would possess much more verisimilitude if say Person 1 rose men from the dead, was clairvoyant, bilocated, had solar miracles such as the Mother of God performed in 1917 worked on his behalf, things of this nature...

And we simply get stuck in the same cyclical reasoning if we use miracles to prove infallibility. Since only an infallible authority can  Absolutely declare something to be a Divine Miracle.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 01:35:51 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Eleos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Posts: 252


« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2007, 05:45:43 AM »

who can deny that milk is good?
Logged

"The Unity of the Church, as Your Holinesses well know it, is the will of God and ought to be an inspiring example to all men. It should always be a help and not a hindrance to the unity of men of different religions."-Emperor Haile Selassie To the Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches 1965
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2007, 07:15:22 AM »

And you believe that?  Shocked
I do as a matter of fact.  Id find it much more incredible that someone would try to surrender themselves to God with utter trust and devotion while reading the bible and at the same time having in the back of their mind that 90% of what they are reading is wrong.  Surely you accept the teachings or you dont.  You cant read the scriptures with that much doubt and expect to gain anything from them.  If you think 90% might be wrong, and you dont know which 90%, that makes 100% of it doubtful, which means that you cant take ANY inspiration from the bible at all.
Logged

EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #68 on: January 14, 2007, 09:17:11 AM »

Quote
The purpose of an Oecumenical Synod, therefore, is not to add new doctrines to what has been revealed to us

The fact of the matter remains that objective and proper discernment as to whether a certain Council confirms doctrines that have already been revealed, can only be exercised if there already exist infallible sources revealing the content and nature of this true revelation which the said Council is alleged to have confirmed. The Ecumenicity of the Council of Nicaea stands, because the Consubstantial Divinity of Christ to which the Council testifies is absolutely true, precisely because the Holy Scriptures, in which this doctrine is grounded, are infallible in matters of Faith. If the Holy Scriptures are fallible in regard to matters of Faith, then the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity is not absolutely true, thus the Council of Nicaea must be stripped of the binding authority assigned to it.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2007, 11:02:39 AM »

OzGeorge

On the 21st September 1995 and again on 21st August 2006, in Hindu Temples throughout the world, statues of the god Ganesh began drinking milk which was offered to them. Literally gallons of milk disappeared, and the statues drinking milk was videoed and shown on the news worldwide. Is Hinduism therefore the true faith?

I recall seeing something like this on T.V. a while back.  The television show tried to disprove supposed miracles (the name of the show, sadly, has slipped my mind).  However, skeptics brought in a statue of Micky Mouse, who "miraculously" performed the same miracle as the statue of the Hindu god  I can't recall how they explained the statues "consumed" the milk, but what I'm trying to say is that this "miracle" has already been proven to be false.

For what I would consider authentic "non-Orthodox" miracles, I would encourage you to objectively read the life of Padre Pio of Pietrelcina.  If I may, I'll suggest this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Padre-Stigmatist-Charles-Mortimer-Carty/dp/0895553554/sr=1-11/qid=1168786332/ref=sr_1_11/105-6289544-9412420?ie=UTF8&s=books

Within the book, there are stories of many miracles, studied by respected doctors around the world (many of them atheist, who turned towards God after meeting with the friar of San Giovanni).  If you read this book, I'd like to discuss with you his stigmata in particular.  How he bore the stigmata for 50 years, how doctors around the world studied his wounds, and how miraculously they (the wound) healed up just before he died, leaving no scars (and the wounds weren't closed by doctors).  I believe also within this book, there is a story of a young woman (there is a picture of her) who was born blind and without pupils.  She went to Padre Pio, who licked his thumbs and placed them on the young woman's eyes.  Soon after, she was able to see.  It baffled doctors, since after this supposed miracle, she still didn't have pupils but was able to see.  Just a suggestion, sorry to direct this thread into directions unintended.

Shawn 
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #70 on: January 14, 2007, 12:47:32 PM »

Santo Padre Pio is a great example. Putative miracles need to be approached with skepticism, but it does not mean miracles do not occur. The good fruits of Padre Pio's ministry and miracles have been tremendous.

The original miracles of Christ underlay the salvation of the world, and the Holy Spirit has ensured that the work of salvation continues unimpeded by speaking infallibly in essential matters of faith through the Church.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 12:52:14 PM by lubeltri » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #71 on: January 14, 2007, 01:15:58 PM »

I do as a matter of fact.  Id find it much more incredible that someone would try to surrender themselves to God with utter trust and devotion while reading the bible and at the same time having in the back of their mind that 90% of what they are reading is wrong.  Surely you accept the teachings or you dont.  You cant read the scriptures with that much doubt and expect to gain anything from them.  If you think 90% might be wrong, and you dont know which 90%, that makes 100% of it doubtful, which means that you cant take ANY inspiration from the bible at all.

I didn't say that it wasn't inspired, only that it wasn't all correct. That is the problem with trying to reveal an infinite Deity through the finite minds of Men. A revelation of the infinite through the finite will always be imperfect; they will be limited by the intellectual capacity of those who write them down. Then, they will be limited again by the finite human mind that reads them and interpreters them. As for faith, I would have a much harder time believing in a God who was entirely subject to human thought and reason.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2007, 02:53:57 PM »

I didn't say that it wasn't inspired, only that it wasn't all correct. That is the problem with trying to reveal an infinite Deity through the finite minds of Men. A revelation of the infinite through the finite will always be imperfect; they will be limited by the intellectual capacity of those who write them down. Then, they will be limited again by the finite human mind that reads them and interpreters them. As for faith, I would have a much harder time believing in a God who was entirely subject to human thought and reason.
A revelation of the infinite through the finite will be incomplete not imperfect.  The fact that revelation is not all-encompassing, does not make that which is revealed imperfect.  Also the human mind which reads and interprets the scriptures is indeed fallible, but this in no way affects the infallibility of the scriptures.  My failure to interpret them correctly or to comprehend them does not mean that no one is capable of doing so.  Nor does it mean that scripture is fallible.  I agree that God cannot be entirely subject to human thought and reason.  I dont think that my position implies this.
Logged

GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2007, 04:31:17 PM »

A revelation of the infinite through the finite will be incomplete not imperfect.

Ummm...the two words are synonyms.

Quote
The fact that revelation is not all-encompassing, does not make that which is revealed imperfect.  Also the human mind which reads and interprets the scriptures is indeed fallible, but this in no way affects the infallibility of the scriptures.  My failure to interpret them correctly or to comprehend them does not mean that no one is capable of doing so.  Nor does it mean that scripture is fallible.  I agree that God cannot be entirely subject to human thought and reason.  I dont think that my position implies this.

No, the revelation is not necessarily imperfect, but the humans who received the revelation and wrote the scriptures are imperfect, and thus in the writing of the scriptures there is imperfection, before you even have a chance to interpret them, interpretation just adds an additional layer of imperfection.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
falafel333
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2007, 06:10:03 PM »

I think it is extremely difficult to rationalise a doctrine such as infallibility...However, at the same time I think it would be very difficult to simply dismiss it as well...Especially in the light of such emphatic scripture as that here:

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8, 9)

Such a forceful statement I would suppose would indicate that the apostle held to some criterion of absolute or infallible truth proclaimed by himself.

The same could be said also for the ecumenical councils that boldly with the same authority of the apostle pronounced anathemas on all those who disagreed with their articles of faith.

However, a problem would then arise as to who qualifies for infallibility and when and what and which ecumenical councils and what makes an ecumenical council ecumenical and thus infallible.

I suppose that the ecumenical councils then would somewhat be analogous to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church for those who would subscribe to a doctrine of infallibility... 
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2007, 06:40:18 PM »

For what I would consider authentic "non-Orthodox" miracles, I would encourage you to objectively read the life of Padre Pio of Pietrelcina.  If I may, I'll suggest this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Padre-Stigmatist-Charles-Mortimer-Carty/dp/0895553554/sr=1-11/qid=1168786332/ref=sr_1_11/105-6289544-9412420?ie=UTF8&s=books
If you want me to study the life of Padre Pio objectively, then why suggest a book written by a Catholic Priest who already assumes Padre Pio is a Saint?
If we really want to be objective about things like this, then we also have to study the Spiritual phenomenon of prelest (See http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/sign/deception.shtml for an introoduction to the concept).
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #76 on: January 14, 2007, 08:00:37 PM »

If you want me to study the life of Padre Pio objectively, then why suggest a book written by a Catholic Priest who already assumes Padre Pio is a Saint?
If we really want to be objective about things like this, then we also have to study the Spiritual phenomenon of prelest (See http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/sign/deception.shtml for an introoduction to the concept).

Padre Pio was no charismatic.

He was legendary for his severe asceticism.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2007, 08:38:05 PM »

Padre Pio was no charismatic.
He was legendary for his severe asceticism.
Prelest is not charismaticism, although, the Charaismatic movement may be a form of prelest from the Orthodox perspective.
Prelest is spiritual delusion and takes many forms.
To some degree, we are all in prelest, however, we have examples of even Saints in the Orthodox Church who experienced extreme forms of prelest in their earlier life (false visions, false clairvoyance, false insight etc.). One example involves St. Martin of Tours. A young monastic was visited by "Angels" who told him that he was greatly spiritually advanced, and in "confirmation" of this, he was given a "heavenly" cloak made from a material never seen on earth. The Abbot and the other monks were able to see and touch this "cloak", and the Abbot decided that the young man should be taken to the Bishop of Tours (St. Martin) who could discern what it meant. The young monk resisted, and had to be taken by force. On the way the cloak suddenly disappeared. When they arrived, they told the Bishop what had happened, and St. Martin explained that it was a case of prelest. As a result, the young monk was humbled and began to truly advance in sanctity.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 08:38:37 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #78 on: January 15, 2007, 06:27:02 AM »

Ummm...the two words are synonyms.
I dont believe they are.  Just because something hasnt been revealed in its entirety (God), doesnt mean that that which has been revealed is imperfect or fallible.  Thats what I mean when I say that revelation may be incomplete, but not imperfect.

No, the revelation is not necessarily imperfect, but the humans who received the revelation and wrote the scriptures are imperfect, and thus in the writing of the scriptures there is imperfection, before you even have a chance to interpret them, interpretation just adds an additional layer of imperfection.
Well Id agree that its almost impossible to completely describe and portray spiritual feelings and such non-physical phenomena through the written word.  I dont think that makes what is written any less accurate.  In as much as these things can be explained by the written word, they have been in the Holy Scriptures.  We're not going to find God by surrendering just our mind to a book, it has to be by surrendering our heart.  But its the words in the Scriptures that will guide us.  Using the traditional interpretation that the Orthodox Church fathers have, I dont think you can be misguided.  Surely that would be the result in some cases if the Bible was fallible in some areas?
Logged

Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #79 on: January 15, 2007, 10:16:15 PM »

Quote
Prelest is spiritual delusion and takes many forms.

How does spiritual delusion manifest itself in the life of St. Padre Pio? 

I might also add conerning Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov's claim regarding St. Thomas a Kempis' The Imitation of Christ - that

Quote
There reigns [therein] and breathes from its pages the unction of the evil spirit, flattering the reader, intoxicating him... The book conducts the reader directly to communion with God, without previous purification by repentance... From it carnal people enter into rapture from a delight and intoxication attained without difficulty, without self-renunciation, without repentance, without crucifixion of the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal. 5:24), with flattery of their fallen state."

   - that it can be adequately refuted by anyone who gives the book but even a cursory read.  I have read the work through at least once and spent many hours besides poring over it, and can affirm that the book is replete with exhortation to abject humility, complete obedience, unflinching penance, and the patient carrying of the Cross of Christ.  The bishop's claim that it "conducts the reader directly to communion with God, without previous purification by repentance" is manifestly false.  If anyone would defend the bishop's sentiment and care to show wherein St. Thomas' work betrays these signs of spritiual delusion, I would be more than willing to investigate the legitimacy of the accusation.  Until then, I stand amazed at the bishop's baseless and even ironic accusation.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2007, 10:18:52 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #80 on: January 15, 2007, 10:28:58 PM »

Quote
And therefore, miracles cannot be used to prove infallibility as Bl. Leonid Feodorov does so above by attempting to discredit Asterikto's dialogue.

Do you hold it for infallible truth that Christ rose from the dead?

I know at least that His Holy Apostles did, and they did so because they witnessed the Miracle of His Resurrected Body.  Ozgeorge claims that miracles cannot be used to prove infallibility.  What was it then that proved to the Apostles the fulfillment in their Master of the the infallible word of the Prophets of Old Law concerning the Resurrection of the Christ? 

S. Paul says
 
Quote
How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? which having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.  God also bearing them witness by signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.  (Hebrews ii. 3-4)

God has seen fit to bear witness to the truth of His Church by means of miracles.  I for one will accept the testimony of a God who cannot decieve or be decieved concerning His Church which is the "pillar & ground of the truth".

« Last Edit: January 15, 2007, 10:29:25 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2007, 11:24:07 PM »

"Immitatio Christi" has been printed with the blessing of various bishops, archbishops and metropolitans of the Romanian Church for many times in 200 years or so.
Is there any similar situation in other Orthodox Churches (Serbia, Greece, Russia etc)?
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2007, 12:23:22 AM »

The Serbs don't print anything that isn't Serbian... Wink Grin

Actually that's pretty true, unfortunately.  I'm pretty sure its not in Serbian...but i'll double check for you.  We tend to be hard-liners when it comes to theological texts. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 16, 2007, 05:17:25 AM »

"Immitatio Christi" has been printed with the blessing of various bishops, archbishops and metropolitans of the Romanian Church for many times in 200 years or so.
Is there any similar situation in other Orthodox Churches (Serbia, Greece, Russia etc)?
The Book "Unseen Warfare" which has become an Orthodox spiritual classic, (especially loved in Greece and the Holy Mountain) is the edited version of a work by the Roman Catholic priest, Lorenzo Scupoli published in 1589. St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain combined Scupoli's work with another shorter work of his and added numerous notes and scriptural references and adapted it for Orthodox readers.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 05:17:59 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Steve Dennehy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 135



« Reply #84 on: January 17, 2007, 11:32:55 PM »

Since this deals with both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, I thought this was the best place to put this.  However, moderators, feel free to move it if you feel it goes elsewhere.

Scamandrius

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SACRED COMMUNITY OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN ATHOS

About the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate on the occasion of the feast-day of Saint Andrew (30th
November 2006)


http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/athos1.htm




This statement is revolting.  What incredible hatred and Luciferian pride.  Where is the love of Lord Jesus in this ?  Is love foreign to the  monks of Mount Athos ?
If this is the spirit of Mount Athos, then Satan has been enthroned there.

It is a sin to form opinions on people we know little or nothing about.  It is also idiocy.  Pope John Paul II was a genuinely holy man.  He wasn't perfect; he wasn't always right, but he tried very hard.  He was a great witness to the sanctity of the individual human person; he was a great reconciler.  He worked himself to death.  How many people who were brilliant, charismatic, natural athletes would appear on the world stage when their bodies had betrayed them through Parkinson's, confined to a wheelchair, incapable of making themselves understood, drooling at the end  ?  Very, very few.  He did.  That shows incredible courage and humility.

Patriarch Bartholomew is holy ?!?  Patriarch Bartholomew is pro-abortion.  Not once, in 15 years as Patriarch of Constantinople, has this man said "boo" against slaughtering our own innocent, defenseless children by abortion.  He made a very pro-abortion statement  in a speech he made in San Francisco in 1990, a year before he was elected patriarch (do a google search and read it).

Orthodoxy Christianity is the worship of Father-Jesus-Spirit, Trinity, the One God; it is receiving His love for us and returning that love to Him and to our neighbor.  Everyone is our neighbor.

This statement has made me deeply ashamed of the monks of Mount Athos.
Such people will wallow in their spiritual pride, anathematizing each other in hell for all eternity, never realizing they missed the point ---- LOVE.


« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 11:35:46 PM by Steve Dennehy » Logged
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #85 on: January 17, 2007, 11:39:31 PM »

I will repost what I said earlier, which I think should help you understand why Mt. Athos did what it did:

We must be careful.  One thing that I don't think some realize is that what the EP is doing is not practicing love but rather practicing acceptance, and the two do not equal each other.  As a bishop, he must first love the Truth, which is the Church, and all of her teachings, which he is failing to do by praying with those who are outside the Church.  True love means sometimes telling someone they are wrong, even when they may not want to hear it.  However, we can tell someone they are wrong in a loving way as well, which doesn't necessarily require harshness, and this we should all practice as Orthodox Christians. 

This, I believe, is what Mt. Athos is doing.  Acceptance does NOT equal love. 
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #86 on: February 09, 2009, 06:15:49 PM »

The issue about "unproved accusations" has been brought here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19628.msg290910/topicseen.html

Quote
Irish Hermit made an unfounded accusation against the EP which was documented. The letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation.

Here are the key points in the letter

Quote
...
The visits of the Pope at Fanarion and the Archbishop’s visit at the Vatican may have secured certain benefits of a secular nature, however, during those visits, various other events took place which were not according to the customs of Orthodox Ecclesiology, or commitments were made that would neither benefit the Orthodox Church, nor any other heterodox Christians.

First of all, the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome.  During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”.  Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer.

There are even more harsh words in the letter of Koinotes, something I wasn't able to find at the moment.

My questions are:

1) Is there a canonical response to the letter by the addresee?

I couldn't have found it.

2) Is repeating the words of Athonites, provided it hasn't been cannonically refuted by the addressee (and it hasn't been), worthy of label of "unfounded accusation"? (That regardless the one who is labeled is a hieromonk with decades of practice...while I'll refrain from saying a word about the personalities of any of the three who labelled his words such.)
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #87 on: February 09, 2009, 06:48:49 PM »

The issue about "unproved accusations" has been brought here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19628.msg290910/topicseen.html

Quote
Irish Hermit made an unfounded accusation against the EP which was documented. The letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation.

Here are the key points in the letter

Quote
...
The visits of the Pope at Fanarion and the Archbishop’s visit at the Vatican may have secured certain benefits of a secular nature, however, during those visits, various other events took place which were not according to the customs of Orthodox Ecclesiology, or commitments were made that would neither benefit the Orthodox Church, nor any other heterodox Christians.

First of all, the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome.  During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”.  Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer.

There are even more harsh words in the letter of Koinotes, something I wasn't able to find at the moment.

My questions are:

1) Is there a canonical response to the letter by the addresee?

I couldn't have found it.

2) Is repeating the words of Athonites, provided it hasn't been cannonically refuted by the addressee (and it hasn't been), worthy of label of "unfounded accusation"? (That regardless the one who is labeled is a hieromonk with decades of practice...while I'll refrain from saying a word about the personalities of any of the three who labelled his words such.)



Now, my question is simple orthodoxlurker.
How do you account for the fact that the Athonite Monks allegedly claim that the Pope was commemorated as :
“most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”
Yet Irish Hermit says he was commemorated as:
"the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict"

?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 06:53:34 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,228


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #88 on: February 09, 2009, 08:45:50 PM »

The issue about "unproved accusations" has been brought here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19628.msg290910/topicseen.html
Actually, lurker, we're not talking about accusations that haven't been proven; we're talking about accusations that have been proven FALSE, as can be seen in the following locations:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19437.msg289603.html#msg289603 and the replies following

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19559.0.html and the thread following


Quote
Irish Hermit made an unfounded accusation against the EP which was documented. The letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation.

Here are the key points in the letter

Quote
...
The visits of the Pope at Fanarion and the Archbishop’s visit at the Vatican may have secured certain benefits of a secular nature, however, during those visits, various other events took place which were not according to the customs of Orthodox Ecclesiology, or commitments were made that would neither benefit the Orthodox Church, nor any other heterodox Christians.

First of all, the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome.  During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”.  Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer.

There are even more harsh words in the letter of Koinotes, something I wasn't able to find at the moment.

My questions are:

1) Is there a canonical response to the letter by the addresee?

I couldn't have found it.

2) Is repeating the words of Athonites, provided it hasn't been cannonically refuted by the addressee (and it hasn't been), worthy of label of "unfounded accusation"? (That regardless the one who is labeled is a hieromonk with decades of practice...while I'll refrain from saying a word about the personalities of any of the three who labelled his words such.)
What would you define to be the process of "canonically" refuting the Athonite monks who wrote the letter?  In this day and age, why is it even necessary for the EP to refute the monks in any canonical way when there are certainly enough videos in circulation today to do the job for him?  Wouldn't it be a waste of his time?  I doubt that you would believe His All Holiness even if he did.

Do you understand that the letter is just as much interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the EP's actions as it is mere statement of what the EP did?  Do you also recognize that the letter says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about His All Holiness commemorating Pope Benedict within the prayers of the Liturgy?  You are aware that it is Irish Hermit who has made this claim here on OC.net and has used this letter from Mt. Athos as evidence to support his claim?  You are aware that there are on youtube videos other than the one Irish Hermit linked on this forum--this video takes a devil of a lot of coaxing just to get it to work--that show something entirely different from what Irish Hermit has alleged?  The most recent OC.net controversy to which you have referred is really not about the letter from the monks of Mt. Athos to the EP; rather, it is all about how a particular poster has misused this letter to support his own since-refuted accusations.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 09:32:12 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #89 on: February 10, 2009, 03:20:47 AM »


Now, my question is simple orthodoxlurker.
How do you account for the fact that the Athonite Monks allegedly claim that the Pope was commemorated as :
“most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”
Yet Irish Hermit says he was commemorated as:
"the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict"

?


My answer is even more simple.

I account it as a detail of importance only in "mincing words" (I believe that's the appropriate word), used by those who want to step-side the main issue.

A hieromonk repeated it, adding the word "Archbishop" (that would account to something awful?), receiving the avalanche of insults. All of that ended in various arbitrary conclusions, such as: "unbased accusations", "accusations being proven false", etc, as if we are all expected to accept the final word of a "Greek Old Calendarist" priest, whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR".

After reading everything by ourselves, some of us will prefer using that bit of reason God gave us for our own salvation instead of accepting otherone's conclusion as final, even if the conclusions were supported by a Greek Old Calendarist.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: February 10, 2009, 04:57:56 AM »


Now, my question is simple orthodoxlurker.
How do you account for the fact that the Athonite Monks allegedly claim that the Pope was commemorated as :
“most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”
Yet Irish Hermit says he was commemorated as:
"the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict"

?

A hieromonk repeated it, adding the word "Archbishop" (that would account to something awful?), receiving the avalanche of insults.

Wait a minute.
Firstly, it was not Irish Hermit who "added the word Archbishop".
Secondly, we not only have the addition of a word, we have the alteration of one word and the removal of three other words ("Pope of Rome").
Irish Hermit states that his evidence comes from the witness of one "Rdr. Petar Rajic" who posted on the Indiana List:
As I said I did not try the video because my computer is too slow.  I asked the chap who sent it where he got the information and it comes from the Indiana list for December 2006.

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0612A&L=ORTHODOX&P=R3400
Now, this "Rdr. Petar Rajic" admits in his post that he is "not a native Greek speaker", yet he is sure that he heard the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..."
So the monks of Mount Athos (most of whom are native Greek Speakers since they say in their letter: "we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate") - where did they get the words: "“most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”"?

Let me explain why.

If you read the letter of the Holy Community of Mount Athos you will notice that the word "commemorate" occurs earlier in the letter. The second paragraph reads:


" As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose jurisdiction we fall.  We honor and venerate the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so diligently labored for, in his love of God, for the Church. We particularly commemorate the stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world.  Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate."


Is the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain talking here about "commemorating" the Patriarch in the Liturgy? Is the Patriarch "particularly" commemorated in the Liturgy for his "stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world."?
Clearly they are not talking about their commemoration of the Patriarch in the Liturgy, so what makes you think they are talking about the commemoration of the Pope in the Liturgy in the second instance of the word in their letter? I think the confusion is in the paragraph because of the syntax.
The Monks state that "During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron;" see the semicolon at the end of that point? It means that is the only point they make about the Service. The next point is about how the Pope was greeted in the welcoming Speech of the Patriarch: "he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord;" Another semi colon. This did not take place in the Liturgy but during the speeches.  Neither did the joint blessing take place during the Liturgy, it took place on the Balcony afterwards. So the monks are not talking about a Liturgical commemoration.
If the Pope had indeed been comemmorated during the liturgy with the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..." as Rdr Petar Rajic claims, then surely the Monastic Community of the Holy Mountain would have included this in their protest letter.

Finally, here is the video of the Great Litany of the Patriarchal Liturgy which Pope Benedict attended (dressed in his omorphion as the Athonites correctly pointed out):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM
The commemoration of the Bishop takes place at 6 minutes and 8 seconds, and it is the Ecumenical Patriarch alone who is commemorated.

No commemoration of the Pope takes place in the Liturgy.

All this was pointed out to Irish Hermit.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 05:12:44 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2009, 06:20:11 AM »

OzGeorge points out above this tidbit about the article from Mount Athos:
"The Monks state that "During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron;" see the semicolon at the end of that point? It means that is the only point they make about the Service. The next point is about how the Pope was greeted in the welcoming Speech of the Patriarch: "he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord;" Another semi colon. This did not take place in the Liturgy but during the speeches.  Neither did the joint blessing take place during the Liturgy, it took place on the Balcony afterwards. So the monks are not talking about a Liturgical commemoration.
If the Pope had indeed been comemmorated during the liturgy with the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..." as Rdr Petar Rajic claims, then surely the Monastic Community of the Holy Mountain would have included this in their protest letter.
"


The complete point of this article from Mount Athos was that the Pope wore an omophorion or in Roman Catholic terms a Pallium during the Liturgy.





Pope Benedict was NOT wearing a Pallium during the Liturgy at the Phanar. 

Here is a link to the Liturgy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM

Pause at minute 5:03 and pause.  Have a look.  No pallium.

What is this pallium I am speaking of?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallium

The Pallium is the Papal equivalent to the omophorion  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omophorion

In fact the pope was in choir dress during the Divine Liturgy at the Phanar.

What is choir dress? 



This is what the Pope was wearing except that fancy red cape was furred lined.  Notice during the video the white trimming on the red cape/mozzetta.

Once again at the Divine Liturgy the Pope attended at the Phanar he was wearing
choir dress:
Zuchetto
Pectoral cross
stole
cassock
red shoes

He didn't wear his pallium which is the sign of his position in the Roman Catholic Church.

The key is the Mt. Athos document states he wore his Omophorion/Pallium.  Which you can clearly see in the video that Pope Benedict XVI was clearly not wearing his Pallium during the Divine Liturgy.


Here is Pope Benedict XVI wearing a Pallium or what the Eastern Orthodox would call the omophorion.



« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 06:34:01 AM by username! » Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #92 on: February 10, 2009, 06:30:33 AM »

The key is the Mt. Athos document states he wore his Omophorion/Pallium.  Which you can clearly see in the video that Pope Benedict XVI was clearly not wearing his Pallium during the Divine Liturgy.
It seems that even Athonite Monks and Global Moderators make mistakes sometimes.
Thankfully, we Orthodox do not claim infallibility. Cheesy
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 06:58:26 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #93 on: February 10, 2009, 07:25:57 AM »

I can't believe what I read.

If I weren't annoyed by the idiotic "arguments" thrown in my face (no, actually I am not an idiot and stupidities used to convince me actually annoy me) I'd be shuddering in the salves of laughter.

Let me make clear what I am speaking about.

A) There are some undisputed facts, beyond any doubt:

A.1) Benedict XVI visited Phanar back in 2006.

A.2) There are various public reports about the events there, including some claim on a list, with the link to EP's official site proving that claim in 2006.

A.2.1) The link is not valid in 2009, about two and a half years latter, since EP removed the footage from its site.

A.3) There are two official documents castigating H.A.H. Bartholomew (kindly note I referred to him by his official title of His All-Holyness) from Mount Athos, the authonomy within EP, one of Self-Governing Body (the one posted above) and the second one from Koinotes (a.k.a. hermits).

A.4) The letter of Self-Governing Body of Mount Athos contains

both

A.4.1)

description of the events

Quote
During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”.  Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer...


and

A.4.2) certain qualifications of them:

Quote
...received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome.  During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron...as though it were Christ the Lord...his liturgical (remark by OL: the word "liturgical" makes the qualification of the event) embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer.

A.5) There is no response to the letters in the form and manner pertaining to them by the addressee.

The answer to my questions about the facts has been persistantly avoided in this thread. Instead, what I got here, and in the thread to which I linked in my first post on the thread, is:

B.1) Counter-questions with a bunch of various rubbish qualifications and interpretations, such as:

B.1.1) It wasn't one word, than three words that were altered.

B.1.1) The invitation to explain the qualification (you might use the word "interpretation"; however, the word "qualification" refers exactly to subsuming if an event qualifies as a notion prescribed as a norm) of the events by the Athonites to an "authority" of cyber-Orthodox laymen.

B.1.2) The lecture about the pallium (something I am interested in as much as in the snow of last winter), with particularly "authoritative" explanation that Orthodox understanding is that pallium is part of Papal omophorion, (I did shudder in laughter over this one.) but the Athonites are ignorant about this treasure of Orthodox knowledge.

B.2) Assurances by "Orthodox cyber-authority" that an opinion of an Greek Old Calendarist priest, whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR", is the final and supreme authority over the issue if it is appropriate to trash an Orthodox hieromonk by a bunch of "cyber-authorities" in Orthodoxy for simply pointing out the well-known facts.

The simple truth is that EP has been remaining silent to Athonites' letters for two and a half years. Therefore, when an Orthodox hieromonk brings qualifications expressed in these letters, and even more annoying details reported on some list, "cyber-authorities" in Orthodoxy can only hurl salves of insults and ridiculous interpretation of the events to silence it.

Now, the only thing that remained uncelar to me is what makes me wasting my time in the debate with the people capable of throwing such an "arguments" in my face.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: February 10, 2009, 07:46:18 AM »

I can't believe what I read.
That's because you don't want to.

If I weren't annoyed by the idiotic "arguments" thrown in my face (no, actually I am not an idiot and stupidities used to convince me actually annoy me) I'd be shuddering in the salves of laughter.
Idiotic arguments?
Look at the video of the Liturgy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM
Where is the Pope's omophorion (pallium) as the Athonites claim?

A.1) Benedict XVI visited Phanar back in 2006.
Yes, that's right. No one is disputing that.


A.2) There are various public reports about the events there,
Which contradict each other as pointed out.

including some claim on a list, with the link to EP's official site proving that claim in 2006.
Written by a "Rdr. Petar Rajic who clearly says his first language is not Greek yet he presumes to translate a Greek video. Well, you have the video above. This is the first of a series of 8 videos of the entire liturgy. Tell us where the Pope is commemorated in them and we will believe you.

A.2.1) The link is not valid in 2009, about two and a half years latter, since EP removed the footage from its site.
Then please use the alternate video of the Liturgy on youtube linked to above to prove your point.

A.3) There are two official documents castigating H.A.H. Bartholomew (kindly note I referred to him by his official title of His All-Holyness) from Mount Athos, the authonomy within EP, one of Self-Governing Body (the one posted above) and the second one from Koinotes (a.k.a. hermits).
"Castigating"? This certainly doesn't sound like "castigating" to me:
" As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose jurisdiction we fall.  We honor and venerate the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so diligently labored for, in his love of God, for the Church. We particularly commemorate the stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world.  Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate."

A.4) The letter of Self-Governing Body of Mount Athos contains
both
A.4.1)
description of the events

Quote
During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron;
Which is patently WRONG. The Pope is not wearing the omorphion. He is in choir dress.
See for yourself:

See? No omorphion. No Pallium.
They made a mistake.
You clearly have trouble facing reality.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 07:56:29 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #95 on: February 10, 2009, 08:05:37 AM »

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_regalia_and_insignia#Choir_dress


Quote
Choir dress

When not celebrating religious services, the pope wears a distinctive choir dress. Choir dress is worn when attending—but not celebrating—services, and formal occasions, such as audiences. On less formal occasions, the pope wears ordinary dress.
The most immediately noticeable feature is a white cassock and zucchetto (skull cap). Only the pope is permitted to wear a cassock made out of watered silk. The cassock used to have a train on it, but Pope Pius XII discontinued this custom. For convenience, the train could be folded up and fastened to the back of the cassock. He used to wear a tufted fascia (white sash-like belt fastened about the waist, the ends of which fall down past the knees and are often embroidered with the pope's coat of arms), until Paul VI replaced it with a simpler fringed sash. Previously, the tufted fascia (terminating in gold tassels) was worn with choir dress, and the fringed fascia (terminating in a simpler gold fringe) was worn with ordinary dress.
Over his cassock the pope will wear a lace rochet. Over the rochet is worn the red papal mozzetta, a shoulder cape that has a collar and is buttoned all the way down the front. The red color is a vestige from the days when scarlet was the papal color (white only became associated with the papacy after the Napoleonic wars). The papal mozzetta had a small hood on the back, which disappeared after Vatican II but has recently been restored. In wintertime, the papal mozzetta is of red velvet trimmed with ermine (this also fell out of use after Vatican II, but Pope Benedict XVI recently began again to wear a winter mozzetta trimmed in white fur). In summer, the papal mozzetta is of red satin. The pope wears a pectoral cross suspended on a gold cord over the mozzetta. He may also choose to wear a red stole with gold embroidery over the mozzetta, even when he is not officiating at a service.
Traditionally during the Octave of Easter, the pope wears the white paschal mozzetta, which is of white damask silk trimmed with white ermine. While the paschal mozzetta fell out of use during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, it was returned to use in 2008 by Pope Benedict XVI.
Since the 13th Century many papal portraits have shown the pontiff wearing the camauro, a red velvet cap which covers the ears, and is trimmed with ermine. The camauro fell out of fashion with the death of Pope John XXIII, but has recently been revived by Pope Benedict XVI.
Traditionally, he wears special red satin or velvet papal slippers indoors, and red leather papal shoes outdoors. The papal shoes were traditionally red, though Pope John Paul II would sometimes wear black or brown leather shoes. Pope Benedict XVI has restored the use of the traditional red papal shoes.



Pope Benedict XVI in choir dress
(red shoes, white cassock with fringed fascia,
rochet, red mozzetta, embroidered red stole,
gold pectoral cross on cord, and white zucchetto).


This is what the Pope was wearing at the Patriarchal Liturgy.
Case closed.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #96 on: February 10, 2009, 08:17:49 AM »

I can see how one could get confused; the stole on the "choir dress" looks like it's primed to be folded over and made into an omophorion/pallium.  In my secondary school days I don't remember seeing the RC Bishop of Cleveland in "choir dress" ever, so I wasn't familiar. 

Can we separate out the arguments?

1. The Pope was commemorated.
- Well, in a sense he wasn't, in that it didn't happen during the Divine Liturgy, and certainly not during the commemorations of the hierarchs in communion (at the Great Entrance, and at the "Among the First, Lord, remember...").
- In a sense he was during the "Doxology Service" that took place the days before Liturgy when he arrived at the Phanar.

2. The Pope was vested.
- Those who have looked at the videos have said (with proof, from photography) that he really wasn't - but it would be easy for us to be fooled from our Orthodox POV on vestment types and styles.

3. The Pope was greeted as an Orthodox bishop and given the Kiss of Peace by His All-Holiness.
- Did he do this during Liturgy?  Doxology? (I'm not saying the one is trivial by nature; just trying to be precise regarding the facts.)
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Mark of Ephesus
Defender of Orthodoxy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR/MP
Posts: 170



« Reply #97 on: February 10, 2009, 08:20:11 AM »

Since this deals with both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, I thought this was the best place to put this.  However, moderators, feel free to move it if you feel it goes elsewhere.

Scamandrius

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SACRED COMMUNITY OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN ATHOS

About the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate on the occasion of the feast-day of Saint Andrew (30th
November 2006)
http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/athos1.htm



It seems that the Monks of the Holy Mountain have hit the "nail on the head", (as we say in Texas!)



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 03:58:29 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Suddenly the Judge shall come, and the deeds of each shall be revealed, but with fear we cry out in the middle of the night, Holy, Holy, Holy art thou o God, Thru the prayers of the Theotokos have mercy on us and save us!
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: February 10, 2009, 10:50:00 AM »

Removed my message.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 11:05:46 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #99 on: February 10, 2009, 10:55:03 AM »

God bless you cleveland!
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #100 on: February 10, 2009, 11:20:52 AM »



If the Pope had indeed been comemmorated during the liturgy with the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..." as Rdr Petar Rajic claims, then surely the Monastic Community of the Holy Mountain would have included this in their protest letter.

Finally, here is the video of the Great Litany of the Patriarchal Liturgy which Pope Benedict attended (dressed in his omorphion as the Athonites correctly pointed out):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM
The commemoration of the Bishop takes place at 6 minutes and 8 seconds, and it is the Ecumenical Patriarch alone who is commemorated.

There is one importrant point here which those familar with Liturgy will have noticed at once.

The forum of the alleged commemoration is "Again let us pray...."

Now this is NOT the form used in the Great Litany so there would be no point in looking for it there.

The petitions which all commence "Again let us pray..." are only in the Litany of Fervent Intercession which takes place immediately after the reading of the Gospel.

In some parts of the Greek (and Antiochian) diaspora this Litany has been removed from the Liturgy, or so I am told, and that may explain the confusion.

Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #101 on: February 10, 2009, 11:57:15 AM »

If the Pope had indeed been comemmorated during the liturgy with the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..." as Rdr Petar Rajic claims, then surely the Monastic Community of the Holy Mountain would have included this in their protest letter.

Finally, here is the video of the Great Litany of the Patriarchal Liturgy which Pope Benedict attended (dressed in his omorphion as the Athonites correctly pointed out):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM
The commemoration of the Bishop takes place at 6 minutes and 8 seconds, and it is the Ecumenical Patriarch alone who is commemorated.

There is one importrant point here which those familar with Liturgy will have noticed at once.

The forum of the alleged commemoration is "Again let us pray...."

Now this is NOT the form used in the Great Litany so there would be no point in looking for it there.

The petitions which all commence "Again let us pray..." are only in the Litany of Fervent Intercession which takes place immediately after the reading of the Gospel.

In some parts of the Greek (and Antiochian) diaspora this Litany has been removed from the Liturgy, or so I am told, and that may explain the confusion.

I think the form "again we pray" not only tells us that it is from the fervent litany, but also hints that it could have been from another service, such as Vespers, Liti, or a "Doxology Service," all of which have fervent Litanies  Are we certain that it was Divine Liturgy?

(Note: I'm not nitpicking to say that "if it wasn't in Liturgy it wasn't a big deal," but rather I'm trying to get to "if it wasn't in Liturgy, it wasn't as big a deal, but it's still not necessarily a good thing.")
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #102 on: February 10, 2009, 12:05:57 PM »

I'm hesitant to enter this discussion, but if I may offer a couple thoughts...

The link that Irish Hermit posted a few days ago was, indeed, broken.  But if one looks at the URL, one will see that it ended with "pope_arrival_2006."  I'm not sure where the confusion came in that the commemoration happened during the Divine Liturgy (I feel sure that it was just a misunderstanding, and no one confused them intentionally, as it was unclear from what was posted when the commemoration happened), but it did not.  I did a little searching...

I downloaded the podcasts from iTunes and subsequently also discovered that I own the Dvd's.  I watched them yesterday.  Smiley

If one looks on the patriarchate's website that is specifically dedicated to the pope's visit, one will find that the video for the Doxology FOR THE SAFE ARRIVAL OF THE POPE AT THE PHANAR ends with the same "pope_arrival_2006" as the link that Irish Hermit posted.  Here it is:
http://papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/media/pope_arrival_2006.php

And it is, as was said, seven minutes, five seconds into the video.  For me, this completely confirms that the commemoration in question happened NOT during the Divine Liturgy, but rather, during the doxology for the Pope's arrival.

So... this "commemoration" happened during a Doxology that was SPECIFICALLY to give Glory to God for the Pope's safe arrival!  OF COURSE they prayed for him!  It would have been completely inappropriate not to!  How can one thank God for the Pope's arrival without ever mentioning the Pope?!?!

Furthermore, while he WAS commemorated as archbishop and pope of Rome (his official title), he was NOT commemorated as "OUR" archbishop and pope of Rome, which is distinctly different (there was no "imon" used).  Neither did he acknowledge the commemoration with a blessing, as a bishop would, or as he would when he was in any service in the Catholic Church.  He did NOT bless, nor was there an "eis polla eti, despota" said for him.  The Patriarch WAS commemorated in the usual way, with the usage of "imon," he DID bless, and they DID say "eis polla eti, despota."  They commemorated the Pope in the same way they commemorate any visiting dignitary.  Nothing unusual about it.


Frankly (and I mean no offense to anyone), I don't think this argument is going to go anywhere useful.  We commemorate the president in every Divine Liturgy.  That doesn't mean that we acknowledge him as the leader of our Church.  It means we are praying for him.  Furthermore, we pray constantly in doxologies and Divine Liturgies and Trisagions, etc. for non-Orthodox people, like terrorist victims, victims of natural disasters, and other people for whom it has been established we should pray for specifically.  When we open conferences or retreats, we pray for the participants (even though they may not be Orthodox, such as at the opening of an educational conference of the World Conference of Churches, when it was held at Hellenic College Holy Cross).  It is our job, our responsibility as Christians, to pray for people.  Why would we not pray for the Pope?  They were praying for him for a specific time and a specific reason.  They prayed for him the same way as they would pray for anyone else.  And, considering the circumstances, I would say it would have been ridiculously inappropriate NOT to pray for him.

I pray I'm not causing any offense by my words.

Pray for me a sinner,
Presbytera Mari
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #103 on: February 10, 2009, 12:15:57 PM »

I can see how one could get confused;

Me too, I see the confusion, although I am not quite sure why my point is persistently ignored.


Can we separate out the arguments?


I thought I've already done it.

The argument is that you (and others ignoring my point) are attaching your interpretation of the events. It is your interpretation that I refuse to accept regardless how many Old Calendarist priests whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR" are brought for support.

For instance, the argument about Benedict's clothing is hollow.

It was not one place where I've read that he actually wore white liturgical vestment, tailored in Eastern fashion for the occasion, beneath that red stuff on top of it. Since it was white, no footage, or photo can show it. So the argument to see some youtube links, with wikipedia as spice, ought to make one laughing.

All of that regardless Fr. Ambrose's precise point.

I am not debating what had Benedict XVI worn, or what was said at what point of Liturgy. I am not Reader Rajic, I wasn't there, so ask him to explain if what he heard was pronounced by H.D.A.H. Bartholomew, some priest of his jurisdicion, or by some present Roman Catholic or an "Easterner-in-communion-whose-name-we-are-not-allowed-on-this-board".

The harsh criticism is expressed in two letters of Athonites. Beside the theological value, the letter of Monasteries weights to an official document in Orthodoxy. The quote letter contain certain qualifications, e.g. "...liturgical  embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer."

My point is that as long as there is no official response to the official and public letter of Athonites every one of us, even a layman, is free to repeat the qualifications from the letter.

Yet another point is that when the same or similar qualifications are brought by a hieromonk an Orthodox ought to show some manners even in the harshest dispute against these qualifications.

And the final point that bringing "the arguments" of youtube, wikipedia and Old Calendarist priests against Mount Athos and a hieromonk with decades of practice sound pathetic and ridiculous.


I hope I did clarify everything to you, because this was my best attempt at it and I don't think I can do any better.

Regards from a member of "synagogue of Satan headed by Patriarch Pavle", whose prayers interecede for my friend with cancer to be alive and good looking for a decade and a half.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 12:18:03 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #104 on: February 10, 2009, 12:20:53 PM »

They prayed for him the same way as they would pray for anyone else.  And, considering the circumstances, I would say it would have been ridiculously inappropriate NOT to pray for him.

May God bless him and convert him.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #105 on: February 10, 2009, 12:35:30 PM »

Me too, I see the confusion, although I am not quite sure why my point is persistently ignored.

Probably because it's irrelevant.

Can we separate out the arguments?

I thought I've already done it.

I think there must be some sort of language barrier, because you're not always as clear as you think you are.

The argument is that you (and others ignoring my point) are attaching your interpretation of the events. It is your interpretation that I refuse to accept regardless how many Old Calendarist priests whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR" are brought for support.

The "even more conservative than ROCOR" wasn't brought in as a support for the argument; I don't think you paid very close attention.

For instance, the argument about Benedict's clothing is hollow.

It was not one place where I've read that he actually wore white liturgical vestment, tailored in Eastern fashion for the occasion, beneath that red stuff on top of it. Since it was white, no footage, or photo can show it. So the argument to see some youtube links, with wikipedia as spice, ought to make one laughing.

See my point below.

All of that regardless Fr. Ambrose's precise point.

I am not debating what had Benedict XVI worn, or what was said at what point of Liturgy.

Then why debate it above, when you say:
For instance, the argument about Benedict's clothing is hollow.

It was not one place where I've read that he actually wore white liturgical vestment, tailored in Eastern fashion for the occasion, beneath that red stuff on top of it. Since it was white, no footage, or photo can show it. So the argument to see some youtube links, with wikipedia as spice, ought to make one laughing.

This is why you confuse people - you say you don't want to argue a point, but then you argue it, and then accuse others of distracting from the main point.

I am not Reader Rajic, I wasn't there, so ask him to explain if what he heard was pronounced by H.D.A.H. Bartholomew, some priest of his jurisdicion, or by some present Roman Catholic or an "Easterner-in-communion-whose-name-we-are-not-allowed-on-this-board".

You weren't there, but you can actually see what was said and heard through the magic of Internet and video, so don't claim to be ignorant; the links have been provided (originally intended by Fr. Ambrose, but updated by Greek Chef).

The harsh criticism is expressed in two letters of Athonites. Beside the theological value, the letter of Monasteries weights to an official document in Orthodoxy. The quote letter contain certain qualifications, e.g. "...liturgical  embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer."

You're going to have to prove that "the letter of Monasteries weights to an official document in Orthodoxy" - it is an assertion I've never seen before, and have never seen supported before.

My point is that as long as there is no official response to the official and public letter of Athonites every one of us, even a layman, is free to repeat the qualifications from the letter.

You don't know whether there is an official response or not; just because the Athonite monks made their letter public doesn't mean that the Patriarchate did also - maybe they don't want to dishonor the monks by arguing with them through letters back-and-forth.

Yet another point is that when the same or similar qualifications are brought by a hieromonk an Orthodox ought to show some manners even in the harshest dispute against these qualifications.

Well, the Administrators have already agreed to this point, by warning someone whom they felt had disrespected said hieromonk.  So now you're beating a dead horse and wondering why we're complaining about the smell.

And the final point that bringing "the arguments" of youtube, wikipedia and Old Calendarist priests against Mount Athos and a hieromonk with decades of practice sound pathetic and ridiculous.[/b]

Your statement assumes many points not in evidence (i.e. that are not concrete facts or proven correct beforehand): (a) that "Mount Athos" is absolutely right (which they may not be); (b) that the whole Holy Mountain is in agreement with what the Abbots wrote and signed; (c) that "a hieromonk" (Fr. Ambrose) is in full agreement with 100% of what was in the letter; (d) that if any of the facts were disproven from the letter (which is what people have been doing) that Fr. Ambrose wouldn't modify or change his position/opinion; (e) that the arguments with evidence from YouTube and Wikipedia are wrong because of their source.

I hope I did clarify everything to you, because this was my best attempt at it and I don't think I can do any better.

I hope you can indeed do better, or can gain assistance to do better; as I said earlier, I have a suspicion that English isn't your first language, and if this is the case, then it may be limiting your ability to fully express what you intend to.

Regards from a member of "synagogue of Satan headed by Patriarch Pavle",

Taking the comment out of context again.  You weaken your arguments by doing this, you know.

whose prayers interecede for my friend with cancer to be alive and good looking for a decade and a half.

I pray too that His Beatitude +PAVLE live many more years in God's grace on this earth, and for eternity in His Kingdom.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #106 on: February 10, 2009, 12:37:07 PM »



The key is the Mt. Athos document states he wore his Omophorion/Pallium.  Which you can clearly see in the video that Pope Benedict XVI was clearly not wearing his Pallium during the Divine Liturgy.


Here is Pope Benedict XVI wearing a Pallium or what the Eastern Orthodox would call the omophorion.





You and Ozgeorge are correct. Pope Benedict was not wearing his pallium.

I would point out that the pallium Benedict wore at that point in his pontificate was different than the one you see above:



This is from the Mass Benedict celebrated at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Istanbul in 2006. The pallium is in a very ancient style. It was eventually dismissed as pointless archaeologizing and replaced with the pallium posted above. It also tended to get tangled:



The pallium had an evolution over the centuries:

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #107 on: February 10, 2009, 12:58:53 PM »

I can't believe what I read.

If I weren't annoyed by the idiotic "arguments" thrown in my face (no, actually I am not an idiot and stupidities used to convince me actually annoy me) I'd be shuddering in the salves of laughter.


Why do you keep accusing people of calling you an idiot? And then turn right around and call their arguments stupid and idiotic?

Quote
B.2) Assurances by "Orthodox cyber-authority" that an opinion of an Greek Old Calendarist priest, whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR", is the final and supreme authority over the issue if it is appropriate to trash an Orthodox hieromonk by a bunch of "cyber-authorities" in Orthodoxy for simply pointing out the well-known facts.

Now you are twisting and misrepresenting things completely. Besides I thought we weren't talking about Fr Ambrose's treatment? Did you think that only applied to the thread I unlocked?

Quote
Now, the only thing that remained uncelar to me is what makes me wasting my time in the debate with the people capable of throwing such an "arguments" in my face.

I don't know, but you are free to stop at any time.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #108 on: February 10, 2009, 01:00:05 PM »

The argument is that you (and others ignoring my point) are attaching your interpretation of the events. It is your interpretation that I refuse to accept regardless how many Old Calendarist priests whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR" are brought for support.

Stop bringing me up. I am really not that interesting.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 01:00:31 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #109 on: February 10, 2009, 01:09:06 PM »

For the record, I think that the visit of the Pope to the Phanar in 2006, and all previous visits, including being present in the liturgy with choir garb and all the dual blessings and being censed as a bishop, or visits to Romania where he wears a mitre while the patriarch is vested in mitre, Orthodox bishops at Assisi prayer meetings, etc etc etc are absolutely wrong.

My only objection was to being imprecise. We need to be very precise with our charges, or else we look foolish and our arguments lose force.  Passing links without checking to see if the link works first is not good procedure. It weakens the force.

The only reason I referred to my Old Calendarist affiliations was because I find it ironic that given that I do not support the EP, I found myself perturbed by the lack of procedure in evidence gathering (which was offensive to our EP posters). I do not claim to be any kind of authority. It is ironic though the position I found myself in.

Above all we need to be fair and accurate. That is a hallmark of charity.

The idea that my authority was invoked to support rudeness towards Irish Hermit is not true. In fact, I was against said treatment.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #110 on: February 10, 2009, 01:26:36 PM »

For the record, I think that the visit of the Pope to the Phanar in 2006, and all previous visits, including being present in the liturgy with choir garb and all the dual blessings and being censed as a bishop, or visits to Romania where he wears a mitre while the patriarch is vested in mitre, Orthodox bishops at Assisi prayer meetings, etc etc etc are absolutely wrong.

Noted, and well-received.

My only objection was to being imprecise. We need to be very precise with our charges, or else we look foolish and our arguments lose force.  Passing links without checking to see if the link works first is not good procedure. It weakens the force.

The only reason I referred to my Old Calendarist affiliations was because I find it ironic that given that I do not support the EP, I found myself perturbed by the lack of procedure in evidence gathering (which was offensive to our EP posters). I do not claim to be any kind of authority. It is ironic though the position I found myself in.

Above all we need to be fair and accurate. That is a hallmark of charity.

Amen.

The idea that my authority was invoked to support rudeness towards Irish Hermit is not true. In fact, I was against said treatment.

Originally, your "authority" (which was actually just your jurisdiction's theological leanings) was actually brought up as an example of how one can be opposed to wrong action but be cordial about it; precise in accusation without being inflammatory in language.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #111 on: February 10, 2009, 01:57:51 PM »

For the record, it wasn't Fr. Atanasios whom brought up the "authority" of his "jurisdiction that is even more conservative than ROCOR", neither I claimed that anywhere, any place, any time. It was Cleveland who brought it.

For the record too, the statement quoted in my first post of his thread, with the link to it:

The issue about "unproved accusations" has been brought here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19628.msg290910/topicseen.html

Quote
Irish Hermit made an unfounded accusation against the EP which was documented. The letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation.

about the "unfounded accusation" which was "documented", along with the opinion that "the letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation" (I guess to him, as the final authority to judge what's proved and what's not) belongs exactly to him.

For the record, too, the same goes that both Fr Athanasios, Cleveland and Ozgeorge who persistently attempted to drag me into the discussion on the temporary unlocked thread where I promissed not to participate except to respond to their posts replying to mine, so I preferred to quote the remark of an Old Calendarist priest about his opinion about the weight of Mount Athos' letter in reviving this thread, where it was appropriate to debate it.

Since I exhausted all points of mine, and everyone can see and make one's own judgment, I'll silently keep eye on that interesting debate between Fr Athanasios, Lubelbri and Cleveland about Benedict's XVI phallium.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #112 on: February 10, 2009, 02:11:24 PM »

For the record, it wasn't Fr. Atanasios whom brought up the "authority" of his "jurisdiction that is even more conservative than ROCOR", neither I claimed that anywhere, any place, any time. It was Cleveland who brought it. 

And, yet, you're the one who keeps bringing it up.  My final statement on the matter:

Originally, your "authority" (which was actually just your jurisdiction's theological leanings) was actually brought up as an example of how one can be opposed to wrong action but be cordial about it; precise in accusation without being inflammatory in language.

For the record too, the statement quoted in my first post of his thread, with the link to it:

The issue about "unproved accusations" has been brought here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19628.msg290910/topicseen.html

Quote
Irish Hermit made an unfounded accusation against the EP which was documented. The letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation.

about the "unfounded accusation" which was "documented", along with the opinion that "the letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation" (I guess to him, as the final authority to judge what's proved and what's not) belongs exactly to him.

You're arguing circular logic, and using circular logic to prove it.  How priceless.

For the record, too, the same goes that both Fr Athanasios, Cleveland and Ozgeorge who persistently attempted to drag me into the discussion on the temporary unlocked thread where I promissed not to participate except to respond to their posts replying to mine, so I preferred to quote the remark of an Old Calendarist priest about his opinion about the weight of Mount Athos' letter in reviving this thread, where it was appropriate to debate it.

"Drag me in?"  I'm sorry - you made a statement, we responded; you asked to get a chance to counter-respond, which you were permitted to do, and you made your counter-statement, and said that we were open to reply.  We reply, and then you accuse us of "dragging you in."  Either my "second language" theory is correct, or your arguments are too weak to support themselves and so you resort to circular accusations and baseless attacks.

Since I exhausted all points of mine, and everyone can see and make one's own judgment, I'll silently keep eye on that interesting debate between Fr Athanasios, Lubelbri and Cleveland about Benedict's XVI phallium.

Hmmm, I don't think you've been paying attention, or "keeping an eye," on the current conversation, since you (a) can't spell Fr. Anastasios' name correctly and (b) can't spell "pallium," although it has been mentioned quite a few times in this thread and all you needed to do is copy and paste the word.

Your arguments have been weak, which is a shame.  You should just stay out of the discussions if your arguments are not able to keep up.  There is a case to be made against things that the Ecumenical Patriarchate have done over the years in the dialogue with the Roman/Western/Latin Catholics; however, you can't make the case if you're unwilling to get your facts straight.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #113 on: February 10, 2009, 02:21:30 PM »

Either my "second language" theory is correct, or your arguments are too weak to support themselves and so you resort to circular accusations and baseless attacks.


Or, perhaps, there are numerous other possibilities, such as an epidemia of sudden incapability of understadning, since all three of you asked for clarifications of different parts of my statements.

Anyway, some will certainly follow the Cleveland's pronounce about the truth, while those who prefer to use their own reason may actually check the link in my initial post.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #114 on: February 10, 2009, 02:28:48 PM »

orthodoxlurker,

Why would I debate the pallium? I was not even posting in the latest round of this thread until you mentioned my name. I don't have any interest in Western liturgical garb.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #115 on: February 10, 2009, 02:57:16 PM »

Or, perhaps, there are numerous other possibilities, such as an epidemia of sudden incapability of understadning, since all three of you asked for clarifications of different parts of my statements.

Speaking of misunderstandings: "epidemic" not "epidemia;" "understanding" not "understadning."

Anyway, some will certainly follow the Cleveland's pronounce about the truth,

"Cleveland's" not "the Cleveland's;" "pronouncement" not "pronounce."  You're providing more and more evidence for my theory.  Keep it up, please.

while those who prefer to use their own reason may actually check the link in my initial post.

I encourage everyone in this thread and all over this site to use their God-given and God-inspired reason, logic, and intellect when reading this thread.  I don't think they'll have the reaction that you anticipate, Orthodoxlurker, but at least they'll be following your wishes.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,228


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #116 on: February 10, 2009, 04:15:22 PM »

Anyway, some will certainly follow the Cleveland's pronounce about the truth, while those who prefer to use their own reason may actually check the link in my initial post.
Yes, I checked the link in your initial post.  The link takes us to another thread that YOU started to complain about how members of different jurisdictions treated each other, particularly how some of the moderators of the "EP's flock" treated Irish Hermit.  Hardly anything more worth reading than what we have discussed here.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #117 on: February 10, 2009, 05:58:29 PM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar, at the Mass for SS. Peter and Paul in St. Peter's Basilica the Ecumenical Patriarch's deacon chanted the Gospel in Greek, then after the Gospel reading both the Pope and the Patriarch gave the blessing with Book of the Gospels which I am sure that is enough to run afoul of Athos and others.



« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 05:59:52 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #118 on: February 11, 2009, 12:33:53 AM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar, at the Mass for SS. Peter and Paul in St. Peter's Basilica the Ecumenical Patriarch's deacon chanted the Gospel in Greek, then after the Gospel reading both the Pope and the Patriarch gave the blessing with Book of the Gospels which I am sure that is enough to run afoul of Athos and others.





This photograph portrays the kind of action which gives not just the Fathers of Athos but all Greek Old Calendarists the horrors.  And not just them, but many ordinary Orthodox Christians such as in Greece and Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem....
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #119 on: February 11, 2009, 12:38:05 AM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar,

Is not the wearing of the stole or the pallium a symbol of liturgical participation?

It is precisely for this reason that the SCOBA ecumencial guidelines forbid clergy from wearing stoles when they attend such events.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 12:41:58 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #120 on: February 11, 2009, 01:02:03 AM »

Is not the wearing of the stole or the pallium a symbol of liturgical participation?

It is precisely for this reason that the SCOBA ecumencial guidelines forbid clergy from wearing stoles when they attend such events.

Father, I've never heard of such a thing.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #121 on: February 11, 2009, 01:08:02 AM »

I remember Pope Benedict was the one who prayed the Our Father in Greek during the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of St. George. Is that not liturgical participation?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,228


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: February 11, 2009, 01:12:00 AM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar, at the Mass for SS. Peter and Paul in St. Peter's Basilica the Ecumenical Patriarch's deacon chanted the Gospel in Greek, then after the Gospel reading both the Pope and the Patriarch gave the blessing with Book of the Gospels which I am sure that is enough to run afoul of Athos and others.





This photograph portrays the kind of action which gives not just the Fathers of Athos but all Greek Old Calendarists the horrors.  And not just them, but many ordinary Orthodox Christians such as in Greece and Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem....
But how can you know exactly what went on just from viewing a photograph?  It's all about context.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #123 on: February 11, 2009, 01:12:54 AM »

I remember Pope Benedict was the one who prayed the Our Father in Greek during the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of St. George. Is that not liturgical participation?
How dare he pray!  Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #124 on: February 11, 2009, 01:24:13 AM »

But how can you know exactly what went on just from viewing a photograph?  It's all about context.

One can say that EP Bartholomew is standing at the right hand of Pope Benedict XVI, Christ's Vicar on Earth.  There is an example of context.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: February 11, 2009, 01:57:56 AM »

I remember Pope Benedict was the one who prayed the Our Father in Greek during the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of St. George. Is that not liturgical participation?

Yes.  He read the Our Father as part of the Divine Liturgy and therefore it constitutes liturgical participation.

If we want to say that it was not part of the Liturgy, then what are we to conclude?  That the Liturgy was suspended for 2 minutes while the Pope read the Our Father?  That this particular Liturgy actually lacked the Our Father?   Smiley
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 02:00:57 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: February 11, 2009, 02:02:44 AM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar, at the Mass for SS. Peter and Paul in St. Peter's Basilica the Ecumenical Patriarch's deacon chanted the Gospel in Greek, then after the Gospel reading both the Pope and the Patriarch gave the blessing with Book of the Gospels which I am sure that is enough to run afoul of Athos and others.





This photograph portrays the kind of action which gives not just the Fathers of Athos but all Greek Old Calendarists the horrors.  And not just them, but many ordinary Orthodox Christians such as in Greece and Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem....
But how can you know exactly what went on just from viewing a photograph?  It's all about context.

Of course we already have much more context about this particular event than just this one photograph.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #127 on: February 11, 2009, 02:13:13 AM »

Looks like the goal post has been moved from "Commemoration" to "Participation".
Any reason will do I guess.......
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #128 on: February 11, 2009, 02:17:26 AM »

Is not the wearing of the stole or the pallium a symbol of liturgical participation?

It is precisely for this reason that the SCOBA ecumencial guidelines forbid clergy from wearing stoles when they attend such events.

Father, I've never heard of such a thing.


Indeed, it is prohibited by the member Churches of SCOBA.


GUIDELINES FOR ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS IN
ECUMENICAL RELATIONS


Published by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America and commended to the
clergy for guidance.

http://www.scoba.us/assets/files/guide_for_orthodox.pdf

Here are a couple of examples of the prohibition against our priests wearing a stole, or any piece of liturgical apparel.

2. In services of an interfaith or interreligious nature, e.g., national feasts, public calamity
and mourning, Brotherhood Week, the dignity of the family, expressions for peace,
justice and the like, whether in a public building or a religious edifice, a form of dress
which is neither liturgical nor merely civil, viz. the rasson (cassock) may be considered
appropriate, together with pectoral cross (if so entitled), or academic dress when
indicated. No part of the liturgical vestments, such as stole, is proper.


b) An Orthodox priest should not wear liturgical vestments at such services.
The rasson and pectoral cross (if so entitled), or academic dress are appropriate.
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #129 on: February 11, 2009, 02:20:30 AM »

Isn't SCOBA a North American organization?  Oh wait?  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas. 
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #130 on: February 11, 2009, 02:22:11 AM »

Isn't SCOBA a North American organization?  Oh wait?  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas. 
And isn't it an Orthodox Organisation?
I didn't realize the Pope was a member.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: February 11, 2009, 02:23:44 AM »

Looks like the goal post has been moved from "Commemoration" to "Participation".
Any reason will do I guess.......

Yes, Deacon Lance brought in the matter of participation with the photograph of the Pope and the Patriarch at a Mass in Saint Peter's.  He was not speaking of "commemoration" since none took place there, but he was giving us a visual image of "participation."  

To be fair to His Divine All-Holiness he is not wearing any liturgical vestment, neither epitrakhilion nor omophorion.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #132 on: February 11, 2009, 02:25:36 AM »

Isn't SCOBA a North American organization?  Oh wait?  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas. 
And isn't it an Orthodox Organisation?
I didn't realize the Pope was a member.

Did somebody really write that the Pope is a member?!   Shocked
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #133 on: February 11, 2009, 02:36:02 AM »

To be fair to His Divine All-Holiness

 Shocked
I guess there's a first time for everything! Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #134 on: February 11, 2009, 02:38:26 AM »

orthodoxlurker,

Why would I debate the pallium?

For the same mysterious reason you debated the fashion allowed to an Orthodox hieromonk to mention the stance expressed in an official document of Mount Athos?

For the same mysterious reason you debated the scope and significance of the stance expressed in an official document of Mount Athos?

For the same mysterious reason you debated permissibility to Orthodox faithful to repeat the stance expressed in an official document of Mount Athos?

What makes you less authoritative to debate whether Benedict XVI should have held it on the right or the left side? Everybody is authoritative in debating esthetics.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #135 on: February 11, 2009, 02:40:37 AM »


Speaking of misunderstandings: "epidemic" not "epidemia;" "understanding" not "understadning."



Keep up the godo work.

BTW, Shearlock, epidemia is a Greek word.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #136 on: February 11, 2009, 02:44:42 AM »

...
You're going to have to prove that "the letter of Monasteries weights to an official document in Orthodoxy" - it is an assertion I've never seen before, and have never seen supported before.
...


Sure, sure. I'll have to. Immediately after I prove that the water is wet.

Perhaps you should request the money back from your school?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 02:45:17 AM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #137 on: February 11, 2009, 02:46:05 AM »

To be fair to His Divine All-Holiness

 Shocked
I guess there's a first time for everything! Cheesy

 I have used that correct appellation for the Ecumenical Patriarch several times in the past.

It was actually you who took me to task over it, saying that the "Divine" is ommited in English because of possible misunderstanding.

 Roll Eyes
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #138 on: February 11, 2009, 02:46:13 AM »


Speaking of misunderstandings: "epidemic" not "epidemia;" "understanding" not "understadning."



Keep up the godo work.

BTW, Shearlock, epidemia is a Greek word.

It's "good" not "godo" and it's "Sherlock" not "Shearlock"
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #139 on: February 11, 2009, 02:47:28 AM »

To be fair to His Divine All-Holiness

 Shocked
I guess there's a first time for everything! Cheesy

 I have used that correct appellation for the Ecumenical Patriarch several times in the past.

It was actually you who took me to task over it, saying that the "Divine" is ommited in English because of possible misunderstanding.

 Roll Eyes
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #140 on: February 11, 2009, 02:47:35 AM »

To be fair to His Divine All-Holiness

 Shocked
I guess there's a first time for everything! Cheesy

 I have used that correct appellation for the Ecumenical Patriarch several times in the past.

It was actually you who took me to task over it, saying that the "Divine" is ommited in English because of possible misunderstanding.

 Roll Eyes

You misunderstood me. What I'm talking about is my surprise at your decision to be fair to him. Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #141 on: February 11, 2009, 02:50:42 AM »

Alright everyone, let us keep on topic and keep it civil here.

Or else, I have to break out the iron fist.





-- Nebelpfade
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #142 on: February 11, 2009, 02:52:53 AM »

To be fair to His Divine All-Holiness

 Shocked
I guess there's a first time for everything! Cheesy

 I have used that correct appellation for the Ecumenical Patriarch several times in the past.

It was actually you who took me to task over it, saying that the "Divine" is ommited in English because of possible misunderstanding.

 Roll Eyes

You misunderstood me. What I'm talking about is my surprise at your decision to be fair to him. Smiley

How little you know of me!  Not knowing enough causes people to make superficial judgements of their brethren.

Visit Orthodox-tradition and see the numerous times I have defended His Divine Al-Holiness against the misinterpretations of his actions propounded by Greek Old Calendarists.etc.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #143 on: February 11, 2009, 02:57:03 AM »

Alright everyone, let us keep on topic and keep it civil here.

Or else, I have to break out the iron fist.





-- Nebelpfade


If I am allowed to suggest, a tangent thread keeping the evidence of my misspelling would do fine, since all interested will be able to keep the record on the progress in unveiling the secret if English is my second, third, or whatever language.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #144 on: February 11, 2009, 02:59:50 AM »

Alright everyone, let us keep on topic and keep it civil here.

Or else, I have to break out the iron fist.





-- Nebelpfade


If I am allowed to suggest, a tangent thread keeping the evidence of my misspelling would do fine, since all interested will be able to keep the record on the progress in unveiling the secret if English is my second, third, or whatever language.

Or, we can just allow the whole thing to die here, and move on.  Which I would greatly perfer.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #145 on: February 11, 2009, 03:06:57 AM »


 (dressed in his omorphion as the Athonites correctly pointed out):

and New Zealand, by taking under its omorphion

The Patriarch has under his Omorphion all the Stavropegial Institutions


Hey George, it's "omophorion" - ὀμοφόριον-  not "omorphion"   Smiley

OOps, just seen the subsquent messages.  But it is probably a good thing for George, being a Greek, to know the spelling of omophorion.  That's not the same as somebody making a typo and writing "godo" for "good."

I am always grateful if people correct my mispellings myself.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 03:10:42 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #146 on: February 11, 2009, 03:48:16 AM »

b) An Orthodox priest should not wear liturgical vestments at such services.
The rasson and pectoral cross (if so entitled), or academic dress are appropriate.

Father, if others haven't reminded you by now, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not part of SCOBA; Hence, His All Holiness is not subject to the restriction you cited.

His Exarch, Archbishop Demetrios, can wear the rasson and the pectoral cross at Interfaith services.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #147 on: February 11, 2009, 03:53:58 AM »


Father, if others haven't reminded you by now, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not part of SCOBA; Hence, His All Holiness is not subject to the restriction you cited.

Goodness gracious!  Was I so cretineous as to say that His Divine All-Holiness is a part of SCOBA ?!    I must be having an early onset of senility.

But, context, context, context.

Here is the context of my reference to the SCOBA Guidelines on ecumenical vesture - please see message 119 in this thread

« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 03:55:33 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #148 on: February 11, 2009, 04:01:30 AM »


Father, if others haven't reminded you by now, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not part of SCOBA; Hence, His All Holiness is not subject to the restriction you cited.

His Exarch, Archbishop Demetrios, can wear the rasson and the pectoral cross at Interfaith services.

He can wear a bit more than that.  He can wear his mandias - which is the colourful outer garment you see the Patriarch wearing in the photo from Saint Peter's.

Although it looks so colourful that people may mistake it for a liturgical vestment, it is simply the outer garment of all fully professed monks (the difference being that theirs is plain black and without the "Tables").  It can be worn on the street and it is worn in church whenever a hieromonk or bishop is NOT celebrating.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 04:04:27 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #149 on: February 11, 2009, 04:13:40 AM »

He can wear a bit more than that.  He can wear his mandias - which is the colourful outer garment you see the Patriarch wearing in the photo from Saint Peter's.

Father, I've never seen any GOA Archbishop (and I only know of 3 in my short tenure on Earth) wear a colorful outer garment in a non-liturgical capacity.  All I've seen is black anywhere.

Although it looks so colourful that people may mistake it for a liturgical vestment, it is simply the outer garment of all fully professed monks (the difference being that theirs is plain black and without the "Tables").  It can be worn on the street and it is worn in church whenever a hieromonk or bishop is NOT celebrating.

Thank you for the info; However, I do not recall any GOA Bishop or Metropolitan wearing anything colorful in a non-Liturgical capacity.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: February 11, 2009, 04:32:35 AM »

He can wear a bit more than that.  He can wear his mandias - which is the colourful outer garment you see the Patriarch wearing in the photo from Saint Peter's.

Father, I've never seen any GOA Archbishop (and I only know of 3 in my short tenure on Earth) wear a colorful outer garment in a non-liturgical capacity.  All I've seen is black anywhere.

Although it looks so colourful that people may mistake it for a liturgical vestment, it is simply the outer garment of all fully professed monks (the difference being that theirs is plain black and without the "Tables").  It can be worn on the street and it is worn in church whenever a hieromonk or bishop is NOT celebrating.

Thank you for the info; However, I do not recall any GOA Bishop or Metropolitan wearing anything colorful in a non-Liturgical capacity.



Must be a difference between the Churches.  But are you sure you have not seen a greek bishop in his mandias?  What about when he walks from his residence and enters the church building?  Or when he is in the church but not celebrating?

As we see in the photo, the Ec. Patriarch wears his mandias.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,291


WWW
« Reply #151 on: February 11, 2009, 04:41:38 AM »

Must be a difference between the Churches.  But are you sure you have not seen a greek bishop in his mandias?  What about when he walks from his residence and enters the church building?  Or when he is in the church but not celebrating?

As we see in the photo, the Ec. Patriarch wears his mandias.

Father, I have never been to a Greek Bishop's residence.  I have seen them exit Cadillacs.   Grin

I have never seen any Bishop in his mandias.  Either the Hierarch wears black or the Hierarch is dressed in Liturgical Garb - no middle ground.

In 2004, when I attended the Patriarchal Liturgy in NJ, all Hierarchs wore Liturgical Garb.  At the testimonial dinner (where I was thrown out by Security for not having a ticket, different story), all Hierarchs wore Black, although I do remember one or two Hierarchs wearing colorful mandias but they weren't from GOA.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #152 on: February 11, 2009, 04:48:59 AM »

Bibs and bobs of information about the mandias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandyas
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 04:49:37 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #153 on: February 11, 2009, 08:27:19 AM »

BTW, Shearlock, epidemia is a Greek word.

Oh, I'm quite aware of the etymology of the word; however, your post is in English, so my correction isn't out of line there, Sherlock.

Sure, sure. I'll have to. Immediately after I prove that the water is wet.

You've not taken elementary chemistry, have you.  Water isn't always wet, especially when it's frozen or in a gaseous state.

Perhaps you should request the money back from your school?

Oh, I'd never get it back... Bunch of Greeks, hoarding their money... (lol)
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #154 on: February 11, 2009, 08:32:03 AM »

He can wear a bit more than that.  He can wear his mandias - which is the colourful outer garment you see the Patriarch wearing in the photo from Saint Peter's.

Father, I've never seen any GOA Archbishop (and I only know of 3 in my short tenure on Earth) wear a colorful outer garment in a non-liturgical capacity.  All I've seen is black anywhere.

Although it looks so colourful that people may mistake it for a liturgical vestment, it is simply the outer garment of all fully professed monks (the difference being that theirs is plain black and without the "Tables").  It can be worn on the street and it is worn in church whenever a hieromonk or bishop is NOT celebrating.

Thank you for the info; However, I do not recall any GOA Bishop or Metropolitan wearing anything colorful in a non-Liturgical capacity.

Must be a difference between the Churches.  But are you sure you have not seen a greek bishop in his mandias?  What about when he walks from his residence and enters the church building?  Or when he is in the church but not celebrating?

As we see in the photo, the Ec. Patriarch wears his mandias.

Father, some context: many of the hierarchs in the US don't use the mandya/mandia.  The Archbishop does when he goes to the theological school; but I've been with him at a parish and he didn't use it.  It just depends on whether the hierarch is inclined to wear it, especially in a place where they may not be used to seeing it.

When they do use the mandya/mandia here, they are vested with it in the Narthex or in the sanctuary, not outside the Church.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #155 on: February 11, 2009, 08:38:41 AM »


You've not taken elementary chemistry, have you.  Water isn't always wet, especially when it's frozen or in a gaseous state.


I see your confusion about the subject matter of chemistry. It teaches the formulae and inter-action between elements.

Formula of water is always H2O, except with the "heavy" water, used in nuclear experiments, where after the process it reaches H30, regardless its aggregate state.

Frozen and gaseuous states are subject matter of what are called physics, while you probably call it "science".

That much I could do for you, since you can't have your money back.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #156 on: February 11, 2009, 08:47:34 AM »

Father, some context: many of the hierarchs in the US don't use the mandya/mandia.  The Archbishop does when he goes to the theological school; but I've been with him at a parish and he didn't use it.  It just depends on whether the hierarch is inclined to wear it, especially in a place where they may not be used to seeing it.

I have been told by an Antiochian bishop that they don't use it because its origin lies in monastic vesture and since  their bishops have not been tonsured as monks it would not be appropriate to wear a monastic garment.  Is this the same for Greek bishops in the States?   Have they lived as monks or are they, like the Antiochians, celibate or widowed parish priests who have been advanced to the episcopate?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #157 on: February 11, 2009, 09:02:27 AM »

Father, some context: many of the hierarchs in the US don't use the mandya/mandia.  The Archbishop does when he goes to the theological school; but I've been with him at a parish and he didn't use it.  It just depends on whether the hierarch is inclined to wear it, especially in a place where they may not be used to seeing it.

I have been told by an Antiochian bishop that they don't use it because its origin lies in monastic vesture and since  their bishops have not been tonsured as monks it would not be appropriate to wear a monastic garment.  Is this the same for Greek bishops in the States?   Have they lived as monks or are they, like the Antiochians, celibate or widowed parish priests who have been advanced to the episcopate?

Some of both.  A few of our bishops have actually been monks in a monastery (in fact, Metropolitan +ALEXIOS was an Abbot, IIRC); a few others were tonsured but served parishes.  We've had 2 or 3 hierarchs in the last 20 or so years who were widowers.  I personally think they don't wear them because (a) people aren't used to seeing them, (b) there may not be enough people who know how to help vest the bishop in it, and then how to fold it once done (which is a pain and a half), (c) they didn't want to buy one with the Metropolis' money, only to use it infrequently.  I don't know any reason for sure.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #158 on: February 11, 2009, 09:05:58 AM »

I see your confusion about the subject matter of chemistry. It teaches the formulae and inter-action between elements.

Formula of water is always H2O, except with the "heavy" water, used in nuclear experiments, where after the process it reaches H30, regardless its aggregate state.

Frozen and gaseuous states are subject matter of what are called physics, while you probably call it "science".

In the last physics class I took, we spent more time discussing chaos theory than state-changes; you'll have to pardon me if I believe that properties of compounds in various states should be covered in chemistry, not defiling the great books and lectures of mighty physics.

That much I could do for you, since you can't have your money back.

Once again, you don't live up to the hype.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #159 on: February 11, 2009, 09:07:42 AM »

His Divine All-Holiness

Father, I'm a bit confused... I don't think I've ever seen this written out in Greek or English except here on OC.net; not even when I went to the Patriarchate did I hear anyone use this title.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #160 on: February 11, 2009, 09:32:43 AM »

His Divine All-Holiness

Father, I'm a bit confused... I don't think I've ever seen this written out in Greek or English except here on OC.net; not even when I went to the Patriarchate did I hear anyone use this title.

Cleveland, I apologise.

His correct title is "His Most Divine All-Holiness.    I always forget the "Most."  Forgive me.

Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #161 on: February 11, 2009, 09:37:53 AM »

Father, I'm a bit confused... I don't think I've ever seen this written out in Greek or English except here on OC.net; not even when I went to the Patriarchate did I hear anyone use this title.

Cleveland, I apologise.

His correct title is "His Most Divine All-Holiness.    I always forget the "Most."  Forgive me.

Father, I'm not attempting to be argumentative, "snarky," sarcastic, etc.  I'm being quite serious - I've never heard the title before, nor seen it in writing, either here in the US, or at the Patriarchate itself.  I am indeed a bit confused, and I'm asking you, only because you seem to know about it.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #162 on: February 11, 2009, 09:55:09 AM »

Father, I'm a bit confused... I don't think I've ever seen this written out in Greek or English except here on OC.net; not even when I went to the Patriarchate did I hear anyone use this title.

Cleveland, I apologise.

His correct title is "His Most Divine All-Holiness.    I always forget the "Most."  Forgive me.

Father, I'm not attempting to be argumentative, "snarky," sarcastic, etc.  I'm being quite serious - I've never heard the title before, nor seen it in writing, either here in the US, or at the Patriarchate itself.  I am indeed a bit confused, and I'm asking you, only because you seem to know about it.

I'm wondering if he heard an accolade in church slavonice, because there are some that are regularly used for metropolitans and patriarchs that translate to "most divine"....just a thought. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #163 on: February 11, 2009, 10:19:21 AM »

Cleveland, I apologise.

His correct title is "His Most Divine All-Holiness.    I always forget the "Most."  Forgive me.

Father, I'm not attempting to be argumentative, "snarky," sarcastic, etc.  I'm being quite serious - I've never heard the title before, nor seen it in writing, either here in the US, or at the Patriarchate itself.  I am indeed a bit confused, and I'm asking you, only because you seem to know about it.

No, I realise that you are not.

Maybe go to the site of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the Net?  Or have a look at the way he is addressed in letters written in Greek.

My Greek is horrendous....  but I think/guess that it is something like 

"Αὐτοῦ Θειοτάτη Παναγιότης"

Phew, took me several minutes to type that on my keyboard - it is fluent in English and Cyrillic..but it has trouble with Greek and I probably have the case endings wrong too.  Sorry.

Maybe George could help?  When I used the title before he said it was correct but it is avoided in English.... 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #164 on: February 11, 2009, 10:24:02 AM »

[I'm wondering if he heard an accolade in church slavonice, because there are some that are regularly used for metropolitans and patriarchs that translate to "most divine"....just a thought. 


Never heard anything like that in Slavonic, I must admit.

It would probably be something like "Preobozhestvenniy" or "Bozhestvenneyshiy"  but both terms are awful !!!
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #165 on: February 11, 2009, 10:53:12 AM »

you'll have to pardon me if I believe that properties of compounds in various states should be covered in chemistry, not defiling the great books and lectures of mighty physics.


I pardon your ignorance; but that solves only part of the problem.

What is worse is that you teach your ignorance to others, in the belief that it is actually the truth. Self-confident pose you take during that makes you look laughable.

But the willingness to ask and learn, that you started to feature on this thread recently, reminds me that there is always hope, no matter if I forget that somethimes.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #166 on: February 11, 2009, 12:10:02 PM »

[I'm wondering if he heard an accolade in church slavonice, because there are some that are regularly used for metropolitans and patriarchs that translate to "most divine"....just a thought. 


Never heard anything like that in Slavonic, I must admit.

It would probably be something like "Preobozhestvenniy" or "Bozhestvenneyshiy"  but both terms are awful !!!

I have to ask my father, but there is a metropolitan whose deacon goes through literally 12 different accolades to the bishop.  I have heard them for the patriarch too, but it was a while ago.  If I remember or get around to it i'll make sure to write them all down. 

I was thinking more of the term "preosveceni" or "visekopreosveceni". 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #167 on: February 11, 2009, 01:35:16 PM »

I pardon your ignorance; but that solves only part of the problem.

Getting lectured by someone who does not even have a mastery of the language is humorous.

What is worse is that you teach your ignorance to others, in the belief that it is actually the truth.

And I mistook you for someone who wanted intelligent conversation.  Instead, you have resorted to an ad hominem.  How unfortunate.

Self-confident pose you take during that makes you look laughable.

It's easy to seem self-confident against such weak arguments and side-steps as you have provided.

But the willingness to ask and learn, that you started to feature on this thread recently, reminds me that there is always hope, no matter if I forget that somethimes.

I'm glad that you have condescended to decree that I have hope; now I may depart in peace.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #168 on: February 11, 2009, 01:53:11 PM »

I pardon your ignorance

By the way, since you've pardoned my "ignorance," maybe we can have a discussion on fluid and solid mechanics, since you seem so interested; yes, GreekisChristian would probably think that our discussion of mere Newtonian Physics is a waste of time, but you obviously are so interested in it that you've determined that it also encompasses something so trivial as the "wetness" of water.

I mean, it's not like your assertion that the "wetness" of water in its various forms is Physics is supported by anyone else; heck, your assertion flies in the face of even the most elementary definitions of Chemistry; to wit:

chem⋅is⋅try
   /ˈkɛməstri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kem-uh-stree] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -tries.
1.    the science that deals with the composition and properties of substances and various elementary forms of matter. Compare element (def. 2).
2.    chemical properties, reactions, phenomena, etc.: the chemistry of carbon.
3.    the interaction of one personality with another: The chemistry between him and his boss was all wrong.
4.    sympathetic understanding; rapport: the astonishing chemistry between the actors.
5.    any or all of the elements that make up something: the chemistry of love.
Origin:
1590–1600; chemist + -ry; r. chymistry, chimistry
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Cite This Source
Language Translation for : chemistry
Spanish:    química,    German:    die Chemie,
Japanese:    化学
View 30 other languages »


chem·is·try     (kěm'ĭ-strē)  Pronunciation Key
n.   pl. chem·is·tries

   1. The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems.
   2. The composition, structure, properties, and reactions of a substance.
   3. The elements of a complex entity and their dynamic interrelation: "Now that they had a leader, a restless chemistry possessed the group" (John Updike).
   4. Mutual attraction or sympathy; rapport: The chemistry was good between the partners.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

Chemistry
Chem"is*try\ (k[e^]m"[i^]s*tr[y^]; 277), n. [From Chemist. See Alchemy.]

1. That branch of science which treats of the composition of substances, and of the changes which they undergo in consequence of alterations in the constitution of the molecules, which depend upon variations of the number, kind, or mode of arrangement, of the constituent atoms. These atoms are not assumed to be indivisible, but merely the finest grade of subdivision hitherto attained. Chemistry deals with the changes in the composition and constitution of molecules. See Atom, Molecule.

Note: Historically, chemistry is an outgrowth of alchemy (or alchemistry), with which it was anciently identified.

2. An application of chemical theory and method to the consideration of some particular subject; as, the chemistry of iron; the chemistry of indigo.

3. A treatise on chemistry.

Note: This word and its derivatives were formerly written with y, and sometimes with i, instead of e, in the first syllable, chymistry, chymist, chymical, etc., or chimistry, chimist, chimical, etc.; and the pronunciation was conformed to the orthography.

Inorganic chemistry, that which treats of inorganic or mineral substances.

Organic chemistry, that which treats of the substances which form the structure of organized beings and their products, whether animal or vegetable; -- called also chemistry of the carbon compounds. There is no fundamental difference between organic and inorganic chemistry.

Physiological chemistry, the chemistry of the organs and tissues of the body, and of the various physiological processes incident to life.

Practical chemistry, or Applied chemistry, that which treats of the modes of manufacturing the products of chemistry that are useful in the arts, of their applications to economical purposes, and of the conditions essential to their best use.

Pure chemistry, the consideration of the facts and theories of chemistry in their purely scientific relations, without necessary reference to their practical applications or mere utility.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Cite This Source



chemistry

noun
1.    the science of matter; the branch of the natural sciences dealing with the composition of substances and their properties and reactions
2.    the chemical composition and properties of a substance or object; "the chemistry of soil"
3.    the way two individuals relate to each other; "their chemistry was wrong from the beginning -- they hated each other"; "a mysterious alchemy brought them together"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source

chemistry

The study of the composition, properties, and reactions of matter, particularly at the level of atoms and molecules.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

chemistry
1605 (see chemical), originally "alchemy;" the meaning "natural physical process" is 1646, and the scientific study not so called until 1788. The figurative sense of "instinctual attraction or affinity" is older, c.1600, from the alchemical sense.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source

Main Entry: chem·is·try
Pronunciation: 'kem-&-strE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -tries
1 : a sciencethat deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and of the transformations that they undergo
2 a : the composition and chemical properties of a substancechemistry of hemoglobin> b : chemical processes and phenomena (as of an organism) chemistry>
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source

chemistry chem·is·try (kěm'ĭ-strē)
n.
Abbr. chem.

   1. The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems.
   2. The composition, structure, properties, and reactions of a substance.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cite This Source

chemistry   (kěm'ĭ-strē)  Pronunciation Key

   1. The scientific study of the structure, properties, and reactions of the chemical elements and the compounds they form.
   2. The composition, structure, properties, and reactions of a substance.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

I pardon your ignorance; but that solves only part of the problem.

What is worse is that you teach your ignorance to others, in the belief that it is actually the truth. Self-confident pose you take during that makes you look laughable.

Your words seem ironic, now don't they?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,228


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #169 on: February 11, 2009, 02:22:46 PM »

Formula of water is always H2O, except with the "heavy" water, used in nuclear experiments, where after the process it reaches H30, regardless its aggregate state.
Are you sure of this?  To my knowledge, heavy water and even tritiated water still have the same molecular formula: H2O, though you'll often see heavy water shown as D2O and tritiated water as T2O.  However, I don't think you'll ever see it as H3O, as you claim.

In essence, the number of atoms in the molecule of water never change--you'll always have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.  What is different is the isotope(s) of the hydrogen atom(s) contained in the water molecule.  ALMOST all hydrogen atoms contain only the one proton with no neutrons, but nature provides us that one rogue hydrogen atom out of so many thousand that also possesses a neutron.  We call this form of hydrogen deuterium, the hydrogen isotope seen in heavy water (D2O) or semi-heavy water (HDO).  Add another neutron to the nucleus of the deuterium atom and you get a radioactive hydrogen isotope known as tritium, which is most often one of the byproducts of nuclear experiments (or nuclear energy production), but can be found in nature in trace amounts.

Again, however, a water molecule will always have the molecular formula of H2O, otherwise it wouldn't be water at all.  This is true regardless of the hydrogen isotopes contained in the water molecule.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #170 on: February 11, 2009, 02:25:40 PM »


I mean, it's not like your assertion that the "wetness" of water in its various forms is Physics is supported by anyone else; heck, your assertion flies in the face of even the most elementary definitions of Chemistry; to wit:


Your words seem ironic, now don't they?

Poor kid.

You could have checked the subject matter at least at wikipedia, and not in dictionaries. If they lectured chemistry to you from dictionaries, you might try to base your claim on fraud.

You know, for chemistry, ice and water are the same. They have the same formula = H20. They have the same chemical properties. It's written even in the dictionaries you quoted, but one needs to know to read it.


By the way, since you've pardoned my "ignorance," maybe we can have a discussion on fluid and solid mechanics, since you seem so interested; yes, GreekisChristian would probably think that our discussion of mere Newtonian Physics is a waste of time, but you obviously are so interested in it that you've determined that it also encompasses something so trivial as the "wetness" of water.

Has GiC already became a new "Old Calendarist whose jurisdiction is more conservative even than ROCOR?"

Your pose of self-confidence shows the tendency of crumbling when you are so alone, while the opponent seems growing huge, so you become so welcome for an outside support that you suddenly proclaim authoritative?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 02:26:39 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,228


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #171 on: February 11, 2009, 02:40:14 PM »


Poor kid.

You could have checked the subject matter at least at wikipedia, and not in dictionaries. If they lectured chemistry to you from dictionaries, you might try to base your claim on fraud.
Now that you want to talk about irony, you know what's really ironic?  The fact that I got most of the information I used to refute your misunderstanding of heavy water from wikipedia. Grin
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,228


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #172 on: February 11, 2009, 02:48:21 PM »


Poor kid.

You could have checked the subject matter at least at wikipedia, and not in dictionaries. If they lectured chemistry to you from dictionaries, you might try to base your claim on fraud.
Now that you want to talk about irony, you know what's really ironic?  The fact that I got most of the information I used to refute your misunderstanding of heavy water from wikipedia. Grin
BTW, H3O is really hydronium, the result of bombarding water with free protons.  Hydronium is also known to be the most acidic compound soluble in water; a stronger acid would simply turn water into hydronium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronium
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 02:48:44 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #173 on: February 11, 2009, 02:48:23 PM »

Quote
Formula of water is always H2O, except with the "heavy" water, used in nuclear experiments, where after the process it reaches H30, regardless its aggregate state.
Are you sure of this?  To my knowledge, heavy water and even tritiated water still have the same molecular formula: H2O, though you'll often see heavy water shown as D2O and tritiated water as T2O.  However, I don't think you'll ever see it as H3O, as you claim.

In essence, the number of atoms in the molecule of water never change--you'll always have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.  What is different is the isotope(s) of the hydrogen atom(s) contained in the water molecule.  ALMOST all hydrogen atoms contain only the one proton with no neutrons, but nature provides us that one rogue hydrogen atom out of so many thousand that also possesses a neutron.  We call this form of hydrogen deuterium, the hydrogen isotope seen in heavy water (D2O) or semi-heavy water (HDO).  Add another neutron to the nucleus of the deuterium atom and you get a radioactive hydrogen isotope known as tritium, which is most often one of the byproducts of nuclear experiments (or nuclear energy production), but can be found in nature in trace amounts.

Again, however, a water molecule will always have the molecular formula of H2O, otherwise it wouldn't be water at all.  This is true regardless of the hydrogen isotopes contained in the water molecule.

For the record, the complain quoted above is pretty accurate, apart from different symbols to mark "enriched" hydrogen sometimes used in various part of the World. Since Hydrogen is always one-valence (sp?), while Oxygen is two-valence H20 marks water.

Yet, an unstable form of Oxygen known as Ozone is referred O3 and unstable short-living H3(O3)2 are possible with "common" Hydrogen. The same goes for "enriched" Hydrogen.

However, as I said, "broken" "teared" atoms of Hydrogen in nuclear experiments can take various short-living forms, including mentioned H30, but that's not the subject matter for chemistry, since there is actually no molecule of it, than something that is theoretically marked as a temporary product.

Though, I'm puzzled why is that addressed to me, when in fact proves my point that Cleveland has second-thoughts to accept.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,473


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #174 on: February 11, 2009, 02:49:59 PM »

Hm.

When I go to Google and type "states of matter" in the search box, nearly all of the hits on the first page point to CHEMISTRY pages, university departments, and the like.

And I certainly remember learning more about states of matter in my AP Chemistry class in high school, but, to be fair, we also discussed heavy water and Bose-Einstein in AP Physics.

I think ultimately the study of states of matter straddles both chemistry and physics.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,228


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #175 on: February 11, 2009, 02:50:31 PM »

Though, I'm puzzled why is that addressed to me, when in fact proves my point that Cleveland has second-thoughts to accept.
To refute your identification of H3O (hydronium) with heavy water (D2O).
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #176 on: February 11, 2009, 03:01:04 PM »

Quote
Though, I'm puzzled why is that addressed to me, when in fact proves my point that Cleveland has second-thoughts to accept.
To refute your identification of H3O (hydronium) with heavy water (D2O).

I am embarrassed for the stupidity of this guy.
 Unfortunately, I'm going to have to warn you for making an ad hominem attack on another user.  Your warning will stand for 40 days.  If you feel this warning is in error, please PM FrChris or Fr. Anastasios to appeal it.

With this, I will cease my participation in this thread to avoid conflict of interest.

- Cleveland, Global Moderator


You are being placed on post moderation for offensive and innapropriate posting, specifically, swearing, sexual references, ad hominems, and unprovoked false and offensive insinuations against posters.

If you wish to dispute this moderation, please pm Fr. Chris.

- Cleveland, Global Moderator
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 06:07:34 PM by cleveland » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #177 on: February 11, 2009, 03:03:38 PM »



What else is on?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #178 on: February 11, 2009, 03:19:48 PM »

What does any of this silliness have to do with Mt Athos?
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #179 on: February 11, 2009, 03:23:45 PM »

What does any of this silliness have to do with Mt Athos?

The connection is the injury of Cleveland's haughtiness.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,228


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #180 on: February 11, 2009, 03:25:51 PM »

Quote
Though, I'm puzzled why is that addressed to me, when in fact proves my point that Cleveland has second-thoughts to accept.
To refute your identification of H3O (hydronium) with heavy water (D2O).

I am embarrassed for the stupidity of this guy.
Yes, I have been called stupid before. Grin
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #181 on: February 11, 2009, 03:42:14 PM »

The connection is the injury of Cleveland's haughtiness.

A proud monk has no need of a devil; he has become a devil and enemy to himself.
St. John Climacus
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #182 on: February 11, 2009, 03:45:57 PM »

The connection is the injury of Cleveland's haughtiness.

A proud monk has no need of a devil; he has become a devil and enemy to himself.
St. John Climacus

You are absolutely right and you found a proper saying.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #183 on: February 11, 2009, 04:05:00 PM »

Poor kid.

To whom are you referring? I assure you, if you are referring to me, then yes, I am poor (or about to be poor); and a child only in the spiritual sense, albeit not in the physical or mental one.

You could have checked the subject matter at least at wikipedia, and not in dictionaries. If they lectured chemistry to you from dictionaries, you might try to base your claim on fraud.

If they lectured chemistry to me at a nationally-recognized and acclaimed engineering school from a dictionary, I'd have more to base my claim on than fraud.  Sadly you are mistaken.  I just don't feel (mental state: psychology) the burning (combustion: both chemistry and physics) need (again, psychology) to drag out (motion: physics) my dusty books (ooo: physics and biology) to prove my point; call it the laziness of inertia (physics).

You know, for chemistry, ice and water are the same. They have the same formula = H20. They have the same chemical properties. It's written even in the dictionaries you quoted, but one needs to know to read it.

For chemistry, ice and water are both H2O generally speaking, but will interact differently with compounds depending on the conditions of the H2O.

Has GiC already became a new "Old Calendarist whose jurisdiction is more conservative even than ROCOR?"

Your wit, while charming, seems to have not generated any new humor.  You may want to expand your repertoire.

Your pose of self-confidence shows the tendency of crumbling when you are so alone, while the opponent seems growing huge, so you become so welcome for an outside support that you suddenly proclaim authoritative?

I didn't know you could tell my "pose" over the internet... But I will engage the point regardless.  1. I am self-confident, period.  Ask anyone who knows me from offline.  2. It doesn't crumble, whether I'm in the majority, minority, right, wrong, etc.  3. You don't seem huge - heck, the only thing that seems huge is the fact that you went an entire post to me without butchering the English language.  4. I don't need outside support, but intelligent discussion usually requires it, unless you want to keep dancing in circles around your flawed presumptions and ineffective presentation.

To avoid conflict of interest, because of the warning I gave for the ad hominem attack on PetertheAleut, I am going to cease my participation on this thread.  If anyone would like me to respond to a comment, please engage me via PM.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 04:11:11 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #184 on: February 11, 2009, 04:17:38 PM »



For chemistry, ice and water are both H2O generally speaking, but will interact differently with compounds depending on the conditions of the H2O.

The above really does not need any comment.

Poor kid, they did cheat you.



To avoid conflict of interest, because of the warning I gave for the ad hominem attack on PetertheAleut, I am going to cease my participation on this thread.  If anyone would like me to respond to a comment, please engage me via PM.

I see.

In various forms of supportive "Old Calendarists whose jurisdiction is more conservative even than ROCOR", you picked one whose diagnose is apt to be interpreted as an attack.

On a second thought, you two are a nice pair.

You are being placed on post moderation for offensive and innapropriate posting, specifically, swearing, sexual references, ad hominems, and unprovoked false and offensive insinuations against posters.

If you wish to dispute this moderation, please pm Fr. Chris.

- Cleveland, Global Moderator
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 06:07:00 PM by cleveland » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #185 on: February 11, 2009, 04:19:33 PM »

heck, the only thing that seems huge is the fact that you went an entire post to me without butchering the English language. 

Would this be considered an ad hominem?
Should you perhaps give yourself a warning?
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #186 on: February 11, 2009, 04:23:43 PM »

heck, the only thing that seems huge is the fact that you went an entire post to me without butchering the English language. 

Would this be considered an ad hominem?
Should you perhaps give yourself a warning?


Don't bother yourself, bro.

They showed their faces as ugly as they are.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #187 on: February 11, 2009, 04:44:13 PM »

orthodoxlurker gets the last word.

Thread closed.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Tags: Athos ecumenism Ecumenical Patriarchate Infallibility Greek Phanar Vatican False Apparitions roman catholic 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.562 seconds with 216 queries.